Who do YOU believe killed JBR?

[DeeDee249]

9-year old (almost 10) year old boys ARE interested in sex. They might not be interested in sexual intercourse, but they are aware of pleasurable sensations and how to produce them. Masturbation is one way. Anyone who doesn't believe boys that age have erections or are interested in sexual feelings is kidding themselves. No offense to moms here, but I have found mothers of sons to be the worst as far as refusing to believe their sons find sexual activity pleasant. This happens at ANY age, too. I had a friend whose 20-something son fathered a child, yet was incredulous that he had had SEX. She swore her college-boy sports-nut son was "too busy" to be interested in sex.
There isn't a man on the planet who is "too busy" to be interested in sex.

 

[Whaleshark]

9-year old (almost 10) year old boys ARE interested in sex. They might not be interested in sexual intercourse, but they are aware of pleasurable sensations and how to produce them. Masturbation is one way. Anyone who doesn't believe boys that age have erections or are interested in sexual feelings is kidding themselves. No offense to moms here, but I have found mothers of sons to be the worst as far as refusing to believe their sons find sexual activity pleasant. This happens at ANY age, too. I had a friend whose 20-something son fathered a child, yet was incredulous that he had had SEX. She swore her college-boy sports-nut son was "too busy" to be interested in sex.
There isn't a man on the planet who is "too busy" to be interested in sex.

Thanks for the backup DeeDee.

....Uh, and for the record, I'm a mom with a son....
And I definitely don't live in lala land, and obviously am not one of those saying 'not my kid'. No, it's quite obvious the interest my son has had in sexual situations, sexual things he was exposed to in daycare/school, and has known about since he was younger, especially with all the problems we've had with him over the past couple years....just like the other parents experienced with their young kids in the links above as well...

 

[sherlockh]

Patsy and only Patsy. She wrote the ransom note. I also find the 911 call where she says 'Help me Jesus' telling. I think her husband honestly believed it was an accident and decided to help cover it up. Burke doesn't know anything, although I like to know if the topic of his sister was ever discussed at all and if he ever suspected his parents.

 

[Tadpole12]

Heyya Roy.

Uhmm, from what i understand it was from items in the Ramsey household.

Chief Mark Beckner responds to media questions about Lou Smit's television appearance
April 30, 2001:
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3628&Itemid=0
Number of items of evidence logged into property to date:
About 1,400.

The source of the DNA I am not privy to. And as to how I know it, I just cannot reveal that.

Well, therein lies the certainty of your position, being privy to information.

This is from what I know before any touch DNA was even a consideration in this case and it is from items sent to the FBI lab in 2002 by Beckner sitting in a BPD locker . The information flow has been shut off for a long time now.

Maybe part of evidence PBD was 'processing' post '99?

Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999 Mark Beckner, Chief of Police
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3639&Itemid=0
The next obvious question is...where do we go from here? From the police perspective, this will remain an open, ongoing investigation. Contrary to the public perception and the rampant speculation that the investigation is over, this case is not dead in the water. I know you have grown tired of hearing this, but yes, we still have forensic evidence we are working on. We are committed to not giving up on this investigation. Like any other open homicide, we will continue to process and test evidence as necessary, and follow any reasonable leads that are developed.
In addition to the possibility of new evidence developing, new forensic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. As a result, cases that were once unsolvable have been solved. New technology in the last 2 1/2 years has helped us in this case. We never know what the next month, year, or several years will bring.

There is no match and no person to interview or else they would be in the Can. Obviously this person is not in Codis.

Off topic, but I wonder how/if interfamilial dna can be compared to Codis.

 

[Tadpole12]

"Exculpatory Evidence Related to Burke Ramsey
Burke Ramsey Cleared
•Burke Ramsey was cleared by BPD police chief Mark Beckner in 1999 and subsequently by Alex Hunter in an October 12, 2000 affidavit as well as in subsequent interviews with media, such as Larry King Live. This is the strongest evidence that Burke is not a plausible suspect in this case.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682454/Burke-Ramsey
Burke Never Cleared
•Hunter Affidavit Does Not Clear Burke. BDI theorists claim Burke has not been cleared since that term is never used in the Alex Hunter affidavit. The Ramsey's lawyer, Lin Wood, drafted the affidavit signed by Hunter and BDI theorists believe it is significant that he slightly amended the wording first before signing it.
•Burke Too Young to Be Official "Suspect." BDI theorists argue that due to his age, Burke could never become an official "suspect" and for that reason, neither could he ever be officially "cleared."

Exculpatory Evidence Related to Burke Ramsey
Burke Ramsey Cleared
•Burke Ramsey was cleared by BPD police chief Mark Beckner in 1999 and subsequently by Alex Hunter in an October 12, 2000 affidavit as well as in subsequent interviews with media, such as Larry King Live. This is the strongest evidence that Burke is not a plausible suspect in this case.


http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014j.htm
Wednesday, May 19, 1999
Twelve-year-old Burke Ramsey is secretly questioned by the grand jury. The next day Boulder authorites publicly affirm he's not a suspect, only a witness.


http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon0526.htm
Victim's brother, 12, questioned
By Marilyn Robinson
Denver Post Staff Writer
May 26 - Twelve-year-old Burke Ramsey was secretly questioned last week by the grand jury investigating his sister JonBenet's death. The next day, Boulder authorities publicly reaffirmed that he's not a suspect, only a witness.
Burke, 9 years old when his sister's body was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home in 1996, was subpoenaed to appear before the 12 grand jurors last Wednesday, according to a 9News report from Paula Woodward. His attorney, Atlanta-based Jim Jenkins, also attended the hearing, but the questions came only from the jurors, Woodward reported.
Burke's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, could have contested the subpoena but did not.
The Boulder District Attorney's office declined comment.
"We just don't ever comment on grand jury matters, whether they're true or false,'' said Suzanne Laurion, spokeswoman for DA Alex Hunter.
The grand jury has been meeting since mid-September. Its work is secret, but it's believed neither of JonBenet's parents has appeared before the panel.
Burke's appearance before the grand jury came just one week after a national tabloid and other newspapers published stories saying he was the focus of the grand jury probe.
Denver trial lawyer Scott Robinson said Burke's appearance was no surprise.
"The grand jury is looking to solve the mystery of JonBenet,'' Robinson said. "It certainly makes sense that you would want to hear from her brother. He was one of at least four people in the house that night.''
The Ramseys have said Burke was asleep when Patsy discovered the ransom note claiming JonBenet had been kidnapped. However, he potentially could provide information about the relationship between the parents and the children and about the house, Robinson said.
"The grand jury almost had to have testimony from Burke,'' Robinson said. "If the target of the grand jury remains one or both of the parents, it makes sense in an investigatory sense to hear from Burke, but if the focus is elsewhere, such as an intruder, you would want to hear from him.
"And if the grand jury is leaning toward no indictment, they would want to have Burke testify if only to allay public skepticism of the absence of sufficient evidence to charge someone.'' Last June, authorities interviewed Burke in Atlanta, where the family now lives, over a three-day period. Two weeks later, his parents flew to Denver for extensive interviews.
John and Patsy are under what police have described as an "umbrella of suspicion.'' Last week, Boulder spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm said authorities also would like to hear more from them.
The grand jury's term, which originally expired in April, was extended for another six months.
"We still have investigation to do,'' said Police Chief Mark Beckner, declining to comment further.

 

[bamabeauty]

The theory that Patsy went into a rage after bed wetting always sounded very plausible to me but it does not really fit with the fact that she was sexually abused more than once according t doctors. I do not know who or why but I know it was Patsy and John or a combination one doing cover up and on killing her. The one thing I have never been able to get past and why I feel sure the parents are responsible is the fact that everyone stated they did not show any concern when the phone rang. If your child as kidnapped and you had a ransom note saying you would be called you would be freaking out each time the phone rang and the Ramseys did not!

 

[Whaleshark]

bamabeauty, agree... and LOVE your signature line.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know, UK...depends on what you're asking...if by that question you mean: could he have caused those injuries by attempting sexual intercourse with her with his penis, being the average size of a 9-year olds...? (since we are getting all explicit here)....there's a lot of 'ifs'...IF you are asking me about that particular scenario - IF he was not avg/small size of 9-yr. olds, and IF he attempted molesting her that way, and IF he did that particular act numerous times...maybe.... but I never said that I think he did...I just said that you cannot eliminate the possibility of his interest in sex or participation in anything sexual because of his age or level of maturity.

And molestation can occur with other things other than that particular body part....hands, fingers, objects...

FYI - I never eliminated a friend, JBR father, or anyone else....I'm just sayin', can't eliminate BR either....

Whaleshark,

I just said that you cannot eliminate the possibility of his interest in sex or participation in anything sexual because of his age or level of maturity.

ITA. Another poster BlueCrab promoted a BDI which allegedly had Burke engaging in Erotic Asphyxiation, accidentally strangling JonBenet.

I was just teasing out the BDI. In the sense that a sexual motive is not required for a coherent BDI. Hypothetically Burke may have killed JonBenet, but someone else sexually assaulted her too. e.g. JonBenet was molested in one location, but killed for a different reason in another?

Otherwise if you accept Coroner Meyer's remarks about sexual contact and you want to run with a BDI, the former has to be explained. Which would need something a little more stronger than playing doctors.

In this context I usually use the phrase dysfunctional to describe the Ramsey family , potentially on an intergenerational basis.


.

 

[UKGuy]

[URL]http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon0526.htm
Victim's brother, 12, questioned
By Marilyn Robinson
Denver Post Staff Writer
May 26 - Twelve-year-old Burke Ramsey was secretly questioned last week by the grand jury investigating his sister JonBenet's death. The next day, Boulder authorities publicly reaffirmed that he's not a suspect, only a witness.
Burke, 9 years old when his sister's body was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents' Boulder home in 1996, was subpoenaed to appear before the 12 grand jurors last Wednesday, according to a 9News report from Paula Woodward. His attorney, Atlanta-based Jim Jenkins, also attended the hearing, but the questions came only from the jurors, Woodward reported.
Burke's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, could have contested the subpoena but did not.
The Boulder District Attorney's office declined comment.
"We just don't ever comment on grand jury matters, whether they're true or false,'' said Suzanne Laurion, spokeswoman for DA Alex Hunter.
The grand jury has been meeting since mid-September. Its work is secret, but it's believed neither of JonBenet's parents has appeared before the panel.
Burke's appearance before the grand jury came just one week after a national tabloid and other newspapers published stories saying he was the focus of the grand jury probe.
Denver trial lawyer Scott Robinson said Burke's appearance was no surprise.
"The grand jury is looking to solve the mystery of JonBenet,'' Robinson said. "It certainly makes sense that you would want to hear from her brother. He was one of at least four people in the house that night.''
The Ramseys have said Burke was asleep when Patsy discovered the ransom note claiming JonBenet had been kidnapped. However, he potentially could provide information about the relationship between the parents and the children and about the house, Robinson said.
"The grand jury almost had to have testimony from Burke,'' Robinson said. "If the target of the grand jury remains one or both of the parents, it makes sense in an investigatory sense to hear from Burke, but if the focus is elsewhere, such as an intruder, you would want to hear from him.
"And if the grand jury is leaning toward no indictment, they would want to have Burke testify if only to allay public skepticism of the absence of sufficient evidence to charge someone.'' Last June, authorities interviewed Burke in Atlanta, where the family now lives, over a three-day period. Two weeks later, his parents flew to Denver for extensive interviews.
John and Patsy are under what police have described as an "umbrella of suspicion.'' Last week, Boulder spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm said authorities also would like to hear more from them.
The grand jury's term, which originally expired in April, was extended for another six months.
"We still have investigation to do,'' said Police Chief Mark Beckner, declining to comment further.

Tadpole12,
Excellent! So presumably there was no legal ban on reporting Burke's appearance?

Twelve-year-old Burke Ramsey was secretly questioned last week by the grand jury investigating his sister JonBenet's death. The next day, Boulder authorities publicly reaffirmed that he's not a suspect, only a witness

So if he is not a suspect why the need for secrecy? I'll assume they are not suggesting that he was a witness to JonBenet's death.

"The grand jury almost had to have testimony from Burke,'' Robinson said. "If the target of the grand jury remains one or both of the parents, it makes sense in an investigatory sense to hear from Burke, but if the focus is elsewhere, such as an intruder, you would want to hear from him.

'almost', sounds like political rhetoric. Does this mean Burke offered no testimony?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The theory that Patsy went into a rage after bed wetting always sounded very plausible to me but it does not really fit with the fact that she was sexually abused more than once according t doctors. I do not know who or why but I know it was Patsy and John or a combination one doing cover up and on killing her. The one thing I have never been able to get past and why I feel sure the parents are responsible is the fact that everyone stated they did not show any concern when the phone rang. If your child as kidnapped and you had a ransom note saying you would be called you would be freaking out each time the phone rang and the Ramseys did not!

bamabeauty,
Exactly, the bedwetting theory does not explain the evidence, never mind JonBenet again voiding her bladder on death.

If it were not for the acute sexual contact remarked on by Coroner Meyer, then a bedwetting theory could be a starter.

John Ramsey did not even want to wait around for phone calls he was wanting to fly interstate asap, potentially leaving JonBenet behind, along with Burke at Fleet White's.

What does that suggest if you reckon a PDI is implausible?

 

[DeeDee249]

Interesting...how could BR be a "witness" if he was asleep the whole time and presumably saw/heard nothing. My impression of a "witness" is someone who has seen a crime being committed.

 

[UKGuy]

Interesting...how could BR be a "witness" if he was asleep the whole time and presumably saw/heard nothing. My impression of a "witness" is someone who has seen a crime being committed.

DeeDee249,
Precisely. He was a witness to JonBenet walking into the Ramsey house after the White's party. Presumably he was witness to what JonBenet was wearing prior to bedtime, and witness to her snacking pineapple and whomever sipped tea that night/morning?

Even if completely innocent no chances were taken, Atlanta-based Jim Jenkins, represented Burke, did he answer on behalf of Burke?

John and Patsy presumably stayed clear to minimize publicity.

All this talk about Burke being a witness aslo applies to John and Patsy. They would be a witness in any hypothetical BDI. It simply sounds like the line pushed to journalists by the DA's office.

Until someone is convicted of JonBenet's murder all residents of the Ramsey household including those non-resident are suspects!


.

 

[Harley]

Burke was the focus of the Grand Jury proceedings...did the Grand Jury decide to indict Burke? Nobody but the DA's office knows. It was Alex Hunters decision not to indict...the buck stopped with him.

If I were to theorize about who killed little JonBenet...I would say Burke, Patsy and John.

Burke molested her, hit her over the head with his baseball hat.

Patsy staged the crime scene, wrote the ransom note with John dictating it.

TOLTEC I totally agree with you.

 

[Roy23]

Heyya Roy.



Chief Mark Beckner responds to media questions about Lou Smit's television appearance
April 30, 2001:
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3628&Itemid=0
Number of items of evidence logged into property to date:
About 1,400.



Well, therein lies the certainty of your position, being privy to information.



Maybe part of evidence PBD was 'processing' post '99?

Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999 Mark Beckner, Chief of Police
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3639&Itemid=0
The next obvious question is...where do we go from here? From the police perspective, this will remain an open, ongoing investigation. Contrary to the public perception and the rampant speculation that the investigation is over, this case is not dead in the water. I know you have grown tired of hearing this, but yes, we still have forensic evidence we are working on. We are committed to not giving up on this investigation. Like any other open homicide, we will continue to process and test evidence as necessary, and follow any reasonable leads that are developed.
In addition to the possibility of new evidence developing, new forensic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. As a result, cases that were once unsolvable have been solved. New technology in the last 2 1/2 years has helped us in this case. We never know what the next month, year, or several years will bring.



Off topic, but I wonder how/if interfamilial dna can be compared to Codis.

This is kind of what I understand from this as far as the evidence is concerned. I think this is what I have been clammoring about for the past years but your work on finding this very much appreciated. Numerous things were collected and advances in forensic technology put a different spin on the direction of this case.

From my understanding, Beckner sent much of this stuff to the FBI Crime Scene Lab for testing at different times betweeen 2002 and 2003. This was all before the touch DNA evidence was presented. I think they have strong DNA profile from way back. I also think that is how they developed their theory on how the crime went down and ultimately the special areas they tested for the touch DNA. As much as they would like for us not to know any about this, it was their icing on the cake and they felt and apology was necessary.

On a side note I used to think any conviction would be very difficult with the treasure trove of mis-information reported in this case. And it wouldn't matter if it was a Ramsey or intruder for that matter. This is why what they seem to have done, if true, is important. Assuming an intruder goes on trial, you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense IS gonna talk about Pineapple, Spider Webs, Snow, and even maybe get a copy of Dave's book. You can bank on it.

 

[Toltec]

9-year old (almost 10) year old boys ARE interested in sex. They might not be interested in sexual intercourse, but they are aware of pleasurable sensations and how to produce them. Masturbation is one way. Anyone who doesn't believe boys that age have erections or are interested in sexual feelings is kidding themselves. No offense to moms here, but I have found mothers of sons to be the worst as far as refusing to believe their sons find sexual activity pleasant. This happens at ANY age, too. I had a friend whose 20-something son fathered a child, yet was incredulous that he had had SEX. She swore her college-boy sports-nut son was "too busy" to be interested in sex.
There isn't a man on the planet who is "too busy" to be interested in sex.

I remember when my Son was 8 years old...he did play doctor with a 7 year old girl. My now 6 year old daughter is sexually curious also but I keep my eye on her, like Patsy did JonBenet when she had a crush on "Big Luke".

 

[Whaleshark]

"The grand jury almost had to have testimony from Burke,'' Robinson said. "If the target of the grand jury remains one or both of the parents, it makes sense in an investigatory sense to hear from Burke, but if the focus is elsewhere, such as an intruder, you would want to hear from him".

'almost', sounds like political rhetoric. Does this mean Burke offered no testimony?

I don't think so..in that context, almost doesn't mean it did not happen, as in 'almost had to testify', like you are thinking...

Rather, I interpret the statement as such:

..The grand jury almost HAD to have testimony from Burke', ...which is a different emphasis and meaning than you're thinking:

The emphasis on HAD, explains the rest of the statement...In other words, the grand jury: really needed and/or HAD TO HAVE (almost), Burke's testimony because his side of the story was vital, to know what he may have seen or heard that night.

That phrasing is often used when trying to decide if something was 100% necessary or not, but noting that you couldn't have gotten an important piece of the puzzle, or learned a particular lesson, without that activity occurring, ie:

From this report:
http://www.redandblack.com/2011/01/28/panelists-explore-questions-of-oil-spill/

“We almost had to have our talking points in mind when we showed up to work,” said Monty Graham, an associate professor of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama and senior marine scientist at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab.
Finding the balance between peer-reviewed data and the public’s need for information led to challenges when dealing with the media, members of the science panel agreed.
“There’s some journalists that call you and their story’s written before they talk to you, and they just want you to give the soundbite they’re looking for,” University marine sciences professor Samantha Joye said.

Or...

We almost had to have that oil spill in order to learn our lesson about abusing the environment....

Like, even though it is something you don't necessarily want to have happened, it needed to occur in order to gain something useful out of it....
----

As far as Burke being a witness, I think everyone in that house needed to be considered a potential witness, because, well, they were in that house during the time the crime occurred. Sleeping or not, I think they all had to be considered....not just because they may have been an actual 'witness' to the crime itself... but also, was anything heard down the hall, did something wake one of them, etc? It is a given that they all needed to be called as witnesses since it was established that they were in that same residence (sleeping or not) at the time the crime occurred.

 

[DeeDee249]

We believe he testified by videotape. I am not sure if it was 'live", or if he was asked already prepared questions and answered, or if the questions themselves were submitted in advance, giving his lawyers a chance to "vet" them and coach him in his answers.
That is why live questioning before a GJ is so important. Body language is vital.
We know the DAs office were in cahoots with he defense team, Hunter had personal and professional relationships with them. That's why they got so much of the evidence in advance.

 

[Taylormahone]

$118,000 = 1 million mexican pesos?
I found that a bit interesting... But anyways, nobody in the family, a teenaged sexually frustrated white male, who was essentially pissed at the world.

 

[GingBreade]

$118,000 = 1 million mexican pesos?
I found that a bit interesting... But anyways, nobody in the family, a teenaged sexually frustrated white male, who was essentially pissed at the world.

I'm pretty sure 1 million pesos does not equal $118,000 (American dollars). What I am surprised about is that DS was older than BR? Was he like 12 or 13?

 

[BBB167893]

From my understanding, Beckner sent much of this stuff to the FBI Crime Scene Lab for testing at different times betweeen 2002 and 2003. This was all before the touch DNA evidence was presented. I think they have strong DNA profile from way back. I also think that is how they developed their theory on how the crime went down and ultimately the special areas they tested for the touch DNA.

You're much more charitable than I am, pilgrim. From what I understand, Beckner was not involved in the touch DNA fracas. That was all Mary Lacy, my favorite punching bag, and well she deserves it. Make no mistake: she had her theory from Day One and would not back off.

As much as they would like for us not to know any about this, it was their icing on the cake and they felt and apology was necessary.

Don't fool yourself, pilgrim. This was no different from a president giving out a pardon on their last day in office.

Assuming an intruder goes on trial, you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense IS gonna talk about Pineapple, Spider Webs, Snow, and even maybe get a copy of Dave's book. You can bank on it.

You're right about that.

It's my hope that everyone involved in this case who is still alive grabs a copy. They might LEARN something!