Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[ziggy]

Thanks for clearing that up. The DNA was present on the panties but mixed and not a complete profile. Interesting to me that the touch DNA on the long johns is a match to the markers they have in the other DNA samples.

There have been other children killed in their homes while parents slept, abducted while parents and other siblings were asleep (in much smaller homes too) and while none is exactly like JonBenet's murder, all of them are somewhat unique unto themselves. Because there has not been an EXACTLY duplicated crime doesn't prove it was not an intruder into the home.

As for lawyering up, I watched Perfect Murder, Perfect Town again last night and I can see why they did. They were told that with the FBI involved that the profilers would tell the police that the parents are the likely suspects. They were advised by attorneys who were friends to do so. They could feel that the police were only looking at them. No one in that group was able to trust the Boulder police at that time (and I don't blame them after seeing what a hard on Eller had for them) - they were going to be railroaded even if they had lived 24/7 at the BPD. It was a no win for them because of the poor police work and inexperienced detectives and the refusal of help from every agency that offered early on.

I'm a law student currently and I would certainly advise any of my friends to get an attorney ESPECIALLY if they were innocent. You can't imagine how things can be turned around on you even when you have the best intentions.

After watching PMPT again, I still don't think they did it. After all these years and the heinous things I've seen perps do - taking Polly Klaas, Danielle Van Dam, Stephanie Crow being stabbed to death in her bedroom, Elizabeth Smart - this perp didn't have any place to take her and possibly was more of a thrill seeker staying in the house. Or, perhaps he may have intended to take her and got out of control, she had to be silenced or he'd be caught and he left the body. Pedophiles who actually think they are "in love" with little girls are capable of also being sexual psychopaths and redressing, using a blanket etc.

This whole case just makes me sad. Sad for JonBenet mostly. Sad for the portrayed image of a "beauty queen" when she was really just a happy, sunny little six year old girl who dressed down as comfortably as she dressed up. Sad for her family because if they are innocent and I think they are, it is the most horrific tragedy to have found her like that at that time of year and to bury her on New Year's Eve. It has forever tainted Christmas for them and worse.

My parting words here...lawyer up...you DO NOT want to end up regretting a decision like that.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Terri Horman got a lawyer and everyone said that it was a good move. The Ramseys got a lawyer and still to this day, people criticize them for that. Both of them were/are considered by the police and the public to be top suspects so why is there a different reaction to Terri lawyering up vs. the Ramseys lawyering up?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I never criticize them for lawyering up, I criticize them because they were uncooperative and self serving. It was never about finding the real killer, it was always about them and how best to stay out of prison and confuse, contaminate, and cloud the the most basic facts.

Was she awake or wasn't she? Did she walk or was she carried? Did John read to her or not? Was Burke up that morning or was he asleep?

 

[BBB167893]

Also, what a lot of folks don't get (this includes the lawyers) is a defense attorney's only job is to make sure his defendant gets a fair legal progression and trial. NOT to get them "off the hook even if they're guilty". LW and his cronies should go back and read that chapter in law school 101.

That page doesn't really apply to LW, SheBoss. He's not a defense lawyer. He's a litigation attorney. So, in a manner of speaking, he's an ATTACK lawyer.

 

[BBB167893]

There have been other children killed in their homes while parents slept, abducted while parents and other siblings were asleep (in much smaller homes too) and while none is exactly like JonBenet's murder, all of them are somewhat unique unto themselves. Because there has not been an EXACTLY duplicated crime doesn't prove it was not an intruder into the home.

It's funny you say that, because those cases you mention are a big strike against the Rs' innocence. LW tried to sell that line on TV. Marc Klaas was there, and he was not buying it.

I'm a law student currently and I would certainly advise any of my friends to get an attorney ESPECIALLY if they were innocent. You can't imagine how things can be turned around on you even when you have the best intentions.

Speaking purely for myself, it doesn't bother me that they got lawyers. That's their right. It's their right not to take a lie detector test, etc.

I may not be a law student, but I am a thinker. And I have a little advice myself:

Guilty or innocent, DO get a lawyer.

DON'T refuse to cooperate and say you did;

DON'T refuse a lie detector test then pay for some hack to give you one that you can wave around as if it meant something;

DON'T try to move out of the state;

DON'T let your lawyers pull myriad dirty tricks against potential witnesses;

and DON'T go on TV instead of to the cops.

Bottom line: the Constitution allows the right to a lawyer and to keep silent. It does NOT allow the right to LIE. If you refuse to talk to police, you shouldn't be judged. If you try to "game" the system, you SHOULD be judged.

 

[BBB167893]

I never criticize them for lawyering up, I criticize them because they were uncooperative and self serving. It was never about finding the real killer, it was always about them and how best to stay out of prison and confuse, contaminate, and cloud the the most basic facts.

Was she awake or wasn't she? Did she walk or was she carried? Did John read to her or not? Was Burke up that morning or was he asleep?

Can one person give a standing ovation?

 

[cynic]

Hi Tragco,
(Just trying to helpful, not critical with respect to my comments below.)

IIRC, the DNA found on the panties themselves were examined before touch DNA was able to be used.

It was sampled and tested before the marketing term “touch DNA” was coined by Bode Technology, but DNA from contact was being sampled for and tested in the very late 1990’s.
Swabbing which was (and still is) the most common sample collection technique is quite capable of liberating skin cells as well as dried body fluid.
Perhaps the biggest change from then, to the “touch DNA” “era,” was that investigators began to target areas of clothing where there was no stain visible under conventional or alternative light, essentially guessing at where contact may have occurred. That was new as well as some of the collection techniques, (an example of which would be razor scraping.)

The most common places to find DNA are in blood, semen, hair, and saliva. Any time you find these substances at a scene, you’ll need to collect them for DNA. You can also find DNA in urine, skin cells, perspiration, teeth, bone, and internal organs, so you need to examine your scene carefully. For example, if a bullet goes clean through the suspect, the bullet itself can be tested for traces of DNA. DNA can also be left on a variety of objects that people have touched or worn. We’ve found DNA on everything from dirty laundry to eyeglasses, cigarettes, bottles, and drinking glasses, partial fingernails (both broken and clipped), masks, gloves, and bandanas. All of these items should be collected and tested. In addition, you should look for DNA in the same places where you would look for fingerprints: the steering wheel of a car, door knobs and handles, counters, and cabinets, etc. All of these surfaces can be swabbed and tested for the presence of DNA.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=275

Friday, August 17, 2001
The latest DNA technology can find evidence where investigators wouldn't have even considered looking in the early 1980s, when the killer was still plucking young women from the streets. It can find answers in sloughed skin cells or even a blot of saliva.
"You can swab just about anything and test it and see if you get positive results," said King County Sheriff Detective Tom Jensen, who has made it his quest for 17 years to find the killer. "You're just kind of limited with your imagination."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/35567_greenriver17.shtml

They found another DNA profile when examining a spot of blood. A PARTIAL DNA marker, not a full one.

A partial DNA profile was obtained from one blood spot that was of sufficient “quality” to meet the minimum standard for inclusion in the CODIS database.
It’s unknown whether degradation or limited sample quantity prevented a complete profile from being found.

This could be from lab contamination where their previous lab work transferred that DNA to the new substance for study (yes this happens, proven examples), from someone at the scene or someone after the scene who examined the item, or from an intruder.

True.

The DNA present at that time would have to be more than a few cells. Saliva, a sneeze that left a droplet, etc.

I will address that in another post (to minazoe) below.

The DNA on the waistband was found many years later using touch DNA- very prone to error.

True.

We're talking only a few cells, as small as 20 cells.

Usually 30 or more for standard processing, less than that and you will have to process the sample using LCN techniques which have been very controversial, and should be used only as an absolute last resort.

If you scratched your arm and the wind deposited the tiniest flake of your skin far away and wherever it fell was examined, your profile would likely be found.

True, reminds me a bit of the Henry Lee "spit on the sidewalk" story.

 

[cynic]

I have studied this case but don't know the answer to this question, do you?

what was the source of the DNA found on jon benet's panties?

none of the books I have read disclose this. is it that they don't know? was it skin? blood? semen? saliva? or is it only that hair?

It is not spelled out anywhere, however, it can be reasonably deduced to be skin cells.
Consider the following statement:

Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened "control" samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.
If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.
And, investigators know the DNA found in the underwear - white, with red rose buds and the word "Wednesday" inscribed on the elastic waist band - was not left by seminal fluid.
"There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling," said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
"You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there," Kane said, "whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them."
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

You have to read between the lines a bit.
It is not a bodily fluid, because you don’t end up with that from someone at a retail store who picked up and looked at a pair of panties

The following is not from the article above, but if it was from a bodily fluid then it should have also been found on JBR’s body or from vaginal swabs that were taken.
Moreover, there are very sensitive and effective presumptive tests that identify bodily fluids.

 

[DeeDee249]

Another question for all you good folks?

Has anyone actually HEARD LW or any of the RST declare the Ramsey's innocent? By law, if your client reveals to you they did it, you can still defend them, but you can no longer tell people they are innocent of the crime. I wonder if that happened here?

Also, what a lot of folks don't get (this includes the lawyers) is a defense attorney's only job is to make sure his defendant gets a fair legal progression and trial. NOT to get them "off the hook even if they're guilty". LW and his cronies should go back and read that chapter in law school 101.

Defense attorneys do not have to ask their clients if they are guilty, and in some cases may even advise their clients not to tell them, for exactly the reason you mentioned. Surprising, but true. That said, LW (as was mentioned) a litigation attorney, but the Rs also hired a defense team from a powerful law firm.
JR said himself that the main reason his lawyers were hired was to keep them out of jail should the police bring charges. So from his own mouth we here that it wasn't to assure a fair trial (that never happened anyway) but to see to it that they wouldn't face prison. JR also commented that he or Patsy (or both) expected to be arrested.

 

[Mendara]

I am hoping one of the veterans on here can give me some feedback on my thoughts. Last night I was up thinking about this case and I thought about the intruder theory. I was thinking of all the steps he had to take to make this happen. I was thinking about the date he chose, the time of day, the method etc. To commit this crime during the holidays takes a lot of cojones.

If an IDI, then it had to be premeditated and could not have been a stranger. It had to be someone who knew the family very well and was planning this. The person had to have known the layout of the house, and the Ramsey's schedule.

The RN as we know was very long and a bit ridiculous, but it told us that this person knew the family very well. Without a doubt a stranger did NOT write the note.

So on Christmas afternoon or at the very least evening the intruder is missing from his own home and family and is in the Ramsey home pre-writing this letter and hiding and waiting for them to come home? Or he wrote the letter after killing JB and took a great risk in getting caught. There is no doubt in my mind that if an IDI that he wrote this letter in order to confuse the Ramseys and watch them run around with police knowing full well JB was in the house. This was part of his fun. But also he wanted JR to know how much he hated him, killing his daughter was not enough.

So either he is already in the house entering through an open door and waiting or he comes in without any trouble after everyone is asleep. Either way he had to have known the house well enough to enter without force and quietly walk through the house and find JB's bedroom and all the items he used to kill her.

Now PR says JB went to sleep with a red turtle neck and pajamas/long johns type of pants. (IS this a fact?) If the IDI then he would have had to know where the favorite PJs were and either make her put them on, or put them on her after the blow to her head leaving no blood or cleaning it up. Or we have to believe that PR was mistaken about what she put on JB.

Now did PR put on the size 12 underwear or did the IDI know where these were and put it on her too? Or again we have to believe that PR was mistaken.

Did he wake her from sleep and take her down into the WC and then strike the blow to the head or did he hit her while she slept? Again where is the blood?

He knew where this wine cellar was and grabbed items from this room to make the garrote which I assume he placed on her after the blow to the head and I assume he strangled her, then after her death sexual assaulted her. He then shut the door to this room and upon his clean exit he left the note neatly on the steps and returned home to his family with the murder weapon.

The pineapple is something that has been debated - if we are saying he also fed her food before killing her then we are saying that he was very familiar to her to NOT force a scream or we are saying that PR was mistaken again and that Jb was not asleep when she got home and ate the pineapple herself.

I am sorry this post is long, but as I lay in bed and thought about this - I thought what a very dangerous person this intruder is. How evil and cunning he is and it really frightened me.

How easily he got in, how much time he spent, how easily he left and then I thought about him being someone who was even in the house the next day supporting the family or was at the funeral. Because if we are saying an IDI then we have to admit it had to be someone they knew and someone very dangerous.

I left a lot of things out - like her blanket, her doll, but to include those items you have assume that JB herself brought those items to the WC, or you have to assume the intruder knew these were her items and brought everything including JB down to the WC with him, like it was a ceremony.

To know this person is walking freely is scary.

Is it easier to figure that PR hit her daughter over the head in an angry rage and then she and John set it all up to look like an intruder? \

Is it easier to say that JR was molesting his daughter for a while and went too far this time and set this all up to trick not only his wife but LE and everyone into thinking it was an intruder including writing the note himself?

Or is it easier to say that PR committed the entire crime herself while JR slepted and she alone tried to fool everyone? EDIT TO INCLUDE: Did JB wake in the middle of the night because she peed her bed, JR is fast asleep, PR goes into JB's room upset at her, changes her clothes rips through the underwear package to put on new underpants, takes JB to the kitchen gives her a snack, then in a rage hits her over the head in the kitchen, takes her down to the wine cellar leaves her in there, cleans up the kitchen, then hatches her plan?

What theory is the most simple?

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am hoping one of the veterans on here can give me some feedback on my thoughts. Last night I was up thinking about this case and I thought about the intruder theory. I was thinking of all the steps he had to take to make this happen. I was thinking about the date he chose, the time of day, the method etc. To commit this crime during the holidays takes a lot of cojones.

If an IDI, then it had to be premeditated and could not have been a stranger. It had to be someone who knew the family very well and was planning this. The person had to have known the layout of the house, and the Ramsey's schedule.

The RN as we know was very long and a bit ridiculous, but it told us that this person knew the family very well. Without a doubt a stranger did NOT write the note.

So on Christmas afternoon or at the very least evening the intruder is missing from his own home and family and is in the Ramsey home pre-writing this letter and hiding and waiting for them to come home? Or he wrote the letter after killing JB and took a great risk in getting caught. There is no doubt in my mind that if an IDI that he wrote this letter in order to confuse the Ramseys and watch them run around with police knowing full well JB was in the house. This was part of his fun. But also he wanted JR to know how much he hated him, killing his daughter was not enough.

So either he is already in the house entering through an open door and waiting or he comes in without any trouble after everyone is asleep. Either way he had to have known the house well enough to enter without force and quietly walk through the house and find JB's bedroom and all the items he used to kill her.

Now PR says JB went to sleep with a red turtle neck and pajamas/long johns type of pants. (IS this a fact?) If the IDI then he would have had to know where the favorite PJs were and either make her put them on, or put them on her after the blow to her head leaving no blood or cleaning it up. Or we have to believe that PR was mistaken about what she put on JB.

Now did PR put on the size 12 underwear or did the IDI know where these were and put it on her too? Or again we have to believe that PR was mistaken.

Did he wake her from sleep and take her down into the WC and then strike the blow to the head or did he hit her while she slept? Again where is the blood?

He knew where this wine cellar was and grabbed items from this room to make the garrote which I assume he placed on her after the blow to the head and I assume he strangled her, then after her death sexual assaulted her. He then shut the door to this room and upon his clean exit he left the note neatly on the steps and returned home to his family with the murder weapon.

The pineapple is something that has been debated - if we are saying he also fed her food before killing her then we are saying that he was very familiar to her to NOT force a scream or we are saying that PR was mistaken again and that Job was not asleep when she got home and ate the pineapple herself.

I am sorry this post is long, but as I lay in bed and thought about this - I thought what a very dangerous person this intruder is. How evil and cunning he is and it really frightened me.

How easily he got in, how much time he spent, how easily he left and then I thought about him being someone who was even in the house the next day supporting the family or was at the funeral. Because if we are saying an IDI then we have to admit it had to be someone they knew and someone very dangerous.

I left a lot of things out - like her blanket, her doll, but to include those items you have assume that JB herself brought those items to the WC, or you have to assume the intruder knew these were her items and brought everything including JB down to the WC with him, like it was a ceremony.

To know this person is walking freely is scary.

Is it easier to figure that PR hit her daughter over the head in an angry rage and then she and John set it all up to look like an intruder? \

Is it easier to say that JR was molesting his daughter for a while and went too far this time and set this all up to trick not only his wife but LE and everyone into thinking it was an intruder including writing the note himself?

Or is it easier to say that PR committed the entire crime herself while JR slept and she alone tried to fool everyone? EDIT TO INCLUDE: Did JB wake in the middle of the night because she peed her bed, JR is fast asleep, PR goes into JB's room upset at her, changes her clothes rips through the underwear package to put on new underpants, takes JB to the kitchen gives her a snack, then in a rage hits her over the head in the kitchen, takes her down to the wine cellar leaves her in there, cleans up the kitchen, then hatches her plan?

What theory is the most simple?

IMO

There was no blood after the head blow because it was a closed wound.

I am NOT a IDI but, it wouldn't have to be someone that was close to the Ramseys. It could have been someone that was friends with, a relative of a previous owner/occupant of the home, builders, repair people, construction worker, someone that simply had previous access to it. Perhaps, they saw JonBenet and obsessed about her.

But nahhhhh. NONE of the IDI theories make sense to me nor does any other scenario of IDI explain the evidence that I am aware of. It was someone in that house, the perp never broke in and never left.

 

[Mendara]

There was no blood after the head blow because it was a closed wound

Is it safe to say then that either the person was not strong enough to make this a "a blow to kill"? Or that it was a blow to knock her unconscious?

This did not cause her death. Thank you.

 

[SheBoss]

That page doesn't really apply to LW, SheBoss. He's not a defense lawyer. He's a litigation attorney. So, in a manner of speaking, he's an ATTACK lawyer.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, Dave!!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Is it safe to say then that either the person was not strong enough to make this a "a blow to kill"? Or that it was a blow to knock her unconscious?

This did not cause her death. Thank you.

It's not safe to say IMO.

It was a fatal blow, it alone would have killed her.

 

[Mendara]

It's not safe to say IMO.

It was a fatal blow, it alone would have killed her.

Thank you.

 

[minazoe]

either the blow to the head was known, the child was dead and the subsequent staging occured.

or

the blow to the head was known and the strangulation was the intended death vehicle.

there is no scenario where the blow to the head is unknown except with the stair theroy, where jb hits her head as she is dragged down the stairs. But in this scenario the perp would be aware of the possible injury, but Jb is still alive or dies shortly after.

I always invisioned

Jb wets the bed in the middle of the night...patsy so tired she fell asleep in her clothes.
She gets up , the bed is soaked and she loses her mind.

She redresses JB in the big panties and this is humiliating and jb starts having a fit...patsy drags her downstairs and she hits her head on the stairs ( or maybe jb hit it in the bathtub after a rough rinse off ) anyway patsy drags her downstairs and feeds her some pineapple to get her to stop crying...she is saying her head hurts and you hurt me. then she seizures and dies.

 

[minazoe]

again, they had to know molestation occured...was it john? it had to be because if my child was a "little bit molested" I would have the police over so fast your head would spin.

I beleive there was mental illness and perversion in that house. I also hate to say this but patsy was such a show off, it makes sense that she would write a note that essentially says they are victimized for their wealth.

ugh,

again, little six year old beauty queens don't wet their beds.

 

[Mendara]

either the blow to the head was known, the child was dead and the subsequent staging occured.

or

the blow to the head was known and the strangulation was the intended death vehicle.

there is no scenario where the blow to the head is unknown except with the stair theroy, where jb hits her head as she is dragged down the stairs. But in this scenario the perp would be aware of the possible injury, but Jb is still alive or dies shortly after.

I always invisioned

Jb wets the bed in the middle of the night...patsy so tired she fell asleep in her clothes.
She gets up , the bed is soaked and she loses her mind.

She redresses JB in the big panties and this is humiliating and jb starts having a fit...patsy drags her downstairs and she hits her head on the stairs ( or maybe jb hit it in the bathtub after a rough rinse off ) anyway patsy drags her downstairs and feeds her some pineapple to get her to stop crying...she is saying her head hurts and you hurt me. then she seizures and dies.

or maybe the blow happened in the kitchen after the pineapple is eaten. Just seems strange that JB had different clothes on in the morning, if it was PR who did it, why didn't she just tell LE that shed put the pjs on her and underwear at bedtime? Why would she describe to them a different set of clothes? Unless JR saw JB asleep in the turtle neck and he had nothing to do with anything.

 

[Mendara]

again, they had to know molestation occured...was it john? it had to be because if my child was a "little bit molested" I would have the police over so fast your head would spin.

I beleive there was mental illness and perversion in that house. I also hate to say this but patsy was such a show off, it makes sense that she would write a note that essentially says they are victimized for their wealth.

ugh,

again, little six year old beauty queens don't wet their beds.

Minazoe forgive my ignorance I am trying to catch up on everything - who said she was a little bit molested? And was it PR that said bueaty queens don't wet their beds? Also, what was withthe family doctor JB's pediatrician - was he ruled out?

 

[minazoe]

Sorry Mendera, it's a very complex case.

you may need to read up.