Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BBB167893]

I think you just proved the bolded statement by showing that you don’t understand it.

“Totality” does not mean that ALL of the evidence only points in one direction. It doesn’t mean all of the evidence agrees with itself. All of anything includes each individual item. “Totality” means the state of being total -- the sum. IOW, take all the plusses and minuses and add them up to get the total. The totality takes into consideration all of the known evidence (culpatory and exculpatory) and sums it up to a conclusion. While you can say that the totality of evidence is a preponderance one way or another; that preponderance is simply the weight given to the larger amount. Preponderance indicates which is the larger portion of the total. A preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof required in civil litigations. Criminal law requires a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would be correct (and maybe even more accurate) to say “that the preponderance of the evidence, or the majority of it, the most, something, etc.” But it is still correct to also say the totality of evidence when expressing one’s opinion about it. It’s all opinion anyway.

Nicely done, otg. What Anti-K and his fellows seem to have done is mistaken what happens on TV with what happens in real life. On TV, every piece of evidence clicks together like a fine jigsaw puzzle. But that doesn't happen in real life. There are ALWAYS pieces that don't fit. And not every case is solved through forensics. Old-fashioned police work still has its place. (I'm not talking rubber hoses, either.)

 

[BBB167893]

That it is why it is so frustrating debating this case with most IDIs. You simply don't have the stomach for it.

You're not telling me anything new.

 

[BBB167893]

That's your answer? Well DUH, I know about parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

Could have fooled me.

The problem with PDIT or RDIT people is they have tunnel vision and refuse to consider anything else.

I can tell you for a fact that's not true, if only from personal experience.

 

[BBB167893]

You miss the point. It isn’t that parents (etc) aren’t capable of committing such acts, it is that there is no evidence to show that THESE parents were capable of committing such acts.

Were they not of the human species?

Just what exactly would you like to see, Anti-K? And while you're at it, why don't you explain to us why nobody saw the evidence of capability in Chris Benoit, Casey Anthony or Marybeth Tinning, just to name three?

 

[BBB167893]

Question for everyone regardless of what side you are on.

But my question is what does everyone think of the idea of someone who hated the Ramsey and set it up so they would look guilty?

My take on it is this: if this were the case, then the scene would have been staged to look like it was done by the parents. Instead, it was staged to look like someone came in from outside.

I have a hard time believing JR or PR would be dumb enough to right a ransom note then put the note pad back.

Dumb or smart doesn't really apply. A smart person with no experience can make amateur mistakes.

If they did this then why couldn't they have at least got ride of evidence?

How and where would they do it?

 

[BBB167893]

Hey gia, I'm not even sure that someone wanted to implicate them. Here is something I just found out. I believe it was a detective that put forth the scenario (can't remember exactly who it was since I've read so much) that PR got mad at JBR becasue of bed wetting and slammed her head into the side of the tub, causing that massive hole and crack in her skull.

That was Steve Thomas. (Although, he might have gotten the idea from Richard Krugman.)

So according to popular belief the head injury occurred first and then the rest was staged.

It's more than just belief, TexasTuff.

Just read that John W.Taylor who wrote "Umbrella Of Suspicion Investigating The Death Of Jonbenet Ramsey" says the autopsy shows that she was strangled first and then the head wound occurred.


pg.76 The autopsy report identified brain swelling. Dr. Wecht asserted that if JonBenet was alive when she was struck by the blunt object it would have killed her almost instantly. She would have died before the swelling occurred. As a result, the brain swelling came from strangulation. The strangulation took place first, which allowed for the swelling of JonBenet's brain as she slowly passed away.

pg.83 The most critical information gathered from the autopsy report was minimal blood found in the capillaries around the head wound, indicating the blow to the side of her head occurred after or near death.

So now we have rethink this and believe that PR or JR (because I don't think Burke had a thing to do with it) stangled her to death and then bashed her head in.

Actually, we DON'T have to rethink it, because the pathologists who actually worked on the case not only say that the head injury came first, but first by a fair length of time (1-2) hours. Mark Beckner mentioned that in his reddit chat, but the actual statements of the doctors are quite enlightening. Observe:

Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine told the Rock Mountain News:

"The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said. "She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled," said Wright. 'That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.' He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation."

Forensic pathologist Tom Henry told FOXNews:

"The fact that she's got this extensive injury described as a blood clot in the scalp indicates a little longer period of time that she had to survive ... a little more blood pumping under pressure for a longer period of time," he said.

Henry Lee described the head wound as "fully developed" in his book, Cracking More Cases.

And Werner Spitz:

You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.

Dr. WS: Yes.

LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.

Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.

LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?

Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,

LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.

Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

As for the amount of blood:

Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding. "We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."

 

[icedtea4me]

Just as I suspected, seems the root cause of mothers killing their children ( filicid) is low intelligence and significant life stresses.

notedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

Patsy was in the middle of a five year waiting period during which she would periodically be scanned for any new cancer cells. She had a very aggressive form of stage 4 ovarian cancer, so I would imagine she thought that if any were found when she was scanned, she would die.

 

[BBB167893]

I find nothing logical if the Ramseys were involved and I have really tried to make sense of it putting the Ramseys as the suspects.

Maybe that's your problem, oceanblueeyes. It never makes sense to me when a parent kills their child.

John and Patsy Ramsey neither are/were stupid people by any means. Both were educated people who certainly were capable of using their brains.

I don't know of anyone who says otherwise. The FBI said whoever did this was intelligent and manipulative. But it's one thing to know the form, it's another to know the substance. Intelligence is no substitute for experience.

If any of the Ramseys were actually guilty then why would Patsy write the ransom note on her own pad and then leave the notepad behind?

As opposed to what?

And why would they even write a ransom note to begin with and then John finds her in her own home?

Cold feet, maybe?

In all the decades I have kept up with true crime cases not once have I seen any parent/s who killed their child who do it this manner. Is there another case that you are aware of where another parent/murderer did the same as the Ramseys are accused of doing?

Just because you haven't heard of one doesn't mean it didn't happen. And even if there hasn't been one exactly like this one, parents have done even worse than this. I go back to what Ron Walker said.

Why would Patsy write a ransom note when it would not only make them look very suspicious immediately (which it did) but it would also make them look like fools and complete morons as well.

I don't think that occurred to her at the time. Even clever criminals screw up.

If John was pretending JB had been kidnapped then why would he be the one to find her? If guilty of conspiring with Patsy then he was trying to deceive ...not be the one to actually find her which would make the ransom note look even more ridiculous to LE. He could have easily let the police do the work and sit there until she was found. He could have pretended he was too overwrought to do anything.

I think that WAS his original intent. But as time went on, he began second-guessing. Maybe he figured that if HE found her, and with someone else as a witness, it would give him a ready-made excuse.

Why would Patsy use her own paintbrush when she knew it could be matched to the one she had? That makes no sense.

Whose paintbrush should she have used?

Why cover her with the blanket if either of them were truly involved?

I don't follow you.

Why would they interject the amount of John's check knowing only a few would know that?

Maybe they had someone in mind to frame.

Was the taser ever found? If not, why not.

Because it didn't exist!

Once BPD were convinced the Ramseys were involved they were so sure they couldn't see anyone else. Through the years with the characters at the BPD...IMO, it has become more about being right than really trying to find out who murdered JB. They have drawn their line in the sand long ago and they are too arrogant and narcissistic to ever admit they were wrong.

Oh, yeah. The big bad BPD conspiracy. That one never gets old.

I have always called this unknown killer 'The Joker' and 'The Riddler" rolled into one

That's my point, oceanblueeyes: the kind of criminal you're describing only exists in Batman comics, not real life. No criminal is that good or that clever. If they were, they'd be making fortunes scamming people who wouldn't know the difference.

Patsy loved JB almost to an obsession. IMO, if she had killed her beautiful daughter, accidentally or otherwise she would have made sure when JB was found she was laid out like a little sleeping princess

But that's what she DID! At the funeral! She talked about her daughter's body like it was her wedding day.

I do not believe she was sexually molested prior to this happening to her.

Whether you believe it or not makes no difference. It's been proven as much as it can be without an eyewitness or a victim's statement.

 

[Anti-K]

Those three unsourced tDNA samples belonged to three separate males, including two more male DNA samples underneath JBR's fingernails. Five male intruders enter and leave the Ramsey house undetected while leaving no fingerprints and only one shoe-print (which may not even belong to the intruder)?

I’m skeptical of Kolar’s version of the fingernail DNA ‘(as explained in a previous, recent post on this thread).
But, let’s say we have these 5 samples. I don’t think we would say that each sample represents a participant, but we should say that each sample represents a potential suspect.

One of these 5 samples is in 3 locations, on 2 articles clothing (etc.). This is the sample that needs to be explained. This is where resources need to be directed.

Kolar’s Blunder, as I like to call it, was in saying that one had to either accept ALL or reject ALL of the DNA evidence. Classic. Somehow this intellectual giant forgot the excluded middle. We can also accept one out of five, or two out of five, or three out of five, or four our if five. Throw in the female sample (as Kolar does, while also admitting that it is probably jbr’s!) and the combinations become even more numerous!

The sample, probably saliva (wet), found commingled in her blood on the inside crotch of her panties with the matching samples, probably skin cells (dry), on the exterior, hip area on both sides of her leggings – that’s the guy we need to talk to.
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

There is absolutely no reason for the ransom note to exist if the parents were responsible and trying to explain why they had a dead body in their house. Ransom notes explain the opposite.

WHAT??

I'm still trying to figure out that statement. Without the note, all you have is a dead girl with sexual injuries in her own home. Ask Ron Walker who LE would be looking at.

And, if the Ramseys were bizarre enough to think in such a contrary fashion, THIS note still wouldn’t make sense. it is 2 ½ pages of self-incriminating evidence intentionally created and willingly handed over to the police, along with the source it was written on.

I'd like to see how well YOU'D do under similar circumstances. Actually, I hope that NONE of us here will ever be in similar circumstances. Moreover, they didn't have to fool the police. They didn't have to fool the FBI, the DA, the pathologists or the analysts. You know who they had to fool? One person out of twelve. That's it.

 

[BBB167893]

At about 52:40 on the video according to Dr. Thomas Henry Denver Medical Examiner there was no sign of sexual trauma.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RacsMPGVwew?feature=player_embedded.

"Sexual trauma" is not the same as sexual ABUSE, TexasTuff. Most sexual abuse doesn't leave the scarring he describes. Let's look at what the experts said:

Cyril Wecht, along with 4 other doctors concurred that the injury to hymen "dated from an old injury," including Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at University of CO Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine (and Director of Child Protection Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital); Dr. John McCann (see below); and Dr. Ronald Wright, former Medical Examiner, Cook County Illinois (Schiller 1999:43)

 

[BBB167893]

But i dont mind saying I do believe that sinse the DNA found under JB finger nails didn't match JR's DNA that does in fact point to an unknown source. Seriously who's DNA does that belong to then?

Giagreen, that fingernail DNA was so broken down there's no way to match it to JR even if it WAS his!

IMO if this was a crime of passion and PR snapped on JB then this wouldn't of ever been a mystery. Crimes of passion are messy and the perp is usually in distress and isn't thinking clear enough to cover all their tracks.

That's just IT, giagreen: that's what happened. Problem is, it happened in Boulder, home of the worst DA on the freakin' planet.

No mother who accidentally kills her child is going to be in her right mind to think clearly enough to sit down and write up a ransom note that will baffle everyone to this degree.

Again, that's just it: thinking clearly had nothing to do with it. The Ramseys weren't clever; they were LUCKY.

 

[BBB167893]

Just as I suspected, seems the root cause of mothers killing their children ( filicid) is low intelligence and significant life stresses.

notedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

Significant life stresses such as cancer treatments, operations and the side effects thereof?

 

[Anti-K]

Oh, no? Let's ask FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the house the morning of Dec 26th, 1996:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

Don't ever tell me that someone isn't capable of something. I've thought that, and I've suffered for it. ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. That's a hard lesson for a hard world, and we all had damn well better learn it.

We’ve had this discussion before. You lost the point then, so I don’t know why you bother to drag it out again. It is demonstrably not true. There have always been people wiling to sacrifice themselves, their freedom or their lives simply because they could not and would not do ANYTHING. This is a lie that you are telling yourself.

Saying that anyone is capable of anything makes anyone a suspect, I guess. I mean, it doesn’t allow us to differentiate or describe any sort of group at all, really. It’s a meaningless descriptor. If you want to say that ______ was capable of committing this crime, then you have to show that they were capable of committing this crime. Saying they were capable because ANYONE is capable doesn’t cut it because we wouldn’t be talking about ANYONE, we would be talking about ______.
….

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not so sure about that, Anti-K. In fact, let me give you a specific example. There's a man serving life in prison in Maine since 1988. Dennis Dechaine is his name. The state says he raped and murdered a 12-y/o girl named Sarah Cherry. There are numerous people who claim Dechaine got a raw deal. Their "evidence" is DNA found under the girl's nails that did not come from Dechaine and was not available at the time of his trial.

Follow me so far? Problem is, in order to latch onto the DNA as proof of Dechaine's innocence, you have to ignore all of the other evidence against him. Circumstantial evidence, I guess the old-timers call it. A car repair receipt with his name was found at the home where the girl was last seen, along with tire tracks from his truck. A witness saw him walking out of the woods where her body was later found. His lawyer, in a preview of what David Westerfield's lawyer would later do, told police that the girl was dead and where to find her. They did. They arrested Dechaine, and he confessed.

But hey, there's DNA that wasn't his! So following your logic, they should let him go! God almighty...

Yes, well, we had this discussion before, too. My logic is not as you describe it. You have built a straw man.
…

AK

 

[questfortrue]

Those three unsourced tDNA samples belonged to three separate males, including two more male DNA samples underneath JBR's fingernails. Five male intruders enter and leave the Ramsey house undetected while leaving no fingerprints and only one shoe-print (which may not even belong to the intruder)?

Thanks, Olivia,
Here is some additional info, just to clarify a couple of points about the tDNA.

First, it’s worth noting that only Kolar furnishes the information about the additional tDNA at the scene in FF. ML claimed she didn’t know about the additional samples on the wrist cord and the ligature cord. Or she intentionally left it out when delivering her PR speech of 'exoneration.'

Kolar received his information from Horita who worked for ML in the DA’s office. Horita provided this information at a Cold Case group meeting about the JonBenet case. It is not too likely that his information would be outdated or incorrect in such circumstances. Additionally, Kolar took the time to interview Leberge of the Denver crime lab which was responsible for enhancing the DNA in the mixed sample in JB’s underwear.

Here is what ML actually said regarding the tDNA -an excerpt from ML’s letter to the Rs: The Bode Technology Laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns.

I read that as the left side and the right side. IOW, it would only be an assumption that ML is identifying tDNA on both interior and exterior waistband of the leggings, an assumption no one here has the psychic ability to verify.

Kolar claims it was found in the interior waistband of the leggings. (FF, Kindle edition, 5237)

One thing comes to mind and it's this: Beckner said in his Reddit AMA the evidence listed by Kolar in FF is correct.

 

[BBB167893]

You honestly believe that's enough to hang her?

I think if you ask around, TexasTuff, you'll be surprised at how few people here want to "hang" her, as you say.

 

[BBB167893]

I think you'r reading too much "into it".

Maybe not. My parents both suffered with cancer. It changed them.

 

[Anti-K]

Were they not of the human species?

Just what exactly would you like to see, Anti-K? And while you're at it, why don't you explain to us why nobody saw the evidence of capability in Chris Benoit, Casey Anthony or Marybeth Tinning, just to name three?

After-the-fact, things come out. When you start looking, things are found. But, let’s pretend there were no indicators in these people or in their life’s – none of these people are the Ramseys. It’s a funny thing about people. We’re all individuals. SO, what you need to do is to forget about these other people. They don’t make your case against the Ramsey-people
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I’m skeptical of Kolar’s version of the fingernail DNA ‘(as explained in a previous, recent post on this thread).
But, let’s say we have these 5 samples. I don’t think we would say that each sample represents a participant, but we should say that each sample represents a potential suspect.

One of these 5 samples is in 3 locations, on 2 articles clothing (etc.). This is the sample that needs to be explained. This is where resources need to be directed.

Kolar’s Blunder, as I like to call it, was in saying that one had to either accept ALL or reject ALL of the DNA evidence. Classic. Somehow this intellectual giant forgot the excluded middle. We can also accept one out of five, or two out of five, or three out of five, or four our if five. Throw in the female sample (as Kolar does, while also admitting that it is probably jbr’s!) and the combinations become even more numerous!

No good, Anti-K. You guys are the ones saying that the DNA trumps all other evidence. Now you say you can pick and choose.

WHICH IS IT?