Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[InstantProof]

But if he was trying to stage a break in then why latch it then bring it up later? If he wanted people to see that he could of made a bigger deal out of it. But he didn't at the time.

It's my opinion that he was not involved in the staging prior to the 911 call and he wanted to be able to say he had nothing to do with it if he had to. Later, it was working in their favor so he went along.
What makes the crime and the staging so difficult is that there are two adults and we do not know if they are working on this together or against each other, if one is lying to the other, if one is oblivious, etc.

 

[icedtea4me]

6 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't give a damn
7 how scientific it is, go back to the damn
8 drawing board. I didn't do it. John Ramsey
9 didn't do it and we didn't have a clue of
10 anybody who did do it.
​

First she says "I didn't do it." Fine. Then she says "John Ramsey didn't do it..." Why did she feel the need to state his last name? Surely Det Haney would know that she's talking about her husband and not John Travolta. And she concludes her spiel with "...and we didn't have a clue of anybody who did do it." It seems like she was on a roll with the didn'ts that she forgot it should have been "...and we don't have a clue of anybody who did do it."

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

The real issue with socio economic differences is that rich people tend to get away with things far more often. Rich people get amazing lawyers. Rich people are not instantly suspected. There is less of a criminal stereotype with the wealthy.

But I can assure you that making assumptions about what a person is or is not capable of based on their income is a fallacy in thinking. If this crime were motivated by a small sum of money, then yes I suppose this makes sense. Rich people probably won't kill someone for a thousand bucks. But this was not motivated by cash. No socio economic group is just above crimes of passion, or child abuse, or attempts of covering their butts.

We can't just look at a person and tell if they are a killer. It's a dangerous myth that you can tell a serial killer by looking into their eyes. You have to take into consideration all of that evidence.

Mainly, there is little to no evidence that an intruder came into that house. All I can think of is DNA on clothes, but this was said to have come from workers handling clothes before shipment. Why should we assume that so many DNA samples must include one outsider killer when there isn't any other proof. There were not a group of men down there traipsing around. It makes far more sense to just assume all that DNA is from workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Ellie9,
It is not true that it was said that the “DNA on clothes” came from workers handling clothes before shipment.” This DNA has never been sourced. They don’t know where it came from, but it is in incriminating locations, exactly where her killer might have left his DNA. Coincidence, or…?

Anyway, what I think you’re referring to is the theory that the panty DNA, the CODIS sample, the one that was found on the inside crotch of her panties commingled in her blood, that that sample originated with the manufacturing process, possibly from a cough, or a sneeze.

However, new panties bought and tested only had trace amounts of DNA on them, 1/10th to 1/12th the size of that found on jbr’s panties.

This CODIS sample is NOT tDNA; it is said to probably be saliva (wet) and the matching tDNA found on the leggings is said to probably be skin cells (dry).

It never makes sense to assume that trace evidence found in incriminating locations is not related to the crime. In fact, the opposite is true: it makes sense to assume that trace evidence found in incriminating locations IS related to the crime. This is based on Locard’s Principle of Exchange and it guides investigators to look for trace evidence in locations most likely to yield evidence of attack (most recent contact) while minimizing chances of finding traces not related to the attack. When you look for evidence of this type, and you find it, you don’t get to assume that it’s not related.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If it was just an unusual outfit choice, sure. The same clothing makes it appear as though she stayed up all night in a case where she probably would have had to stay up all night for her to become a suspect.

But this isn't the main problem even. It's just one more part of the big picture. The main problem is the lack of intruder evidence. For another example, that all stuff used in the crime were found in their house. Even the ransom note was written with their pen and paper. Who in the world plans to abduct a child and just brings along nothing of their own to complete the crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Ellie9,

Not all the stuff used was found in the house. The cord and the tape has never been traced.

Items were removed from the house but items that could be traced to the house were intentionally and unnecessarily used and left for investigators to find (they handed them the notepad!).

If the Ramseys were to dispose of evidence, it would have been evidence that could connect them to the crime. Like the broken end of the paintbrush, and the notepad, maybe the pen. Better yet, if they were so concerned, they wouldn’t have used either item.

However, an intruder – this has and does happen – can use anything that he finds on site. As long as he brings what he cannot be without (tape? Cord? Flashlight?) and knows how to improvise, he’d be fine. And, there is an advantage to using materials found on-site: they canlt be traced back to you!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The ransom note? The unnecessary loose ropes around JBR? The duct tape, put on after unconsciousness or death because of no marks from her attempting to remove it with her tongue? The garrot applied after the blow to the head? The vaginal trauma that was probably meant to imply a sex crime, and cover up prolonged abuse that JBR endured?

You know what gets me the most? The duct tape honestly. You can't actually silence someone with duct tape like this. They'll easily poke their tongue out, wet the tape, and get it off so they can scream for help. Try it on yourself right now. I can do it. It's easy. It's instinctual. You can even get it off from moving your jaw up and down a little. Ever have someone jokingly hold your mouth closed with their hand when you were a little kid? What's your first instinct? Lick the hand. Move your jaw. The tape was not meant to silence anyone. Therefore it's unnecessary. Therefore it reeks of cover up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, I swear, I am NOT picking on you!

I promise.

I just want to say that I think you are describing aspects of staging, some if which I am in complete agreement with. I agree with staging. I see staging. But, I don’t see where anybody bothered to stage someone coming into or leaving the house which is the context for my post that you quoted.

…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Exactly, what if they couldn't find blank paper? Before my kids were in school I never had paper in my house. And what about the flashlight? Meh, I'll probably find one there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was Christmas time. There was wrapping paper, and envelopes and cards and packaging and all kinds of stuff laying about. It would have been easy to find something unidentifiable and scribble a line or two on it: NO coPs. wwaiT 4 CalL. $$$ Better yet! Write it on the wall.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think that's been shown many times. Perhaps you are too ... stubborn to see it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It has never been done. Thomas tried and failed in spectacular fashion; destroyed by his own deposition. Kolar didn’t even try. He hinted, but he did not show us. RDI cannot even agree amongst themselves.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The note does explain why there's a dead body in the house, but you and some others don't see it because you insist on reading the note with the left side of your brain.

Leave my brain outta this!! Grrrrrr.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

BBM


Hi Ellie9,
It is not true that it was said that the “DNA on clothes” came from workers handling clothes before shipment.” This DNA has never been sourced. They don’t know where it came from, but it is in incriminating locations, exactly where her killer might have left his DNA. Coincidence, or…?

Anyway, what I think you’re referring to is the theory that the panty DNA, the CODIS sample, the one that was found on the inside crotch of her panties commingled in her blood, that that sample originated with the manufacturing process, possibly from a cough, or a sneeze.

However, new panties bought and tested only had trace amounts of DNA on them, 1/10th to 1/12th the size of that found on jbr’s panties.

This CODIS sample is NOT tDNA; it is said to probably be saliva (wet) and the matching tDNA found on the leggings is said to probably be skin cells (dry).

It never makes sense to assume that trace evidence found in incriminating locations is not related to the crime. In fact, the opposite is true: it makes sense to assume that trace evidence found in incriminating locations IS related to the crime. This is based on Locard’s Principle of Exchange and it guides investigators to look for trace evidence in locations most likely to yield evidence of attack (most recent contact) while minimizing chances of finding traces not related to the attack. When you look for evidence of this type, and you find it, you don’t get to assume that it’s not related.
…

AK

This is a really reasonable response. If I correctly understand, there were a lot of trace DNA samples, but one sample was on two pieces of her clothing and one was likely saliva? So if it were an intruder, it would most likely be one person who would match this double DNA thing?

If that's true at least that is probably now the strongest evidence for an intruder. You're the first person so far who bothered to answer my question about evidence for intruders, so I do appreciate it. A case this confusing needs to be examined from all possible angles.

Was the DNA found on the big underwear she wss found in or in the small underwear that was her actual size? Did anyone ever find the regular underwear? Seemed like the large underwear was some attempt at hiding things, like more DNA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

IIRC they had a private plane, but a pilot. They had to cancel the flight with the pilot that morning. Later that day they all tried to book it out of there and go to Atlanta (I think?) but the police stopped them. If she was wearing boring clothes for the flight, it'd make a lot more sense to put on frumpy sweatpants or PJ's to be as comfy as possible. Party clothes, dress up clothes, seems like quite a stretch for this reasoning, unless she was wearing a different fancy outfit that day, and then I would concede it would appear like she did indeed go to bed and sleep and get ready in the morning.

This isn't the big problem, though, like I said. It doesn't look great, but it's not the main problem. It's mostly that there isn't enough evidence of an intruder that can't be easily explained by other means. If the IDI's can provide better intruder evidence I'd be willing to hear it and think about it.

I’m a little curious as to how much intruder evidence you think is required, and how you arrived at this amount. This is a genuine interest and a sincere question. Because, I think that a very careful and mindful person could commit a crime like this and leave behind even less intruder evidence than we see in this case (ex: DNA, hairs, fibers, handwriting).

How many fibers should we expect to find? How many hairs? How many prints? How much DNA? Is it possible for someone to leave only a little? Sometimes, maybe even virtually none? Because the answer is, Yes.

IDI is many-sided, I think. One side is simply your old-fashioned presumed innocent and the RDI failure to disprove. I know this isn’t a court of law, and we’re just a bunch of people talking, but the principle of presumption (that which must be disproved; that which is assumed to be true because it usually is true; ex. People usually don’t kill) should still guide us in our speculation. It gives us a starting point, at least.

If one claims that RDI is true, then the burden of proof is upon them. If they fail (they have), then the default position is IDI, simply because of presumption.
…

AK

 

[aussiesheila2]

AND it took nearly ten years worth of advancement in DNA testing methods just to GET to 10! I find it incredible that people can blithely claim that it matches the tDNA, when, by definition, partial DNA profiles can't match anything.

SuperDave, while there need to be 13 markers for acceptance into the FBI Offender database, only 10 markers are needed to get a sample accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database. Being the prolific writer that you are on the subject, I am really surprised that you do not seem to be aware of such a simple fact.

The 10 marker profile obtained from JonBenet's panties, which by the way was NOT touchDNA, was sufficient to be accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database and can in no way be considered to be a partial profile.


From the FBI factsheet: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

"Q: What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?
A: The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the 13 CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles. The 13 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin are required for relatives of missing person profiles.

All 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted for other specimen categories with the following limited exceptions:

For forensic DNA profiles, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted but at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission to and searching at NDIS.
For Missing Person and Unidentified Human Remains, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted."




It might interest you to know that in the UK and in much of Europe only 10 markers are required for their databases. So it would seem that most of Europe and the UK are happy to match only 10 marker profiles. Maybe you should write to them and tell them it isn’t possible and try explaining why.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Butler_coreSTRloci_JFS_Mar2006.pdf

The 13 CODIS loci used in the U.S. are CSF1PO, FGA, TH01, TPOX, VWA, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, and D21S11 (7). The U.K. and much of Europe utilize 10 core loci that include the additional markers D2S1338 and D19S433 along with eight overlapping loci FGA, TH01, VWA, D3S1358, D8S1179, D16S539, D18S51, and D21S11.

 

[andreww]

.

The 10 marker profile obtained from JonBenet's panties, which by the way was NOT touchDNA, was sufficient to be accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database and can in no way be considered to be a partial profile.

.

Didn't you mean to say the nine marker profile obtained from Jonbenet's panties that was later artificially enhanced to meet the minimum standard? IDIs have a habit of leaving that part out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

SuperDave, while there need to be 13 markers for acceptance into the FBI Offender database, only 10 markers are needed to get a sample accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database. Being the prolific writer that you are on the subject, I am really surprised that you do not seem to be aware of such a simple fact.

The 10 marker profile obtained from JonBenet's panties, which by the way was NOT touchDNA, was sufficient to be accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database and can in no way be considered to be a partial profile.


From the FBI factsheet: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

"Q: What are the minimum loci requirements for the STR DNA data submitted to NDIS?
A: The minimum CODIS Core Loci required for submission of DNA data to NDIS vary by specimen category. Generally, the 13 CODIS Core Loci are required for submission of convicted offender, arrestee, detainee, and legal profiles. The 13 CODIS Core Loci and Amelogenin are required for relatives of missing person profiles.

All 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted for other specimen categories with the following limited exceptions:

For forensic DNA profiles, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted but at least 10 CODIS Core Loci must have generated results for submission to and searching at NDIS.
For Missing Person and Unidentified Human Remains, all 13 CODIS Core Loci must be attempted."




It might interest you to know that in the UK and in much of Europe only 10 markers are required for their databases. So it would seem that most of Europe and the UK are happy to match only 10 marker profiles. Maybe you should write to them and tell them it isn’t possible and try explaining why.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Butler_coreSTRloci_JFS_Mar2006.pdf

The 13 CODIS loci used in the U.S. are CSF1PO, FGA, TH01, TPOX, VWA, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, and D21S11 (7). The U.K. and much of Europe utilize 10 core loci that include the additional markers D2S1338 and D19S433 along with eight overlapping loci FGA, TH01, VWA, D3S1358, D8S1179, D16S539, D18S51, and D21S11.

aussiesheila2,

The 10 marker profile obtained from JonBenet's panties, which by the way was NOT touchDNA, was sufficient to be accepted into the Forensic (crime scene) database and can in no way be considered to be a partial profile.

BBM: What type were the cells that contained the DNA and please cite an official reference for this information.

.

 

[andreww]

I’m a little curious as to how much intruder evidence you think is required, and how you arrived at this amount. This is a genuine interest and a sincere question. Because, I think that a very careful and mindful person could commit a crime like this and leave behind even less intruder evidence than we see in this case (ex: DNA, hairs, fibers, handwriting).

How many fibers should we expect to find? How many hairs? How many prints? How much DNA? Is it possible for someone to leave only a little? Sometimes, maybe even virtually none? Because the answer is, Yes.

IDI is many-sided, I think. One side is simply your old-fashioned presumed innocent and the RDI failure to disprove. I know this isn’t a court of law, and we’re just a bunch of people talking, but the principle of presumption (that which must be disproved; that which is assumed to be true because it usually is true; ex. People usually don’t kill) should still guide us in our speculation. It gives us a starting point, at least.

If one claims that RDI is true, then the burden of proof is upon them. If they fail (they have), then the default position is IDI, simply because of presumption.
…

AK

Jeez, you are just so full of it with your BS about unidentified DNA. You give the impression that any given area of a house is pristine until a crime happens. I guarantee you that each and every one of us is carrying unidentifiable DNA on us right now. You know it and I know it. Your carpet,!your couch and your bathroom likely have hundreds of pieces of unidentifiable DNA, fibers or hairs. Are you suggesting that no murders be solved until every f-ing fragment of evidence is traced to its owner??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

It has never been done. Thomas tried and failed in spectacular fashion; destroyed by his own deposition. Kolar didn’t even try. He hinted, but he did not show us. RDI cannot even agree amongst themselves.
…

AK

More BS from you. It has been proved 10 times over that "a" Ramsey was responsible for this crime. The fact that the three of them are colluding to keep LE from discovering which one does not hide that fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Hi Ellie9,

Not all the stuff used was found in the house. The cord and the tape has never been traced.

Items were removed from the house but items that could be traced to the house were intentionally and unnecessarily used and left for investigators to find (they handed them the notepad!).

If the Ramseys were to dispose of evidence, it would have been evidence that could connect them to the crime. Like the broken end of the paintbrush, and the notepad, maybe the pen. Better yet, if they were so concerned, they wouldn’t have used either item.

However, an intruder – this has and does happen – can use anything that he finds on site. As long as he brings what he cannot be without (tape? Cord? Flashlight?) and knows how to improvise, he’d be fine. And, there is an advantage to using materials found on-site: they canlt be traced back to you!
…

AK

Did he bring a flashlight? Because if he did it's a huge coincidence that it was exactly the same as the one the Ramsey's kept in the drawer that was found wide open with no flashlight in it.

As for the duct tape, you still haven't explained why they would use duct tape to cover the mouth of an unconscious or dead child.

And the cord? The bindings on her wrists were so loose that they were ineffective.

The point being that none of these things were actually required, or used as they would have been required. If duct tape was needed to keep her quite, it would make sense for an intruder to put it across her mouth as she slept. But we know that didn't happen. Similarly, bindings would not be required to restrain a six year old girl. Gag her, grab her and get out the back door is how an abduction would happen. But doh, he hadn't even written the ransom note yet!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

You need to listen to her interview agan on pg.77, she even insinuates that he might do harm to people in the house when she says she grabbed her shoulder holster because "she didn't know if everyone would be alive at the end of the day after her non-verbal encounter with JR".

She's a nutwad!

Put it this way. You have been in a house all day with with people that are acting abnormally, under the pretence of a kidnapping. There are maybe a dozen people and you are there alone. Then the kidnapping victim turns up dead and those same people are acting even more creepy. You don't mean to tell me that it wouldn't cross your mind that one of these creepy people wasn't the killer? Especially the one that just told you it was an inside job and gave you the evil eye?

And hit wasn't just Arndt, every cop that worked on that case believed it was the Ramseys that did it.

 

[andreww]

It was Christmas time. There was wrapping paper, and envelopes and cards and packaging and all kinds of stuff laying about. It would have been easy to find something unidentifiable and scribble a line or two on it: NO coPs. wwaiT 4 CalL. $$$ Better yet! Write it on the wall.
…

AK

Or they could have written the note in advance.

But you and I both know this was never a kidnapping right?

 

[InstantProof]

It was Christmas time. There was wrapping paper, and envelopes and cards and packaging and all kinds of stuff laying about. It would have been easy to find something unidentifiable and scribble a line or two on it: NO coPs. wwaiT 4 CalL. $$$ Better yet! Write it on the wall.
…

AK

The letter isn't meant to be written inside the house on spur of the moment, though. Why would evil foreign faction kidnappers write a 3 page ransom note on a scrap piece of paper, a discarded envelope, or the back of Christmas paper? How would the R's know whos prints could be found on these items? The unused pages inside a pad are unlikely to have ever been touched. Besides discarded items having probably been touched, and no need for a kidnapper to write on them, I'm thinking most of these items could just as easily be traced back to the house anyway. As for the length of the letter- someone felt it needed to be that way. To be more convincing of a kidnapping, to repeat the lie til it's true, is my guess.

 

[andreww]

The letter had one purpose and one purpose only, to get the cops into the house without immediate suspicion being cast on the parents. They wanted to entrench themselves as victims, although they knew full well that they would be considered suspects.

The Ramsey's plan was not rocket science. There was one person responsible, but because all three suspects lived there, forensic evidence would have very little weight as it could be easily explained. Once the crime was committed, gloves were worn to eliminate any further print or TDNA evidence.

Part 2 of the plan was to diminish the value of the physical evidence. This was accomplished by manufacturing false evidence or "staging". Not only does this confuse LE but it puts the Ramsey's at an advantage because they know what is and what isn't fact.

Part 3 of the plan was that all three of them stuck to a very simple story. We got home, JBR was put directly to bed, then we all went to bed. When we woke up she was gone. The whole thing is kept that simple because it becomes easier to keep three stories straight. You will notice that Burkes participation is ended the second he walks in the front door. Convenient right? The weakest link has to remember nothing except that JBR was carried upstairs, and he even screwed that up.

So in my opinion arguing about whether JBR walked up the stairs or was carried is an utterly useless waste of time. I believe JBR was awake when they arrived home. I don't believe she went straight to bed, and I believe there was a lot more interaction between all four Ramsey's. I believe that it was decided that all events of that evening would be erased and replaced with the simplistic, easy to remember version.

The mistake LE made was that they assumed that the Ramsey's lied about parts of their stories, but they never considered that they would lie about every single aspect of their story. They failed to think outside the box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk