Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

To all you IDIs, one question.

That morning on December 26, there had to be two questions going through John Ramsey's mind. "Where is my daughter?" and "how did these people get in and out of my house?" So John goes by himself into the basement and finds two things; an unlatched and ajar window, and a suitcase that he would later immediately say "didn't belong there".

Did John tell the detectives that he had possibly found a point of entry or exit? Did he even mention that something was out of place? NO! In fact he claims that he shut the window and latched it.

My question is why? What possible reason would John have for not mentioning these things?

Are you hearing what I am saying here? This is not based on expert opinion or subjective science. These are the documented actions and statements of a man who is both a witness and a suspect.

Some of you moan about LEs rush to judgment in this case, but if you actually take the time to examine what we know to be fact, you will see that there are many many things that point straight to the Ramsey's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

To all you IDIs, one question.

That morning on December 26, there had to be two questions going through John Ramsey's mind. "Where is my daughter?" and "how did these people get in and out of my house?" So John goes by himself into the basement and finds two things; an unlatched and ajar window, and a suitcase that he would later immediately say "didn't belong there".

Did John tell the detectives that he had possibly found a point of entry or exit? Did he even mention that something was out of place? NO! In fact he claims that he shut the window and latched it.

My question is why? What possible reason would John have for not mentioning these things?

Are you hearing what I am saying here? This is not based on expert opinion or subjective science. These are the documented actions and statements of a man who is both a witness and a suspect.

Some of you moan about LEs rush to judgment in this case, but if you actually take the time to examine what we know to be fact, you will see that there are many many things that point straight to the Ramsey's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, he found three things:

1. An unlatched and ajar window
2. A suitcase he would say didn't belong there
3. JonBenet's body

 

[andreww]

No, he found three things:

1. An unlatched and ajar window
2. A suitcase he would say didn't belong there
3. JonBenet's body

Yes he did, but that was a little later.

Supposedly.


My take is that the suitcase was where it always was, the window was latched but still broken from the summer before.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

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

There is NO evidence that jbr was wearing any panties other than the over-size panties that she was found in. There is some speculation amongst some posters that her panties were changed at some point, but it is only speculation not supported by evidence.

There was tDNA on the exterior, hip area of both sided of the leggings (where someone would grab them to pull them up/down). This DNA is probably skin cells (dry). This DNA matches the sample found commingled in the victim’s blood, inside crotch of the panties that she was found wearing. This DNA (NOT tDNA) was probably saliva.

These 3 samples all match and probably came from the same person.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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

There is NO evidence that jbr was wearing any panties other than the over-size panties that she was found in. There is some speculation amongst some posters that her panties were changed at some point, but it is only speculation not supported by evidence.

There was tDNA on the exterior, hip area of both sided of the leggings (where someone would grab them to pull them up/down). This DNA is probably skin cells (dry). This DNA matches the sample found commingled in the victim’s blood, inside crotch of the panties that she was found wearing. This DNA (NOT tDNA) was probably saliva.

These 3 samples all match and probably came from the same person.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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

No, we don’t make up stories. Artificial enhancement is not a term that applies. However arrived at, however long it took, at the end of the day the sample has ten markers and that is how and why it is in CODIS.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

There is NO evidence that jbr was wearing any panties other than the over-size panties that she was found in. There is some speculation amongst some posters that her panties were changed at some point, but it is only speculation not supported by evidence.

There was tDNA on the exterior, hip area of both sided of the leggings (where someone would grab them to pull them up/down). This DNA is probably skin cells (dry). This DNA matches the sample found commingled in the victim’s blood, inside crotch of the panties that she was found wearing. This DNA (NOT tDNA) was probably saliva.

These 3 samples all match and probably came from the same person.
…

AK

So you won't deny the fact that if she wore the oversized panties to the Whites party there is a possibility that whilst she was sitting on the toilet, her underpants could have been sitting on the bathroom floor between her ankles, collecting whatever DNA that may have been sitting on the floor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

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

No, I have never given the impression that “any given area of a house is pristine until a crime happens” and I would never suggest that no murders be solved until every f-ing fragment of evidence is traced to its owner.” You just made that up.

My carpet, couch, etc may host a large array of trace evidence, but the vast majority of it is going to be trace evidence that will trace back to me and my home. But, we’re not talking about anyone’s carpet or couch, we’re talking about incriminating locations on a murder victim.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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

I am not aware of any “drawer that was found wide open with no flashlight in it.” Possibly, you made that up, too?

As for the flashlight found, it has not been shown to have been used in the crime, or to be related to the crime. Speculation abounds, but nothing it really know. Thomas thought it had been left by a police officer; Kolar thinks it was Mr Ramsey’s.
.

IMO, the tape and the writs ligature and the ransom note are all part of a single picture: fake kidnapping. I’ve argued this point a million times.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Oh, I’m sure they could have found something amongst all that trash that Christmas trash that they could have been used that would have been very difficult to trace back to them. The point here is that RDI often say that the Ramseys had no choice but to use that notepad, I am simply pointing out that that isn’t true. Choices were everywhere.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So you won't deny the fact that if she wore the oversized panties to the Whites party there is a possibility that whilst she was sitting on the toilet, her underpants could have been sitting on the bathroom floor between her ankles, collecting whatever DNA that may have been sitting on the floor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I laugh at the possibility as you are suggesting it. It’s ridiculous.
…

AK

 

[BOESP]

Actually, I laugh at the possibility as you are suggesting it. It’s ridiculous.
…

AK

Unless you are a female (especially a six-year-old female), or a male who has tried this, you might want to think about the accuracy of your above statement.

 

[TexasTuff]

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.

it'd make a lot more sense to put on frumpy sweatpants or PJ's

:laughJ's? You can't be serious. Frumpy wasn't Patsy's style.

Party clothes, dress up clothes

She was wearing a red sweater and black pants, hardly party or dress up.

 

[TexasTuff]

Why hasn't the housekeeper seriously looked at? Patsy had loaned her $2,000. shortly before Christmas so she could pay her rent. Her husband was a drunk that when he did work worked construction. They didn't have two sticks to rub together it sounds like, and she had access to everything in the Ramsey house.

 

[andreww]

:laughJ's? You can't be serious. Frumpy wasn't Patsy's style.




She was wearing a red sweater and black pants, hardly party or dress up.

Well close friends of Patsy admitted that she would NEVER wear the same clothes two days in a row. In fact it was said she had the habit of simply changing clothes multiple times within the same say for no apparent reason. Yet she wore the same outfit twice on THAT day. The coincidences keep coming with the Ramseys.

 

[andreww]

Unless you are a female (especially a six-year-old female), or a male who has tried this, you might want to think about the accuracy of your above statement.

Especially when the panties are three sizes too big.

 

[andreww]

Actually, I laugh at the possibility as you are suggesting it. It’s ridiculous.
…

AK

Of course you do. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

 

[andreww]

No, I have never given the impression that “any given area of a house is pristine until a crime happens” and I would never suggest that no murders be solved until every f-ing fragment of evidence is traced to its owner.” You just made that up.

My carpet, couch, etc may host a large array of trace evidence, but the vast majority of it is going to be trace evidence that will trace back to me and my home. But, we’re not talking about anyone’s carpet or couch, we’re talking about incriminating locations on a murder victim.
…

AK

If the victim came in to contact with your couch carpet or floor, there is a potential for transfer.

 

[andreww]

Why hasn't the housekeeper seriously looked at? Patsy had loaned her $2,000. shortly before Christmas so she could pay her rent. Her husband was a drunk that when he did work worked construction. They didn't have two sticks to rub together it sounds like, and she had access to everything in the Ramsey house.

Seriously? The housekeeper was looked at, simply because she was the first in a long line that was thrown under the bus by the Ramsey's . That woman broke down at the news of JBRs death, stood up for the Ramseys, and they never had the decency to even call her and tell her that her services were no longer required. Salt of the earth those Ramsey's.

 

[TexasTuff]

Well close friends of Patsy admitted that she would NEVER wear the same clothes two days in a row. In fact it was said she had the habit of simply changing clothes multiple times within the same say for no apparent reason. Yet she wore the same outfit twice on THAT day. The coincidences keep coming with the Ramseys.

It was the hectic holiday season not an average day.