Well hopefully nothing ever happens to anyone I know, while Im home sleeping. I will have to make sure I am hysterically distraught, cooperate with the police even if they start treating me as a suspect and I should not get a lawyer, because the whole world will think Im guilty. I love how people say she didnt act like a mother who had just lost her child... how are you supposed to act? Everyone is different and no two people are going to react the same way, espeically in public. Some people like myself are very private people and do not show emotion infront of strangers. I mean she had no motive to kill her child. No history of abuse toward her children. JonBenet wet the bed, as she had done many times before why would she kill her that night on Christmas Eve. And Ive heard people say maybe John was molesting Jonbenet and she was jealous... oh my god! Where is the evidence of that? Its ridiculous! There is no evidence what so ever that JOhn or Patsy killed JB. Only substantial piece of evidence at all is the letter and the DNA. There probably would have been more evidence had the police searched the home and found JB and secured the residence but as you know they did not do either. Its a sad and disturbing case that I hope one day gets solved, but I really doubt it will ever happen.
Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll
- Thread starter newtv
- Start date
- Status
as long as this case is open, man hours, money, etc... are being spent on it. They need to solve it so they can say' CASE CLOSED'. Also, from what I've read, it sounds like Jon Benet was pretty miserable, towards the end. & then this miserable death, with her parents acting like well, I don't know what, & that little girl's face plastered all over the tabloids. What a crummy way to be remembered. Somebody in that family or in a position of power needs to stand up for her. Too heck with John Ramsey. This should be about Jon Benet.
You need to read the autopsy and the deposition of Det. Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy. There was evidence of sexual abuse. While it can't be proven it was her father, it had to be someone with regular, private access to her and as someone who fits that description, he COULD have been molesting her. Again- it is the OPINION of some people discussing the crime.
The crime wasn't committed on Chistmas Eve, BTW. It was Christmas night, after the family returned from a Christmas Day dinner party.
There needn't be a motive. Plenty of murders are committed without one. In court, a motive is not necessary to convict someone of murder. This could have been an unintended result of an extreme outburst of temper (if it was Patsy) or JB could have been bashed on the head after she screamed. While that skull fracture is horrible, the blow that inflicted it need not have been intended to kill her.
No one is suggesting these parents did not love their child.
The fibers belonging to clothing the parents wore THAT DAY were found on items specific to the crime, i.e. the garrote knot, tape from her mouth and inside the crotch of panties that didn't belong to her.
It is true that no one knows how they would react to such a tragedy. But we do know how THEY reacted. With silence and defensiveness, where there should have been openness and cooperation. In ANY case where a child is missing and found dead in their own home (and sometimes elsewhere) the parents must be considered the first suspects. After they are cleared, LE looks outward. This is especially true when the parent actually finds the child dead in the home and when the death is proven (by autopsy) to have happened while they were home. Other parents in this circumstance have cooperated and the real killers found.
To say that the Rs can't be blamed for clamming up when they realized they were suspects is ridiculous. That is when they should have been at their most cooperative.
And one person clearing them when the killer has not been identified doesn't mean they are cleared. All that was is ML flapping her lips. NO one working on the case today (including the new DA) considers the Rs (or ANY other suspect) cleared. Because the FACT is that until you know who DID kill JB, you can't be certain who DIDN'T.
DeeDee249,
Well I reckon they know that BR knows what happened. He was there when JonBenet walked into the house, he was there when JonBenet ate her pineapple, so could he have been there prior to her death?
Either BR was party to events leading up to JonBenet's death, or he knows where the skeletons are buried. e.g. the police must have evidence implicating him otherwise there is no need to put questions to him, else they could just do a long-distance telephone interview?
I think there is sealed circumstantial evidence pointing to prior molestation!
.
.
We know there was prior molestation. Some of her injuries could not have happened at the time of her death (the bruising, for one- that takes some time to form, as well as the abrasions (erosion) of the hymen. However, keep in mind "prior" need not have been long before. If she was molested on the 23rd at the R party, the evidence would be there three days later and that would be "prior". So would any injury happening earlier that day. "Prior" and "chronic" simply mean NOT at the time she was killed.
The police know full well that, evidence or not implicating him, they cannot arrest or even accuse BR for this crime. Even if they think he molested her but didn't kill her, they still can't accuse him because he was under 10 at the time. Whether or not the police have any new evidence or new knowledge or whether they want to go over past testimony with him, BR still doesn't have to cooperate. It's been 14 years. The parents claimed not to remember MONTHS after the crime. Don't you think that would be BR's answer to every question?
Let's say the police DO talk to him. Let's suppose they show evidence that he was awake during the time she was killed. What can they do with this? BR can't be charged, so all they can do is appeal to his sense of honesty and his wanting justice for his sister to tell them what they want to know, IF he knows anything. As his behavior right after the death of his sister indicates he wasn't too upset about it (smiling and clutching his new Nintendo, he went off to the White's that morning, seemingly without a care in the world). Never asked about his sister again. If he was awake, and heard the crying and commotion that night, (and this seems to be the accepted idea now) he didn't seem too disturbed by it, saying at the time the was disappointed to figure out that they weren't going on the planned trip.
We don't know what the police have in mind for BR. And with LW as his lawyer, we will never know. IF BR knows nothing or has no incriminating information, why NOT allow him to talk to police? Well, if you read Patsy's interviews with LW present, you'd see why not. There were many questions LW wouldn't allow Patsy to answer. A good defense attorney knows when his clients will incriminate themselves, and he'll stop it from happening. An innocent person should be able to answer every question LE has. A person who KNOWS who the guilty people are won't want to talk to LE whether or not they are guilty themselves IF the guilty person(s) are people he does not wish to blame.
DeeDee249,
Sure I agree. By prior I mean more than once preceding her death. I reckon the whole rationale behind the staging and restaging of JonBenet's crime-scene is to hide and obscure any signs of prior molestation.
Probably, but not if someone else has implicated him with some event(s) prior to or on the day of JonBenet's death?
LW is citing BR as a witness. So I reckon that means witness to some events either in the house that night/morning or prior to it e.g. the party etc?
.
I think we all feel BR knows SOMETHING. He saw and heard SOMETHING. And some of what he saw/heard involves his parents. At the very least, I think they want to ask him about his presence during the 911 call. They may be prepared to play it for him, allowing him to hear himself on the tape. Of course LW may pipe up with that it wasn't him. But in view of the fact that is IS Patsy and JR and a third (child's) voice, I'd be probing LW to say how this was possible and if he has knowledge of any child OTHER than BR present during the 911 call.
DeeDee249,
Sure, its ether the 911 call or his statement about JonBenet walking into the house and him attending the pineapple snack?
.
With the exception of voice analysis, it can't be proven the 911 child's voice was BR's, but in view of the fact that JB was not present (which is why the call was made), I can't see how his lawyers can say it wasn't him. There are simply no other options. Now, if they want to say it was a child OTHER than BR they'd have to say who it might have been. I assume they would not be so stupid as to suggest the intruder was a child who was present for the 911 call and spoke to the parents. They could suggest it was a child OTHER than BR who was at the R house that night. And as this was something that was not disclosed at the time, I'd be highly suspicious of why it wasn't.
You'll be in awfully good company. You just described what all of these other tragic parents did and the Rs did not do.
Those considerations might count for something if we were talking premeditated murder.
One thinks of the old axiom about the camel's back.
It's happened before.
Is it? As for where the evidence of it is, the good folks around here will be happy to go over it for you.
Oh, NO?? How much time have you got?
Give me a break.
sogren
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 11
I used to think the Ramseys were innocent too, until I read different theories here and elsewhere, Steve Thomas' book, and other sources. The evidence against the Ramseys is too great. For starters, the pineapple, the fibers from Patsy's jacket, the pull-up diapers, John's changing stories (I read to my children, I didn't read to my children, JonBenet was asleep and so forth), the 9-1-1 call with Burke's voice (while I did not hear an enhanced version, I can hear him on the end of the call, I had to "crank" it tho.) Also the Ramseys "lawyering up" and trying to make a get-away of sorts to Atlanta that very day. Kinda like O.J. and the bronco chase 
minazoe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,665
- Reaction score
- 18,721
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?
I find some sort of weird parallel to the case of Leopold and Loeb. Two very young , wealthy, homosexual college students who kidnapped a young boy for the thrill of commiting a kidnapping. They immediatley murdered the boy and then delivered a ransom note theat they composed the previous night.
There was also a sexual element to the crime. My point is that everything was planned and staged from the beginning, including where they would hide the body.
Also have any similar murders occured anywhere in the country since?
Two highly educated and privilledged young men, playing a pyscopathic game for fun.
When I apply this to the Ramsey case, I feel like something like this convoluted case mat have occured too.
but upon reflection I also feel that unless they can tell us what the source of the DNA is then how can they exclude any suspect based on that evidence alone, from some stray pair of underpants.
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?
I find some sort of weird parallel to the case of Leopold and Loeb. Two very young , wealthy, homosexual college students who kidnapped a young boy for the thrill of commiting a kidnapping. They immediatley murdered the boy and then delivered a ransom note theat they composed the previous night.
There was also a sexual element to the crime. My point is that everything was planned and staged from the beginning, including where they would hide the body.
Also have any similar murders occured anywhere in the country since?
Two highly educated and privilledged young men, playing a pyscopathic game for fun.
When I apply this to the Ramsey case, I feel like something like this convoluted case mat have occured too.
but upon reflection I also feel that unless they can tell us what the source of the DNA is then how can they exclude any suspect based on that evidence alone, from some stray pair of underpants.
NONE. Not even remotely similar. If that's not a smoking gun, it's definitely hot to the touch.
:clap:
minazoe,
The source could be anyone!
It could be touch-dna transferred at manufacture. Or it may have been transferred during the autopsy. Alternatively it may have been transferred from the wrapper of the size-12's to the person who redressed JonBenet thus explaining why it is on the longjohns.
Without a match it remains unidentified and of no use evidentially. You cannot even build a theory on it since with so many options, it is ambiguous, and open to interpretation, just as the IDI have done.
I reckon it is not semen since that would make the IDI a good bet, its probably some random shedded skin cells?
.
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 32,099
- Reaction score
- 8,213
I would EXPECT to be the number one suspect. They always start with the parents. The quicker the parents can be eliminated the quicker the focus can shift, and the full force of LE dedicated when it needs to be.
I would be screaming for a polygraph, be interviewed till I was hoarse, I would be available and cooperative if I was truly interested in finding the murdering intruder. I would be badgering LE!
CathyR
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 9
If ever questioned about a crime beyond a misdemeanor my advice to ANYONE is get a lawyer.
Police do not always tape record the interviews they conduct. With a lawyer present taking notes and most likely recording the interview you are more likely than not to have an accurate record of the interview.
Police can lie to a person in order to get a confession, with lawyers present no such game playing can be used.
Getting a lawyer may make you look bad in the court of public opinion but in a true court of justice you will be far better off if you lawyered up early on.
In cases of the wrongly convicted the majority of them could have been prevented if a lawyer for the accused was present at the police interviews.
Police do not always tape record the interviews they conduct. With a lawyer present taking notes and most likely recording the interview you are more likely than not to have an accurate record of the interview.
Police can lie to a person in order to get a confession, with lawyers present no such game playing can be used.
Getting a lawyer may make you look bad in the court of public opinion but in a true court of justice you will be far better off if you lawyered up early on.
In cases of the wrongly convicted the majority of them could have been prevented if a lawyer for the accused was present at the police interviews.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,876
- Reaction score
- 24,351
I strongly disagree! I have nothing to hide, and if I am innocent, I do NOT need a lawyer, and FYI, my brother is a lawyer!!!
IIRC, the DNA found on the panties themselves were examined before touch DNA was able to be used. They found another DNA profile when examining a spot of blood. A PARTIAL DNA marker, not a full one. 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. The DNA present at that time would have to be more than a few cells. Saliva, a sneeze that left a droplet, etc.
The DNA on the waistband was found many years later using touch DNA- very prone to error. We're talking only a few cells, as small as 20 cells. 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.
I welcome any corrections
o/t: I was reading about Clarence Darrow and stumbled across the Leopold and Loeb case. Fascinatingly horrible that the murder of a child was caused by making up a game about committing the perfect crime. brrrr. Sociopaths.
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.
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.
- Status