20/20 Special - The List: Who Killed Jonbenet? on 15 Jan 2021

icedtea4me

Thank you for providing the autopsy data. Dr. Wecht, who proposed that the strangulation occurred first, stated that there was only a teaspoon or so of blood from the head wound, which indicated she was dead when struck. I was not able to determine if this were true from the autopsy data.

While I can see how the head blow could be staging for the strangulation, it's more difficult for me if the other way around, i.e., the WC scene as staging for the head blow. The blow and the strangling were not simultaneous. Whoever garroted JB knew that she was dead at their hands. If the blow came first, that person would seem not to have been sure if she had in fact passed away. After an interval, to be sure she was dead, JB was strangled and the WC scene arranged. Maybe?

In any case, the time gap between the two means of lethality is yet another imponderable.
 
icedtea4me

Thank you for providing the autopsy data. Dr. Wecht, who proposed that the strangulation occurred first, stated that there was only a teaspoon or so of blood from the head wound, which indicated she was dead when struck. I was not able to determine if this were true from the autopsy data.

While I can see how the head blow could be staging for the strangulation, it's more difficult for me if the other way around, i.e., the WC scene as staging for the head blow. The blow and the strangling were not simultaneous. Whoever garroted JB knew that she was dead at their hands. If the blow came first, that person would seem not to have been sure if she had in fact passed away. After an interval, to be sure she was dead, JB was strangled and the WC scene arranged. Maybe?

In any case, the time gap between the two means of lethality is yet another imponderable.

proust20,
it's more difficult for me if the other way around, i.e., the WC scene as staging for the head blow.
Not really, just assume the head blow as a visible means of death failed?

Apparently some ME think JonBenet was alive after being asphyxiated, i.e. in a coma, for a short period of time.

The asphyxiation might have been as the result of a choke hold, resulting in coma.

All hinges on whether you think JonBenet was still alive after the head blow?

So it might have gone like this:

1. Sexual Assault
2. Choke Hold
3. Head Blow
4. Ligature Asphyxiation

If all you have is a Sexual Assault and a Head Blow then how do you move from 1. to 3. ?

What is the rationale?

1. then 4. is self explanatory.

.
 
proust20,

Not really, just assume the head blow as a visible means of death failed?

Apparently some ME think JonBenet was alive after being asphyxiated, i.e. in a coma, for a short period of time.

The asphyxiation might have been as the result of a choke hold, resulting in coma.

All hinges on whether you think JonBenet was still alive after the head blow?

So it might have gone like this:

1. Sexual Assault
2. Choke Hold
3. Head Blow
4. Ligature Asphyxiation

If all you have is a Sexual Assault and a Head Blow then how do you move from 1. to 3. ?

What is the rationale?

1. then 4. is self explanatory.

.
It’s much easier for me to imagine an angry person grabbing a nearby object and whacking her on the head with it, thinking she was dead (or dying) and staging the sexual assault than the other way around. Strangulation could have been part of the staging not realizing she was still alive. Or if the stager (suddenly?) realized she was still alive they may have strangled her for self-preservation now that she had signs of sexual assault. Or perhaps they strangled her to end her suffering.

Strangulation w/a device rather than bare hands is pre-meditated, not the result of an angry outburst. And a sexual assault done w/an inanimate object (paintbrush handle) and no significant DNA left behind is inconsistent w/any sexually motivated act.

Some contend a person who’d been habitually abusing JB lost control that night. I don’t think so. It’s debatable whether JB showed signs of previous sexual assault at all. To me it’s unlikely her pediatrician, who’s trained to recognize physical abuse, covered up a potential sexual assault. Far more likely those “signs of abuse” were actually just run of the mill things that little girls sometimes present with, just as her doctor thought. But even if she had been sexually abused before there’s nothing to suggest prior assaults were sadistically violent. Would an abuser suddenly become sadistic and violent after a busy Christmas Day? Hours before leaving town on a family trip? Very unlikely!

Facts and common sense alike indicate no one took JB to the basement w/the intent of sexually assaulting and strangling her. Not an intruder (they would have removed her from the home first) and not a family member. Which means the “sexual assault” was done for staging purposes. Why stage a sexual assault and strangulation murder if not to cover up the real cause of death or motive for murder?

The whack on the head came first.
 
Last edited:
It’s much easier for me to imagine an angry person grabbing a nearby object and whacking her on the head with it, thinking she was dead (or dying) and staging the sexual assault than the other way around. Strangulation could have been part of the staging not realizing she was still alive. Or if the stager (suddenly?) realized she was still alive they may have strangled her for self-preservation now that she had signs of sexual assault. Or perhaps they strangled her to end her suffering.

Strangulation w/a device rather than bare hands is pre-meditated, not the result of an angry outburst. And a sexual assault done w/an inanimate object (paintbrush handle) and no significant DNA left behind is inconsistent w/any sexually motivated act.

Some contend a person who’d been habitually abusing JB lost control that night. I don’t think so. It’s debatable whether JB showed signs of previous sexual assault at all. To me it’s unlikely her pediatrician, who’s trained to recognize physical abuse, covered up a potential sexual assault. Far more likely those “signs of abuse” were actually just run of the mill things that little girls sometimes present with, just as her doctor thought. But even if she had been sexually abused before there’s nothing to suggest prior assaults were sadistically violent. Would an abuser suddenly become sadistic and violent after a busy Christmas Day? Hours before leaving town on a family trip? Very unlikely!

Facts and common sense alike indicate no one took JB to the basement w/the intent of sexually assaulting and strangling her. Not an intruder (they would have removed her from the home first) and not a family member. Which means the “sexual assault” was done for staging purposes. Why stage a sexual assault and strangulation murder if not to cover up the real cause of death or motive for murder?

The whack on the head came first.


Colorado303
Thanks for replying, you have obviously given the subject some thought.

It’s much easier for me to imagine an angry person grabbing a nearby object and whacking her on the head with it, thinking she was dead (or dying) and staging the sexual assault than the other way around. Strangulation could have been part of the staging not realizing she was still alive. Or if the stager (suddenly?) realized she was still alive they may have strangled her for self-preservation now that she had signs of sexual assault. Or perhaps they strangled her to end her suffering.
Yes, some folks think this, e.g. PDI and Patsy enraged JonBenet has wet the bed. All the rest being staging.

The flaw in this scenario is all the forensic evidence left behind by Patsy in and outside the wine-cellar, e.g. fibers, paint-tote, etc.

Patsy can be linked directly to JonBenet in the wine-cellar and no where else, otherwise JonBenet left in her bedroom would not have this problem.

Strangulation w/a device rather than bare hands is pre-meditated, not the result of an angry outburst.
Agreed.

And a sexual assault done w/an inanimate object (paintbrush handle) and no significant DNA left behind is inconsistent w/any sexually motivated act.
Not quite, as some perpetrators are sadistic, or have a fetish, e.g. Coprophilia an Arousal to feces.

Would an abuser suddenly become sadistic and violent after a busy Christmas Day? Hours before leaving town on a family trip? Very unlikely!
Not unless the victim complained and threatened disclosure?


Facts and common sense alike indicate no one took JB to the basement w/the intent of sexually assaulting and strangling her. Not an intruder (they would have removed her from the home first) and not a family member.
I agree. The basement was cold, drafty, dank, dark and damp, not a suitable place for anyone to abuse JonBenet, particularly with warm, secure lockable bedrooms upstairs.

Which means the “sexual assault” was done for staging purposes. Why stage a sexual assault and strangulation murder if not to cover up the real cause of death or motive for murder?
So why wipe down JonBenet, thereby removing genital blood, see Coroner Meyer's report, change her underwear and add long johns, if the intention is to signal a sexual assault?

Is the case a Sexual Homicide? Consider using the definition of Ressler et al. (1988) which include the crime having at least one of the six criteria: exposure of victim's sexual parts, victim attire or lack thereof, object insertion, sexual positions, sexual penetration, evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest, or sadistic fantasy.

BBM above, by me, suggest JonBenet's death was a Sexual Homicide, but it possibly does not fit the classical definition if you assume the parents did most of the staging?

Two separate ME's examined JonBenet on the 27th December 1996, Dr. Meyer and Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team. With Dr. Sirontak confirming Dr.Meyer's earlier opinion.

Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt
Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét. He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.

Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.

Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical examiners.

.
 
I don’t believe Patsy is the one that hurt JB. I don’t think she was involved until after the whack on the head, at which point she took care of the staging. The details of which were likely inspired by episodes of Criminal Minds she remembered, or something similar.

To me, that’s the scenario that best matches the facts as we know them. And as I said before, some parents would do absolutely anything to protect their remaining child. And I believe Patsy was one of them.

I lean towards Patsy rather than John. I wouldn’t be surprised if he woke up after the staging and quickly pieced together what happened. But he could have been the one to stage the cover-up. Either way, he’s certainly guilty of obstructing justice after the fact which seems to make no sense.

Then again, if I woke up to discover my young daughter was dead, my young son killed her and my spouse desecrated the child’s body to keep our son from getting in horrible trouble, I‘m not sure I know what I’d do.
 
I don’t believe Patsy is the one that hurt JB. I don’t think she was involved until after the whack on the head, at which point she took care of the staging. The details of which were likely inspired by episodes of Criminal Minds she remembered, or something similar.

To me, that’s the scenario that best matches the facts as we know them. And as I said before, some parents would do absolutely anything to protect their remaining child. And I believe Patsy was one of them.

I lean towards Patsy rather than John. I wouldn’t be surprised if he woke up after the staging and quickly pieced together what happened. But he could have been the one to stage the cover-up. Either way, he’s certainly guilty of obstructing justice after the fact which seems to make no sense.

Then again, if I woke up to discover my young daughter was dead, my young son killed her and my spouse desecrated the child’s body to keep our son from getting in horrible trouble, I‘m not sure I know what I’d do.

Colorado303,
Patsy's sweater fibers are embedded into the knotting of the ligature/paintbrush device. Some of her fibers were found on the underside of the duct-tape covering JonBenet's mouth.

They should not be there, period. Some think it was Patsy who asphyxiated JonBenet.

Fibers from John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt worn that day were found on JonBenet's gential region.

So the critical points here are Israeli manufactured, i.e. not American, so uncommon in the USA and the location of the fibers, again they should not be there!

Both John and Patsy Ramsey's fiber evidence cannot be explained away as cross-transfer, etc. Since the deposit locations are particular to the crime-scene.

Applying KISS or Occam principles it could reduce down to JDI with Patsy assisting?

This is how the Grand Jury saw it without the First Degree Homicide True Bills being published.

.
 
All hinges on whether you think JonBenet was still alive after the head blow?

So it might have gone like this:

1. Sexual Assault
2. Choke Hold
3. Head Blow
4. Ligature Asphyxiation

If all you have is a Sexual Assault and a Head Blow then how do you move from 1. to 3. ?

What is the rationale?

1. then 4. is self explanatory.

UKGuy,
I think it went down like this:
  1. Choke hold
  2. Head blow
  3. Sexual assault
  4. Ligature asphyxiation

  5. None of this is rationale IMO! How could they? We know this family is dysfunctional but this goes way beyond that.
I still recall after all these years reading in the beginning what JAR’s classmates thought about his opinion about JB. It wasn’t normal, it was bazaar to the point they didn’t want anything to do with him.

And yes JB was alive after the head blow but unconscious IMO.
 
UKGuy,
I think it went down like this:
  1. Choke hold
  2. Head blow
  3. Sexual assault
  4. Ligature asphyxiation

  5. None of this is rationale IMO! How could they? We know this family is dysfunctional but this goes way beyond that.
I still recall after all these years reading in the beginning what JAR’s classmates thought about his opinion about JB. It wasn’t normal, it was bazaar to the point they didn’t want anything to do with him.

And yes JB was alive after the head blow but unconscious IMO.

Rain on my Parade,
Yes it could be in that order. I reckon the Choke Hold put JonBenet into a coma.

Remember the blood on her pillow, that likely happened as JonBenet was being assaulted, either via her nose, mouth or genitals?

Corroboration might be the bloodstained Pink Barbie Nightgown, which might have issued from her nostrils, or mouth, or via the use of the paintbrush?

You also have to factor in that there is a bloodstain on the White Gap Top, so go figure.

It cannot be spatter as there is none elsewhere, needs verified.

You can see JonBenet's Pink Pajama Top in this photograph
002jonbenetbed.jpg


Her Pink Pajama Bottoms are missing as presumably is her size-6 Wednesday pair of Bloomingdale's, i.e. purchased by Patsy on her NY trip?

Anyone care to speculate why her Pink Pajama Bottoms are missing if she wore her Pink Barbie Nightgown to bed?

Burke Ramsey's touch-dna deposited on the Pink Barbie Nightgown can link him directly to the wine-cellar.

To date BPD have not released any reports stating no Burke Ramsey touch-dna was found deposited on the size-12 Bloomingdale's, inside or out.

Similarly for the long johns and the White Gap Top.

.
 
Colorado303,
Patsy's sweater fibers are embedded into the knotting of the ligature/paintbrush device. Some of her fibers were found on the underside of the duct-tape covering JonBenet's mouth.

They should not be there, period. Some think it was Patsy who asphyxiated JonBenet.

Fibers from John Ramsey's Israeli manufactured shirt worn that day were found on JonBenet's gential region.

So the critical points here are Israeli manufactured, i.e. not American, so uncommon in the USA and the location of the fibers, again they should not be there!

Both John and Patsy Ramsey's fiber evidence cannot be explained away as cross-transfer, etc. Since the deposit locations are particular to the crime-scene.

Applying KISS or Occam principles it could reduce down to JDI with Patsy assisting?

This is how the Grand Jury saw it without the First Degree Homicide True Bills being published.

.
I knew about Patsy’s fibers being found on the paintbrush but this is the first time I heard Jon’s shirt fibers were found in her genital region. Where did you see that info?
 
I knew about Patsy’s fibers being found on the paintbrush but this is the first time I heard Jon’s shirt fibers were found in her genital region. Where did you see that info?

Colorado303,


Atlanta 2000, John Ramsey Interview with BPD, Excerpt
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is

22 our belief based on forensic evidence that

23 there are hairs that are associated, that the

24 source is the collared black shirt that you

25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

1 underpants, and I wondered if you --

2 A. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬. I don't believe that.

3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to

4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --

5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to

6 disgrace --

7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I

8 think you are. That's disgusting.

...

23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder

24 investigation, and I am trying to get an

25 explanation, which can be an innocent

...

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Wool shirts, would

14 those normally go out to the cleaners or

15 would it depend? Even now, what is your

16 family practice?

17 A. Well, if it is a dry-cleaning

18 item, we'd normally send it directly to the

19 dry cleaners. Once in a while they get

20 thrown in by mistake, but particularly if it

21 is a shirt.

22 Q. Your dry-cleaning items, would you

23 just throw them down the chute and let Linda

24 sort them out, this is dry-cleaning, this

25 gets washed or would you separate them up

0066

1 front and keep them in a separate place, if

2 you recall?

3 A. I don't -- I am trying to

4 remember where the laundry chute went to. I

5 mean, it probably -- I wasn't that organized

6 to separate things out like that as a normal

7 course of business.

8 MR. BECKNER: Did you ask what he

9 did on that particular night with the shirt?

10 I missed that.

11 THE WITNESS: Frankly, I don't

12 remember.

13 MR. LEVIN: I thought I had asked

14 you. I wasn't sure if that was clear.

15 THE WITNESS: I mean, typically

16 if it is a wool shirt, something that does

17 require dry-cleaning, I try to get several

18 cycles out of it, but I don't remember.

19 MR. BECKNER: What was your

20 normal routine?

21 THE WITNESS: Well, normally, I

22 would --

23 MR. WOOD: About dry-cleaning?

24 MR. BECKNER: No.

25 THE WITNESS: -- I would hang

0067

1 onto it. If it was something I wanted to

2 wear again, I'd hang it, I'd try to, I'd

3 usually hang it up. Sometimes I would put

4 it on a chair. But I wasn't religious about

5 that. I would normally try to hang it up.

6 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Let me be

7 more specific. Would you throw your clothes

8 on the floor typically in a pile?

9 A. Well, no, not, not if I was, if

10 I was going to wear it again. If it was

11 headed for the laundry, you know, it could

12 end up on the floor before it ended up in

13 the laundry chute, but if I intend to wear

14 it again, if it was a suit or sweater, or

15 something like that, I normally wouldn't

16 throw it on the floor.

0060

1 explanation.

...

8 THE WITNESS: If the question is

9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your

10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not

11 possible. I don't believe it. That is

12 ridiculous.

13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I need to

14 change the audio cassette. It will take

15 just one moment.

...

19 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, your

20 wife told us that there was a college

21 student that was staying with the Steins, I

22 believe, named Nathan Inouwe?

...

25 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Had you,

0090

1 prior to the murder of your daughter, had

2 you had any contact with him?

3 A. Yeah. We would see him at their

4 house. He would drive the kids to school

5 occasionally in a carpool, Patsy would take

6 them, sometimes, Susan would sometimes or

7 Nathan would take them.

8 Q. Was there anything unusual about

9 his conduct -- and I am asking for your

10 contemporaneous impression, and then I'm going

11 to ask you about the post-murder impression.

12 Your contemporaneous impression of Mr. Inouwe

13 I assume was favorable if you let him drive

14 your kids to school?

15 A. Yes. He was a very, very kind,

16 nice person.

17 Q. Keeping in mind that you told us

18 that you are suspicious of everyone, is there

19 anything in particular about Mr. Inouwe,

20 using the power of hindsight, that causes you

21 today to be particularly suspicious of him?

22 A. Nothing specifically in terms of

23 his actions or what he said. Have I

24 eliminated him? No, I haven't. I thought

25 about that from time to time, but I don't

0091

1 consider him of strong, strong interest.

2 Q. We asked Mrs. Ramsey about the

3 Bloomi's underpants that JonBenet was wearing

4 when she was found murdered, and we are

5 trying to kind of track those from purchase

6 to her. And again, I suspect you probably

7 don't have detailed information --

8 A. No.

9 Q. -- about your child's underwear,

10 but you can see why I need to ask the

11 questions; right?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. We believe that they were

14 purchased in November of 1996. Were you

15 aware of their existence before JonBenet's

16 death?

17 A. No, but I wouldn't have been.

18 But I mean, I -- what I know is what was

19 asked of Patsy when she said, you know, we

20 were on a trip to New York. She bought

21 them and I think had planned to give them to

22 her niece, who is older than JonBenet, and

23 then they, for some reason, decided that

24 JonBenet would have them. I don't know if

25 she wanted them or if Patsy gave them to

0092

1 her, but --

2 Q. The niece that they were purchased

3 for, I think, was Jenny Davis?

4 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

5 Q. Do you recall approximately how

6 big she was in 1996? I know it is a tough

7 question.

8 A. She's either a junior or a senior

9 in high school now. And she's fairly

10 stocky.

11 Q. Was there anything about the

12 Bloomi's underwear that was particularly,

13 other than the fact that they come from

14 Bloomingdale's, fascinating that caused them

15 to be, you know, JonBenet would talk about

16 them or something, like I have these cool

17 panties that have the days of the week,

18 anything that would direct your attention to

19 them?

20 A. No, no.

21 Q. As far as the size, they were for

22 an 85-pound girl. Were you aware she was

23 wearing these real big panties?

24 A. Only after the fact.

25 Q. After the fact?

0093

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. Our information that we developed

3 from the grand, well -- after the grand

4 jury, actually, were you unaware of any

5 incident where JonBenet had any accidents at

6 school where she would have to go into the

7 extra panty box that most grammar schools

8 keep for young kids? Do you have a memory

9 of an incident that is contrary to that?

10 A. At school?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. No.

13 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Did you, the

14 night of the 25th, did you help undress

15 JonBenet?

16 A. I did. I think I was asked that

17 before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least

18 took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I

19 carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took

20 her shoes off. I don't know if I took her

21 coat off.

22 Usually what I would do is try to

23 get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't

24 infrequent she would fall to sleep when we

25 came home like that, before we got home.

0094

1 Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally.

2 Q. I guess what I mean is, did you

3 notice at that time whether she was or was

4 not wearing underwear?

5 A. I mean, I think I would have

6 noticed if she wasn't. But I don't

7 remember. I really don't.

8 Q. Do you recall if you took her

9 underwear off?

10 A. No, I'm sure I did not.

11 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wickman?

12 Questions?

13 MS. HARMER: Nothing.

14 MR. LEVIN: I think we are done.
So if JR never took JonBenet's underwear off, how come his fibers are to be found inside the size-12 Bloomingdale's?
 
To date BPD have not released any reports stating no Burke Ramsey touch-dna was found deposited on the size-12 Bloomingdale's, inside or out.

Similarly for the long johns and the White Gap Top.

UKGuy,
What about this:
2. On the exterior top left half of long johns “contains a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor.” It excludes John, Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey. “The profiles associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profiles.”
what does this mean exactly?
 
TY FY.
JUST watching now.

@ 9:18 JAR mentions possible future testing of the suitcase handle.
@12:32, wrt house
JAR: Originally when we bought it, it had an elevator.
@12:42 model of basement, "opening", door? in train room
@13:07 JAR: ... this killer stalked our family ... the house was, you know, not well secured
@13:21 JAR: you know, I can speak first hand in seeing pry marks in the rear door, ah, at one point prior to JonBenet's death when I was visiting the home (image)

***
@14:15 LS stuff, J San Agustin
@17:24 3D model of basement
@20:07 CM disputes "evidence of bed wetting", dry not urine stained sheets

@21:45-47 opening from train room
 
Last edited:
Disputes JK's theory
@25:17 JA: ... The distance between those burns is 3.5 cm which is consistent with an O Guage model train track. However, you can see from this photo (image) those train tracks are, the ends of them are circular. They couldn't leave a rectangular mark.

CM mentions duvet and sham found in suitcase,
neglects to mention JAR's Dr Seuss book

JA claims no member of the Ramsey family owned high-tech boots

CM and JA state DNA is needed for SNP testing (for familial DNA analysis), and BPD are uncooperative

BPD statement to Dr Oz:
A Look Inside JonBenet Ramsey's Crime Scene
 
Last edited:
CM's go Fun D me page, 3 comments in the last year, multiple donations.
 
Disputes JK's theory
@25:17 JA: ... The distance between those burns is 3.5 cm which is consistent with an O Guage model train track. However, you can see from this photo (image) those train tracks are, the ends of them are circular. They couldn't leave a rectangular mark.

CM mentions duvet and sham found in suitcase,
neglects to mention JAR's Dr Seuss book

JA claims no member of the Ramsey family owned high-tech boots

CM and JA state DNA is needed for SNP testing (for familial DNA analysis), and BPD are uncooperative

BPD statement to Dr Oz:
A Look Inside JonBenet Ramsey's Crime Scene

Tadpole12,
JA claims no member of the Ramsey family owned high-tech boots

Burke Ramsey says otherwise:
Atlanta 2000, Patsy Ramsey, BPD Interview, Excerpt
I think Mr. Gray has

15 turned over everything, any piece of anything

16 that he thinks is significant to the police

17 department, including just recently a pair of

18 Hi-Tec boots that were obtained from one of

19 the suspects. We don't know what has

20 happened with that since, and we would like

21 to know that.

22 Q. Anything else?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Why don't you explain to us your

25 understanding concerning the sequence of

0027

1 events which led to your -- and I am talking

2 from a medical perspective, the sequence of

3 events that led to your daughter's death as

4 it was explained to you by your forensic

5 experts.

6 A. That she died of asphyxiation, and

7 the blow to her head was subsequent to that

8 act. And the reason that they know that is

9 because something to do with the very minute

10 presence or negligible presence of blood at

11 the fracture.

...

11 THE WITNESS: No, I did not call

12 the Colbys to ask if their children had --

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Whether it was

14 from Boulder or Atlanta?

15 A. Right.

16 Q. Okay. Did you sit down and

17 discuss with Burke at any length whether or

18 not he ever had Hi-Tec shoes?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Did it cross your mind that he

21 might be the source of that, for the Hi-Tec

22 shoes?

23 A. No. Because my understanding was

24 that it was an adult footprint. He was nine

25 years old at the time.

0120

1 Q. Do you know the source of your

2 belief that it was an adult's foot,

3 footprint?

4 A. Whoever told me about it or

5 wherever I learned it in the first place.

6 Q. Did you get any details concerning

7 how much of a shoe impression was present?

8 A. No. It was just a footprint.

9 Q. Did you take that to, to be a

10 full footprint, and by that I mean like a

11 shoe, a complete shoe impression?

12 A. That is what I imagined, yes.

13 Q. And that, whether you were told

14 that directly or you just assumed that, you

15 believe is the source of your belief that it

16 was an adult's shoe?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You have been asked about whether

19 or not anyone in your family owns Hi-Tec

20 shoes or ever owned Hi-Tec shoes?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I am not restating a

23 question, Mr. Wood. And do you recall you

24 said no one ever did?

25 A. Yes.

0121

1 Q. You have had -- and that was in

2 '98, more than two years ago. You have had

3 an opportunity to, now that you are in

4 possession of knowledge causing you to

5 believe this is a significant fact in the

6 investigation, you have had almost, we will

7 assume, at least a year to rethink that.

8 Have you given it some thought as to maybe

9 someone in the family had Hi-Tec shoes?

10 MR. WOOD: Are you asking her

11 whether she thought about whether somebody in

12 the family -- I mean, all of the prefatory

13 comments leading up to that.

14 Is the question, since June of

15 1998, Ms. Ramsey, have you given any thought

16 as to whether someone in your family had

17 Hi-Tec shoes?

18 MR. LEVIN: That is correct.

19 That is the question.

20 MR. WOOD: All right. You can

21 answer that question.

22 THE WITNESS: No.

23 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Did you try, in

24 your mind, and perhaps to assist your

25 investigator, identify sources close to your

0122

1 family that might be the origin of the

2 Hi-Tec shoe impression?

3 A. I think, you know, I may have

4 asked Susan if she had ever seen any. I

5 mean, I didn't, I don't know what a Hi-Tec

6 boot looks like, per se. I have tried to

7 kind of, as I am in shoe stores, look around

8 trying to see what, what's the significance

9 and special about a Hi-Tec boot, and I

10 haven't, haven't even seen any yet. But I

11 may have asked Susan, did you know anybody

12 that looked like they wore Hi-Tec shoe,

13 boots, or whatever.

14 Q. Do you recall a period of time,

15 prior to 1996, when your son Burke purchased

16 a pair of hiking boots that had compasses on

17 the shoelaces? And if it helps to

18 remember --

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. Maybe this will help your

21 recollection. They were shoes that were

22 purchased while he was shopping with you in

23 Atlanta.

24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

25 as a fact?

0123

1 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as

2 a fact.

3 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Does that help

4 refresh your recollection as to whether he

5 owned a pair of shoes that had compasses on

6 them?

7 A. I just can't remember. Bought so

8 many shoes for him.

9 Q. And again, I will provide, I'll

10 say, I'll say this as a fact to you, that,

11 and maybe this will help refresh your

12 recollection, he thought that -- the shoes

13 were special because they had a compass on

14 them, his only exposure for the most part to

15 compasses had been in the plane and he kind

16 of liked the idea of being able to point

17 them different directions. Do you remember

18 him doing that with the shoes?

19 A. I can't remember the shoes. I

20 remember he had a compass thing like a

21 watch, but I can't remember about the shoes.

22 Q. You don't remember him having

23 shoes that you purchased with compasses on

24 them?

25 MR. WOOD: She will tell you that

0124

1 one more time. Go ahead and tell him, and

2 this will be the third time.

3 THE WITNESS: I can't remember.

4 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. Does it

5 jog your memory to know that the shoes with

6 compasses were made by Hi-Tec?

7 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that

8 as a fact?

9 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I am stating

10 that as a fact.

11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know

12 that.

13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I will state this

14 as a fact. There are two people who have

15 provided us with information, including your

16 son, that he owned Hi-Tec shoes prior to the

17 murder of your daughter.

18 MR. WOOD: You are stating that

19 Burke Ramsey has told you he owned Hi-Tec

20 shoes?

21 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

22 MR. WOOD: He used the phrase

23 Hi-Tec?

24 MR. LEVIN: Yes.

25 MR. WOOD: When?

0125

1 MR. LEVIN: I can't, I can't give

2 you the source. I can tell you that I have

3 that information.

4 MR. WOOD: You said Burke told

5 you.

6 MR. LEVIN: I can't quote it to

7 you for reasons I am sure, as an attorney,

8 you are aware.
From memory Burke Ramsey told the Grand Jury he owned a pair of Hi-Tec shoes? Needs to be verified.

This is why Levin cannot divulge his source.
 
Last edited:
UKGuy,
What about this:
2. On the exterior top left half of long johns “contains a mixture of at least two individuals including the victim and at least one male contributor.” It excludes John, Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey. “The profiles associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profiles.”
what does this mean exactly?

Rain on my Parade,
Ok, I parse the above as follows.

John Ramsey has mitochondrial dna separate from that of Melinda and JAR.

Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey share the same mitochondrial dna.

Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey patently share the same mitochondrial dna.

But cannot otherwise be distinguished.

So John, Melinda and John Andrew Ramsey can be ruled out.

Leaving Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey as undecided for whatever reason they want to give, e.g. degraded sample?

So they are not ruling Burke Ramsey out.

.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
3,871
Total visitors
3,948

Forum statistics

Threads
622,839
Messages
18,456,430
Members
240,180
Latest member
Bbossttonn
Back
Top