Boulder Police meet with JonBenet Ramsey's now adult brother

[Toltec]

Mark Fuhrman is asked about the sexual assault on JonBenet. Mark says that the assault and murder are not mutually inclusive, IOW, someone had molested JonBenet earlier in the day. I don't think so because of the blood found on her gigantic panties. JonBenet had dressed for the party around 4ish. Her play pants were discovered on the floor of her room inside out with fecal stains on them. We know she didn't bathe that day.

During Autopsy, the coroner found blue fibers on her crotch and he determined that JonBenet was wiped down. Wiping her down would have to include her anal area since earlier that day she had not wiped after a bowel movement. Her labia were also wiped down and I find that highly unlikely that a male would have thought to wipe her labia. This suggests to me that a female wiped JonBenet down. The only female in the home was Patsy.

Did Patsy kill JonBenet or did she discover JonBenet molested and mortally wounded? Did she cover up the crime by staging a kidnapping???

 

[UKGuy]

Mark Fuhrman is asked about the sexual assault on JonBenet. Mark says that the assault and murder are not mutually inclusive, IOW, someone had molested JonBenet earlier in the day. I don't think so because of the blood found on her gigantic panties. JonBenet had dressed for the party around 4ish. Her play pants were discovered on the floor of her room inside out with fecal stains on them. We know she didn't bathe that day.

During Autopsy, the coroner found blue fibers on her crotch and he determined that JonBenet was wiped down. Wiping her down would have to include her anal area since earlier that day she had not wiped after a bowel movement. Her labia were also wiped down and I find that highly unlikely that a male would have thought to wipe her labia. This suggests to me that a female wiped JonBenet down. The only female in the home was Patsy.

Did Patsy kill JonBenet or did she discover JonBenet molested and mortally wounded? Did she cover up the crime by staging a kidnapping???

Toltec,
I agree Patsy did the staging, she left forensic evidence behind to that effect. The coroner cites sexual contact and digital penetration this is independent from the paintbrush insertion, so Patsy must have known about this e.g. she was fully aware that JonBenet was being molested.

As I've suggested many times before I reckon there was collusion. John, Patsy and Burke were in it together. What their precise roles were that night is difficult to discern, PDI , JDI, or BDI, who knows. It could be PDI via rage then John assists with the coverup, or the roles are reversed JDI in a rage, and Patsy assists with the coverup. Or its BDI whacking JonBenet because JonBenet will not play doctors etc. Patsy and John cognisant of the implications have no option but to enact the staging, of which, I think there was more than one.

Its not the homicide that is being covered up, its the prior molestation, thats the smoking gun!

.

 

[LinasK]

Mark Fuhrman is asked about the sexual assault on JonBenet. Mark says that the assault and murder are not mutually inclusive, IOW, someone had molested JonBenet earlier in the day. I don't think so because of the blood found on her gigantic panties. JonBenet had dressed for the party around 4ish. Her play pants were discovered on the floor of her room inside out with fecal stains on them. We know she didn't bathe that day.

During Autopsy, the coroner found blue fibers on her crotch and he determined that JonBenet was wiped down. Wiping her down would have to include her anal area since earlier that day she had not wiped after a bowel movement. Her labia were also wiped down and I find that highly unlikely that a male would have thought to wipe her labia. This suggests to me that a female wiped JonBenet down. The only female in the home was Patsy.

Did Patsy kill JonBenet or did she discover JonBenet molested and mortally wounded? Did she cover up the crime by staging a kidnapping???

I agree with Mark Fuhrman, the latter is what I believe. Just because John could've been molesting JB, doesn't rule out how much of a part Patsy had in covering for her man.

 

[cynic]

I am not gonna get in a pissing contest over this cause at one time or another just about every news source has mention degradation of fingernail DNA and a match on fingernail DNA. It has been on CNN and just about everywhere so look it up. Here is a few that I am sure you will discredit.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210582,00.html

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

I have looked it up and I have never found anything to suggest that JonBenet got a piece of your alleged intruder as you have suggested, IOW that the DNA is from flesh or blood, or that the DNA was of greater “quality” than 2 markers from any source associated with the DA’s office or LE.
Keep in mind that the statement about the fingernail DNA having only 2 markers was under oath in a deposition. As I've said before a 2 marker sample is indicative of severe degradation. It could never be a match to anything in any meaningful or legal way.

With respect to your links:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210582,00.html
“After JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, found her body in the family's basement on Dec. 26, 1996, police collected DNA from blood spots in her underwear and from under her fingernails.
Investigators have said some of the DNA was too degraded to use as evidence, but some was of sufficient quality to submit to the FBI in 2003.”
How does this support your contention???

This link, http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799.htm
states, “Law-enforcement sources confirmed the girl was found with "foreign'' DNA in her panties and under her fingernails.”
That’s true, but in no way supports your contention.

The last link is the opinion of Newsweek writer Sherry Keen Osborn, who mentions no source, although I can hazard a guess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

 

[DeeDee249]

JB was wiped down on her thighs and pubic area of blood, not feces. Her own blood was found there when she was swabbed, along with the dark fibers that led the coroner to make his statement that his findings suggest she was wiped with a cloth. I don't see this as limited to something only a woman would so. I feel either parent could have done this. The coroner made no mention of feces anywhere except where it would be expected- in her intestines. He would have noted if it were found on external surfaces of her perianal area or labia. That would have shown up in the swabbing.

 

[joeskidbeck]

JB was wiped down on her thighs and pubic area of blood, not feces. Her own blood was found there when she was swabbed, along with the dark fibers that led the coroner to make his statement that his findings suggest she was wiped with a cloth. I don't see this as limited to something only a woman would so. I feel either parent could have done this. The coroner made no mention of feces anywhere except where it would be expected- in her intestines. He would have noted if it were found on external surfaces of her perianal area or labia. That would have shown up in the swabbing.

I agree with you 100%, DeeDee, but now I'm wondering where that statement came from about her pants being inside out with fecal matter on them. If so, it would prove that she was more than "wiped down" and more likely washed clean. Either that, or she had a bath that night before going to bed, which would be the reason Patsy always lied about the last time she bathed. This is one of Patsy's lies that has always bothered me because I just don't believe she didn't know every bath her daughter took. I know a lot of people believe Patsy was just a bad mother, but I don't think she would want her beauty queen daughter going to school or other's homes all smelly, especially knowing the help JB required in the bathroom. This could mean JonBenet was abused while bathing (wonder who helped her there?). I know if anybody can address this, you can. Do you know of any reason she may have been bathed that night and the Ramsey's wouldn't want LE to know?

 

[Roy23]

I have looked it up and I have never found anything to suggest that JonBenet got a piece of your alleged intruder as you have suggested, IOW that the DNA is from flesh or blood, or that the DNA was of greater “quality” than 2 markers from any source associated with the DA’s office or LE.
Keep in mind that the statement about the fingernail DNA having only 2 markers was under oath in a deposition. As I've said before a 2 marker sample is indicative of severe degradation. It could never be a match to anything in any meaningful or legal way.

With respect to your links:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210582,00.html
“After JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, found her body in the family's basement on Dec. 26, 1996, police collected DNA from blood spots in her underwear and from under her fingernails.
Investigators have said some of the DNA was too degraded to use as evidence, but some was of sufficient quality to submit to the FBI in 2003.”
How does this support your contention???

This link, http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon101799.htm
states, “Law-enforcement sources confirmed the girl was found with "foreign'' DNA in her panties and under her fingernails.”
That’s true, but in no way supports your contention.

The last link is the opinion of Newsweek writer Sherry Keen Osborn, who mentions no source, although I can hazard a guess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

Two points on this Cynic cause maybe we kind of misunderstand each other.

1. DNA that originally contained two markers could very easily been at an initial stage. As we all know, better testing methods become more available every year. Can we agree on that?

2. I guess you are saying that just because DNA is found under her fingernails (I get you don't put much credence in that), in her panties, and on her leggings you still say that it all can be secondary transfer. So even if the fingernail DNA does match all the other you are saying that she didn't necessarily get a piece of her attacker. Right?

 

[Toltec]

JB was wiped down on her thighs and pubic area of blood, not feces. Her own blood was found there when she was swabbed, along with the dark fibers that led the coroner to make his statement that his findings suggest she was wiped with a cloth. I don't see this as limited to something only a woman would so. I feel either parent could have done this. The coroner made no mention of feces anywhere except where it would be expected- in her intestines. He would have noted if it were found on external surfaces of her perianal area or labia. That would have shown up in the swabbing.

The Coroner made no mention of feces because there was none...she was wiped down.

I am totally convinced that no man would think to wipe down the folds of the labia...that is why I believe Patsy wiped her down.

Let's not forget that we have no knowledge of what Dr. Meyer's notes on the Autopsy.

 

[cynic]

Two points on this Cynic cause maybe we kind of misunderstand each other.

1. DNA that originally contained two markers could very easily been at an initial stage. As we all know, better testing methods become more available every year. Can we agree on that?

2. I guess you are saying that just because DNA is found under her fingernails (I get you don't put much credence in that), in her panties, and on her leggings you still say that it all can be secondary transfer. So even if the fingernail DNA does match all the other you are saying that she didn't necessarily get a piece of her attacker. Right?

There is no evidence to suggest that any further testing was done regarding the fingernails.
There would be good reason for them not to do further testing.
The clippings were taken with an unsterile instrument that may well have been used on previous decedants.
This would render the evidence unusable in court, so what value would there be to spending further resources on it?
Regardless, my main issue with your recent statements is that they paint a picture of JonBenet fighting with, and scratching your alleged intruder.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you put “fingernail” and “piece of her attacker” in the same sentence the connotation is that of blood, and pieces of tissue, beneath JonBenet’s fingernails.
As a matter of fact, you even said the following:
“The DNA is from a real person and the evidence portrays that it was from someone that came into that house, pulled down her pants and her panties, and JBR fought him.”
Nowhere is this supported by any evidence.
We were clearly told the contrary:
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle.
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41
Not even Lou Smit in his deposition, while discussing the fingernails at length, and trying to build a case for the intruder theory made any comment to suggest that anything was found under her fingernails that would have indicated a struggle.
I am asking, again, for any proof that JBR fought your alleged intruder.

 

[Tadpole12]

Boulder investigators still receive tips in Ramsey case, 14 years later
October 11, 2010

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-jonbenet-leads-txt,0,3943738.story

BOULDER - Boulder DA Stan Garnett says he personally gets five or more tips each month on the JonBenet Ramsey murder mystery.

........But in spite of the tips and leads and theories that regularly pour into investigation, Garnett says there is really nothing new.




"The Ramsey case is like a Rubic's Cube, said Garnett. "To file charges so you could prove it, you would need to line up every part of the case from the ransom note to the DNA to all the other pieces of the case."

........."And just when you feel you have one side lined up and it makes sense, you turn it around and then you say well the rest of this isn't explained now," said Garnett.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree with you 100%, DeeDee, but now I'm wondering where that statement came from about her pants being inside out with fecal matter on them. If so, it would prove that she was more than "wiped down" and more likely washed clean. Either that, or she had a bath that night before going to bed, which would be the reason Patsy always lied about the last time she bathed. This is one of Patsy's lies that has always bothered me because I just don't believe she didn't know every bath her daughter took. I know a lot of people believe Patsy was just a bad mother, but I don't think she would want her beauty queen daughter going to school or other's homes all smelly, especially knowing the help JB required in the bathroom. This could mean JonBenet was abused while bathing (wonder who helped her there?). I know if anybody can address this, you can. Do you know of any reason she may have been bathed that night and the Ramsey's wouldn't want LE to know?

That statement about the fecal stains in JB's pants came from LE while they were questioning Patsy and showing her crime photos of the house.In one photo, there was a pair of (as Patsy described them) "black play pants" that JB had worn previously. I do not recall if Patsy said she wore them earlier Christmas Day to play (before she dressed to go to the White's) or if they were from a previous day. The housekeeper said that the kids, especially, would just drop their clothes wherever they took them off, and JB always left poopy panties and clothes around. Patsy did not have any hampers in the house. There was a laundry chute, but the kids apparently did not use it.
She need not have been bathed. Patsy may have cleaned her up with "Wet Ones" or baby wipes. Not sure why Patsy would have to lie about giving her a bath before going to the party, but there may be some reason we are not aware of. Abuse during bathing is something that may be a possibility, and could certainly explain the need to stage a sexual assault later, but this isn't something I have thought about much.
This would be a separate incident from the wiping down that the coroner noted during the autopsy. BUT- if they had ever tested the INSIDE surfaces of the black velvet pant she wore to the White's, presence of blood or the same dark fibers as found on her thighs and pubic area would change that finding.
THIS is why it was so important that LE take into their custody ALL clothing worn by the ENTIRE family that day. And it is tragic that they didn't. I believe all they have of JB's is the clothing on her when she was found.

 

[Roy23]

There is no evidence to suggest that any further testing was done regarding the fingernails.
There would be good reason for them not to do further testing.
The clippings were taken with an unsterile instrument that may well have been used on previous decedants.
This would render the evidence unusable in court, so what value would there be to spending further resources on it?
Regardless, my main issue with your recent statements is that they paint a picture of JonBenet fighting with, and scratching your alleged intruder.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you put “fingernail” and “piece of her attacker” in the same sentence the connotation is that of blood, and pieces of tissue, beneath JonBenet’s fingernails.
As a matter of fact, you even said the following:
“The DNA is from a real person and the evidence portrays that it was from someone that came into that house, pulled down her pants and her panties, and JBR fought him.”
Nowhere is this supported by any evidence.
We were clearly told the contrary:
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle.
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41
Not even Lou Smit in his deposition, while discussing the fingernails at length, and trying to build a case for the intruder theory made any comment to suggest that anything was found under her fingernails that would have indicated a struggle.
I am asking, again, for any proof that JBR fought your alleged intruder.

I see the point you are making on any fingernail DNA. You are saying even if it is there, it doesn't indicate that it got there by JBR fighting with an intruder. I don't necessarily say I agree but I wanted to get where you are coming from.

As far as you suggesting that no evidence exists that they did more testing, we just have to disagree. The very fact that some media still reports that they now have a match from the fingernail DNA suggests that it may just have been done. But let me preface that with I barely trust anything that anyone says concerning this case anymore.

For me, I really am now trying my best to play nice with you guys. We disagree and I try my best to give you some respect. It is hard for me because I personally think this case is being investigated 100% in terms of an intruder. I think everyone involved in the case realizes it no matter what lip service they may say to the public. I want them to do a complete investigation but unlike you I have a hard time reconciling secondary transfer of DNA in so many different areas on JBR's body. And I believe it was Bode who set DA Lacey and Beckner straight on it.

 

[minazoe]

I find it very interesting that today we are searching for a body of a missing child. The step mother has confessed to writing a false ransom note for the missing child and alerting the police to her kidnapping.

 

[BBB167893]

Boulder investigators still receive tips in Ramsey case, 14 years later
October 11, 2010

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-jonbenet-leads-txt,0,3943738.story

BOULDER - Boulder DA Stan Garnett says he personally gets five or more tips each month on the JonBenet Ramsey murder mystery.

........But in spite of the tips and leads and theories that regularly pour into investigation, Garnett says there is really nothing new.




"The Ramsey case is like a Rubic's Cube, said Garnett. "To file charges so you could prove it, you would need to line up every part of the case from the ransom note to the DNA to all the other pieces of the case."

........."And just when you feel you have one side lined up and it makes sense, you turn it around and then you say well the rest of this isn't explained now," said Garnett.

Sounds to me like Mr. Garnett has something his two predecessor didn't: the ability to see how circumstantial evidence works put together a case with it.

 

[cynic]

I see the point you are making on any fingernail DNA. You are saying even if it is there, it doesn't indicate that it got there by JBR fighting with an intruder. I don't necessarily say I agree but I wanted to get where you are coming from.

All you can say about the fingernail “evidence,” and I use the term loosely, is the following:
DNA testing has revealed that only 2 of 13 CODIS markers are present.
The coroner habitually used unsterile nail clippers in his autopsies.
The source of the DNA is not from blood, or flesh.

The sources for the above are law enforcement or investigators from the DA’s office. Any contrary opinion has been either from reporters who have not stated what their source is, or from individuals in the employ of John Ramsey.

A profile with so few markers is not relevant in any legal way as evidence.
A profile with so few markers indicates serious issues in terms of degradation, or sample size, or both.
The absence of flesh or blood beneath the nails indicates that that JonBenet did not scratch anyone. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest she struggled, or fought in any way, prior to her death.
The presence of enough severely degraded nucleated cells to produce a laughable partial profile beneath JonBenet’s fingernails suggests nothing more than accumulation from the normal activities of a 6 year old child who disliked washing her hands.

In criminal cases where there actually was a fight, you will find statements such as the following:

“Ms. McCue submitted blood found under Ms. Adrianza’s fingernails for PCR DNA testing.”

“Walter believes Lawless tried to escape whoever killed her, judging from the grass on her socks and the blood outside. She also clawed her attacker. Tissue and blood were found under her fingernails.”
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-8737223/CASE-CLOSED-THEN-REOPENED-Mischelle.html

The first task in examining suspicious stains is to determine whether they are blood, and if so, are they human? Once this is established stains are examined for age, sex and blood group. The shape and pattern of liquid blood-splashes can help in reconstructing the murder; bloody fingerprints and palm-prints tell their own story; dried blood on a suspect's clothing can be related to the victim, the crime scene and the murder weapon; blood and tissue forced under the fingernails of the victim during a violent struggle can be linked to the assailant.
http://www.policensw.com/info/forensic/forensic6a.html

If you show me anything resembling those statements with respect to this case, I will believe that JonBenet fought someone.
The reality is this:
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle.
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

As far as you suggesting that no evidence exists that they did more testing, we just have to disagree.

OK.

The very fact that some media still reports that they now have a match from the fingernail DNA suggests that it may just have been done. But let me preface that with I barely trust anything that anyone says concerning this case anymore.

Such reports are extremely rare, and even then it’s the unsourced opinion of some misinformed reporter.

For me, I really am now trying my best to play nice with you guys. We disagree and I try my best to give you some respect. It is hard for me because I personally think this case is being investigated 100% in terms of an intruder. I think everyone involved in the case realizes it no matter what lip service they may say to the public.

I think the BPD is looking equally at RDI and IDI possibilities. Garnett and Beckner have been asked on separate occasions whether the Ramseys are still cleared, as per Lacy’s exoneration, and both have refused to comment. Lacy sure wasn’t close-lipped with respect to her view.

I want them to do a complete investigation but unlike you I have a hard time reconciling secondary transfer of DNA in so many different areas on JBR's body.

I have offered both theory and examples:

A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said.
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1086&ArticleID=84882

Also consider the Susannah Chase case where “unidentified DNA” was found in the cervix of Susannah Chase as well as on the murder weapon.
The perpetrator’s DNA was not found on the murder weapon, although his girlfriend’s DNA was found, secondary transfer perhaps? :
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999&page=15
Post #352

and, last but not least, the Janelle Patton case:
Analysis of Miss Patton's underwear found evidence of a mixed DNA profile from two females.
Unidentified female DNA under Patton's fingernails and on her shorts and underpants
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10395220

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...od-from-the-sand/story-e6freo8c-1111113128516

 

[tragco]

I see the point you are making on any fingernail DNA. You are saying even if it is there, it doesn't indicate that it got there by JBR fighting with an intruder. I don't necessarily say I agree but I wanted to get where you are coming from.

As far as you suggesting that no evidence exists that they did more testing, we just have to disagree. The very fact that some media still reports that they now have a match from the fingernail DNA suggests that it may just have been done. But let me preface that with I barely trust anything that anyone says concerning this case anymore.

For me, I really am now trying my best to play nice with you guys. We disagree and I try my best to give you some respect. It is hard for me because I personally think this case is being investigated 100% in terms of an intruder. I think everyone involved in the case realizes it no matter what lip service they may say to the public. I want them to do a complete investigation but unlike you I have a hard time reconciling secondary transfer of DNA in so many different areas on JBR's body. And I believe it was Bode who set DA Lacey and Beckner straight on it.

I do believe that the panty DNA and the longjohn waistband DNA are likely a match. Still, that makes no sense to me with regards to IDI.

If IDI had his hands bare so that he could transfer the DNA, and was there for a long, long time (he had to be to write the RN and do everything else), then why are there no fingerprints anywhere? The partial palmprint was matched to a family member IIRC. If the intruder wore gloves, then why did his DNA appear on the longjohn waistband?

I am not trying to be argumentative or change your opinion. I am seriously interested in what your take on that would be. With all the interest in this case, all the people who had access to the evidence (down to the coroner), and all the time that passed before the DNA was examined, I think someone contaminated it.

 

[CathyR]

While I truly do love DNA evidence in a case I also think this new touch DNA is very promising too. If the sample did not come directly from the killer(assuming IDI) maybe from someone close to the killer like in the Chase case. If it is an innocent sample as pointed out, perp wearing gloves picks up paintbrush that has been handled by someone else and spreads the DNA on the longjohns and panties then the DNA will only lead to someone who borrowed Patsy's paintbrush or picked it up after she dropped it. Either way we will know when the DNA is matched ( I pray it will be).

 

[Roy23]

I do believe that the panty DNA and the longjohn waistband DNA are likely a match. Still, that makes no sense to me with regards to IDI.

If IDI had his hands bare so that he could transfer the DNA, and was there for a long, long time (he had to be to write the RN and do everything else), then why are there no fingerprints anywhere? The partial palmprint was matched to a family member IIRC. If the intruder wore gloves, then why did his DNA appear on the longjohn waistband?

I am not trying to be argumentative or change your opinion. I am seriously interested in what your take on that would be. With all the interest in this case, all the people who had access to the evidence (down to the coroner), and all the time that passed before the DNA was examined, I think someone contaminated it.

Well, these are all questions that make this case difficult to some. I am not certain that all this DNA came from the hands of someone. The panty DNA could be saliva but we just don't know. The perp could have taken his gloves off at somepoint. I don't know.

No matter what any of us believes, the case and the investigation was handled very poorly. There could have been fingerprints or handprints in the kitchen before it was cleaned up. The bottom line is the DNA is real and whether it be from a Ramsey friend, an investigator, or an intruder, they have to find the source to ever get justice for JBR. It belongs to a real person that existed at that time and RDI explanations mean nothing until that is proven at this point.

 

[Etilema]

I find it very interesting that today we are searching for a body of a missing child. The step mother has confessed to writing a false ransom note for the missing child and alerting the police to her kidnapping.

It is interesting. But just to be clear--the ransom note in the Baker case was not actually for the missing child, but for another child...

 

[CathyR]

It is interesting. But just to be clear--the ransom note in the Baker case was not actually for the missing child, but for another child...

What??????