Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder

[bettybaby00]

I'm not ruling out molestation. I can see other causes of the injuries that I think have been dismissed without real investigation, and I believe that if she was indeed molested it does not mean it was a person in her family. It could have been someone close to her and not someone who lived with her.

I have not said that anyone's conclusion was wrong, just that I do not agree with it. I have an issue with people making money off books about this case. Especially people in law enforcement. It bothers me.
I see a lot of judgments on the parents because they did not follow rules that others think they should. But again unless your child is missing you just do not know what it feels like.

As far as DNA, I just find it odd that people just discount it. Maybe it does not mean everything but that does not mean it does not mean something, That it does not indeed point to the killer.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157870&highlight=peggy+hettrick

This case comes to mind. A case where after Touch DNA was tested and used to clear the convicted.

"The new evidence surfaced after the Colorado Bureau of Investigation conducted new tests on DNA found on Hettrick's clothing, finding partial profiles that did not match Masters.

Masters' defense team pursued further testing with a laboratory in the Netherlands that ultimately provided a match with another man who had once been considered a suspect."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/18/masters/index.html

That was touch DNA. I remember watching the 48 hours show on this and it was touch DNA found just in her waist band. Where someone would have either pulled her pants down or up.

I just don't understand how it can be so discounted in this case. I have never seen a case before where DNA is just thrown in the trash as meaningless. It bothers me a lot.

Interesting case based on the CNN link you provided, and it is obviously an example of touch DNA being critical to a crime scene. I think it's not completely fair to say that the DNA in this case has been thrown in the trash, and completely discounted. For me, there seems to be several major differences in the Ramsey case and the one you linked to: the DNA in the Master's case was linked to someone, while in the Ramsey case it has not. Also, in the Ramsey case you have touch DNA from 6 different people, therefore, based on the DNA evidence we would have to believe there were 6 perpetrators of the crime.

Also, why haven't the Ramsey defense team and their investigators looked to have the DNA further analyzed like what was done in the Master's case. In addition, it appears Master's case had some issues with regard to withholding of evidence, and misconduct with regard to failure to investigate other viable leads/suspects. given that evidenced was suppressed / withheld, what other evidence was there? Everything needs to be considered. There are many aspects of the Ramsey case in many people's minds that point to family involvement. You can't discount ALL of that either. Yes, there can be reasonable explanations for things--as I'm assuming may have happened in Master's case--but when you begin to have one thing, a top another, a top another, a top another, and so on, and so on, alarm bells definitely go off.

In the Ramsey case the only withholding of evidence that has gone on has been by the Ramsey's themselves, and to me it seems pretty evident based on the information that is out there, that 100s perhaps 1000s of leads potentially pointing to an intruder(s) were followed up, along with investigating EVERYONE team Ramsey offered up as a possible suspect.

All :moo: of course

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Interesting case based on the CNN link you provided, and it is obviously an example of touch DNA being critical to a crime scene. I think it's not completely fair to say that the DNA in this case has been thrown in the trash, and completely discounted. For me, there seems to be several major differences in the Ramsey case and the one you linked to: the DNA in the Master's case was linked to someone, while in the Ramsey case it has not. Also, in the Ramsey case you have touch DNA from 6 different people, therefore, based on the DNA evidence we would have to believe there were 6 perpetrators of the crime.

Also, why haven't the Ramsey defense team and their investigators looked to have the DNA further analyzed like what was done in the Master's case. In addition, it appears Master's case had some issues with regard to withholding of evidence, and misconduct with regard to failure to investigate other viable leads/suspects. given that evidenced was suppressed / withheld, what other evidence was there? Everything needs to be considered. There are many aspects of the Ramsey case in many people's minds that point to family involvement. You can't discount ALL of that either. Yes, there can be reasonable explanations for things--as I'm assuming may have happened in Master's case--but when you begin to have one thing, a top another, a top another, a top another, and so on, and so on, alarm bells definitely go off.

In the Ramsey case the only withholding of evidence that has gone on has been by the Ramsey's themselves, and to me it seems pretty evident based on the information that is out there, that 100s perhaps 1000s of leads potentially pointing to an intruder(s) were followed up, along with investigating EVERYONE team Ramsey offered up as a possible suspect.

All :moo: of course

BBM, No not exactly, but it means that one of them could indeed have been involved and a perpetrator.

We can not throw it all out because it seems that it is unlikely there are 6 involved, All we need is 1 out of the 6 that matches someone who had motive and opportunity. Just one.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Wait...I'm confused.

You're saying you don't rule out molestation but you're still looking for other explanations for JBR's injuries?
Why? I mean, to what end would it serve to find another cause for a hymen to be eroded? I don't see the purpose of denying the erosion of the hymen as a critical point in the murder other than taking the molestation out of the case altogether as either a motive or a cover up tactic.

And doesn't that kind of defeat the importance you are placing on DNA?
If there's no abuse and the hymen was never intact or compromised, then how can the blood found in JBR's underwear. which directly marries the abuse to the murder, be relevant to the murder? She'd just be a murdered girl with an uncommon hymen and unexplainable blood in her underwear.

Why don't you agree with the conclusion of abuse by the experts in this case? Is it only because Cyril Wecht wrote a book on the case that you don't believe him? Or do you have scientific basis for believing he is wrong in his conclusions?

I think most people are suspicious of the parents because, logically, when small children are killed they are usually killed by the people closest to them. parents and their love interests.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the Ramseys have every right to invoke all their rights to protect themselves....but then that's the problem, why are they protecting themselves to the extent of invoking all of their rights on top of using their power to limit interviews, etc.? Straight up suspicious. And so many of us instinctively know that that kind of behavior means something. I think Fleet White would agree.

Because I just don't take surface answers. IT is not enough for me. There are lots of problems that have more than one solution or option that is true. If there are other possibilities I am not throwing them out because other people do. I need to explore that for myself.

I would never ever speak to anyone without a lawyer if I was possibly a suspect. Never. Not with all I have seen in cases in the last few years.

If I felt an inkling that the police were focusing on me, and I was stone cold innocent, I would get a lawyer.
I don't think it means a darn thing. I think it means that they needed help and reached for it. It is obvious the police focused on them early.

People can make all the judgments they want on other people's choices but it does not make them guilty of anything. OMO

 

[bettybaby00]

Because I just don't take surface answers. IT is not enough for me. There are lots of problems that have more than one solution or option that is true. If there are other possibilities I am not throwing them out because other people do. I need to explore that for myself.

I would never ever speak to anyone without a lawyer if I was possibly a suspect. Never. Not with all I have seen in cases in the last few years.

If I felt an inkling that the police were focusing on me, and I was stone cold innocent, I would get a lawyer.
I don't think it means a darn thing. I think it means that they needed help and reached for it. It is obvious the police focused on them early.

People can make all the judgments they want on other people's choices but it does not make them guilty of anything. OMO

Respectfully BBM:

Throughout this discussion--of the case in general--there have been many assertions of the idea that no one would know how they would react in similar circumstances, and I agree with that completely. I honesty don't know if I would get a lawyer, but I feel strongly, as you appear to do about getting a lawyer, that if I did, I wouldn't use my lawyer to impede the investigation. I also feel that lawyering up in a situation that involves the death of one's child is completely different given that it is standard procedure for LE to rule out family involvement first so that the investigation can move forward. Im sure it feels offensive and invasive to be subjected to questioning, but i believe i would find it reasonable. There is a reason LE operates this way given the statistics. I also feel, that if I were inclined to hire a lawyer, I just might wait until there was actually an indication that LE was focusing on me or one of my family members in a way that led me to believe i was being intentionally railroaded. For example, after giving them a formal interview. I feel pretty confident that i wouldn't evade such an interview for nearly 4 months. Instead the Ramseys began closing their ranks the very afternoon of the 26th, and basically refused to formal questioning for months. Not only that, but rather than accompanying their daughter's body to the morgue, JR felt it necessary to try and leave the state in order to attend a "business meeting."

I agree that judgements against other people's actions isn't always fair. But in this instance, I can't help but suspect parents who are completely uncooperative with regard to "clearing themselves," so that the case can move forward. IMO The fact that they had money, and expert legal advice would have allowed for more than ample protection while cooperating with police.

All MHO

 

[SapphireSteel]

One of the many inexplicable aspects of this case is how the Ramseys have managed to manipulate public opinion and escape scott free.

Just like the McCanns.

Expensive PR, expensive lawyers.

If these folks had been non-white or poor, they would've been on death row for years by now.

Money buys innocence, it seems. Well what a surprise.

:twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think the Ramseys have manipulated me. I feel the opposite really. It seems to me there was a lot of manipulating from the other side early on.

As far as I am concerned each case is different and needs to be considered separately.

 

[SapphireSteel]

To me if there is a possibility if another answer than you can not have a definitive theory. If there is the possibility than it is something I need to consider. I still see things that people take as fact here because someone else deduced it.

I don't care much about likely, I care about can I absolutely rule something out and if I can't then it still remains a factor.

I may work this different from most people here but for me I need to rule out all other possibilities to consider the family as perpetrators.

I just don't see it yet.

The touch DNA as "proof" of IDI - like you, I just don't see it.

Six different specimens of touch DNA on her underwear, and we're supposed to believe that only one of them is the perp and he managed to only leave his DNA in that one tiny miniscule spot, mixed in with 5 other peoples, also just in that one tiny spot?

No. I can't see that, the odds against that would be a gazillion to one...possibly incalculable even. If he left his DNA on a tiny spot in her underwear, he should have left it elsewhere too (as should the 5 strangers). That's just logic and common sense.



Juries used to be able to weigh up all the evidence (including behaviours) and then make this sort of common-sense call. Now everyone wants cctv footage and DNA evidence. It seems some folks won't even contemplate Ramsey guilt unless they witnessed them tightening the garrotte with their own eyes.

The only thing the presence of touch DNA proves, is that touch DNA is there. That's it. It doesn't prove how it got there. In this case, no one has the faintest idea how it got there, except they suspect its relic DNA of the folks in the factory who cut, sewed, quality checked and packed the underwear for sale, possibly in India or China or somewhere.

I don't like the idea of anyone profiting off JB's horrible murder, but I wonder, what would I do if I was LE and convinced murderers had been allowed to go free by the politicians?

Quit the force and write a book exposing the whole damn mess probably, just like Steve Thomas. That sort of corruption makes me see red. :furious:

Linda Arndt's book is very compelling, not that I can claim to have read or believed every single word. I searched her book out on purpose because I wanted to know what the first person on the scene thought.

Arndt makes it absolutely clear that she feared John Ramsey that day and she believes she saw the truth in his face.

As a woman and an experienced detective, I have no reason to doubt her instinct, especially when all the other evidence is considered too.

The callous behaviour of the Ramseys after the death is inexplicable to me.

It's not a matter of "different parenting styles". It's what they did after the child died that alarms me.

:moo:

 

[midwest mama]

previously posted: "Linda Arndt's book is very compelling, not that I can claim to have read or believed every single word. I searched her book out on purpose because I wanted to know what the first person on the scene thought."

Can you give us the title of this book? I didn't know she had one out on the market!

 

[2 percent]

Because I just don't take surface answers. IT is not enough for me. There are lots of problems that have more than one solution or option that is true. If there are other possibilities I am not throwing them out because other people do. I need to explore that for myself.

I would never ever speak to anyone without a lawyer if I was possibly a suspect. Never. Not with all I have seen in cases in the last few years.

If I felt an inkling that the police were focusing on me, and I was stone cold innocent, I would get a lawyer.
I don't think it means a darn thing. I think it means that they needed help and reached for it. It is obvious the police focused on them early.

People can make all the judgments they want on other people's choices but it does not make them guilty of anything. OMO

I'm afraid I could not disagree with you more than I do on this subject. I do not see opinions by experts in their field to be "surface". I trust that anyone who does important work like medical examiners, people who work years to learn their skills, and must be so precise and honest as to prepare cases for trial and testify to their conclusions far surpass their opinions being branded as "surface".

Again, I have no problem with people invoking their rights. However, don't stone wall and delay then turn around and complain the investigation isn't going fast enough, etc. They can't have it both ways.

 

[SapphireSteel]

previously posted: "Linda Arndt's book is very compelling, not that I can claim to have read or believed every single word. I searched her book out on purpose because I wanted to know what the first person on the scene thought."

Can you give us the title of this book? I didn't know she had one out on the market!

I went looking, all I could find was "Linda Arndt is writing her memoirs" so maybe I'm getting confused. :blush: sorry to mislead.

I am possibly thinking of reading a transcript of an interview, not her book. I know I've read her opinion however.

She states that when JR carried JB up from the cellar, she locked eyes with him. In that moment she knew he was involved, and reached to ensure her gun was on her hip.

scary.

 

[DeeDee249]

As far as I know, Linda Arndt never wrote a book. If this is not the case, please offer the title. I am unable to find her as an author in a search on Barnes & Nobel, Amazon, etc.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I agree. I love WS's But I can just not make up scenarios.. that is not how my brain works. I need the proof. I especially need proof to point fingers at parents or loved ones. It is the most egregious crime to me for a loved one, a trusted care giver to hurt and kill someone in their care. For me to go there, I need hard proof. I need to see evidence that leads me there.

I believe that JBR was killed by an intruder. Someone who knew her and/or she knew in some capacity. I believe that they could have been waiting there before they got home that night, and waited until the house was silent and then took their opportunity. I believe their intent was not to kill her initially but to take her and things went too far and she ended up dead.


I know that I am in the minority. I am good with that.

ETA: I plan on getting The book this week and starting it.. Kids willing..

What about looking at bruises on JonBenet? Someone was leaving them on her the last eighteen months of her life. Would that do it for you? Go look at the pageant videos. In several different ones you'll see them in the same place every time. On the inside of her right arm.

 

[midwest mama]

What about looking at bruises on JonBenet? Someone was leaving them on her the last eighteen months of her life. Would that do it for you? Go look at the pageant videos. In several different ones you'll see them in the same place every time. On the inside of her right arm.

If JB was facing someone who might have caused the bruise by holding her, the person would have to be using their left hand for the restraint, leaving the right hand free to use for another purpose?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

If JB was facing someone who might have caused the bruise by holding her, the person would have to be using their left hand for the restraint, leaving the right hand free to use for another purpose?

Or standing behind her. Your right hand would be on her right arm and fingers on the inside, leaving your left hand free. Pasty said she was ambidextrous. I can see Pasty holding her arm tight enough to leave bruises. Pasty asked John about bruises on JonBenet's arm when choosing what she was going to bury her in. She asked twice.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

John Ramsey was a highly paid executive in an extremely government-friendly business but he certainly did not control Lockheed-Martin.

He and Patsy had the wherewithal to call the police, JonBenet's pediatrician, their pastor and friends, all of whom positively contaminated the crime scene.

John ranted about the FBI not being called so it doesn't ring true that he simply forgot to call Lockheed. His failure to call his employer about an emergency security breach works against logic, sanity, and the desire to find his daughter's kidnapper (and later in the day, killer). Lockheed-Martin probably had more connections and ways to provide security and investigative resources than the city of Boulder.

John's employer could have gotten a lot done in a short period of time had he only let them know that he was being extorted and his daughter had been "kidnapped."

ETA: the FBI actually was called but that's another story.

And you have a ransom letter that gives the reason JonBenet is missing, and that is a small foreign facton is holding your most precious child because of who John worked for. To let them know so they could warn others in the company to be safer. It could of been one of them and their child taken. So, why not a call to them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What about looking at bruises on JonBenet? Someone was leaving them on her the last eighteen months of her life. Would that do it for you? Go look at the pageant videos. In several different ones you'll see them in the same place every time. On the inside of her right arm.

That means little to me. My kids and me for that matter as a Child have bruises. They play hard and get hurt. I always had bruises as a little kid.

I used to get them on the inside of my arm from hanging on monkey bars, Or the banister, carrying things under my arms. I can think of a hundred reasons.

Kids get bruises.

 

[SapphireSteel]

That means little to me. My kids and me for that matter as a Child have bruises. They play hard and get hurt. I always had bruises as a little kid.

I used to get them on the inside of my arm from hanging on monkey bars, Or the banister, carrying things under my arms. I can think of a hundred reasons.

Kids get bruises.

Out of interest, what's your explanation for the note, written in PR's handwriting, at PR's desk, with her pens?

And the pocket knife? Only PR and the housekeeper knew where it had been hidden.

:waitasec:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Out of interest, what's your explanation for the note, written in PR's handwriting, at PR's desk, with her pens?

And the pocket knife? Only PR and the housekeeper knew where it had been hidden.

:waitasec:

The note, I don't have anything anywhere that says it was 100% PR. I don't believe that PR wrote that note. Im working on that note, But at this point I don't believe it was conclusively PR.

AS for the knife, I don't believe for a moment, If indeed PR was going to use it in some fashion to kill or cover up the death of her dd, She would have left it near the crime scene. Someone would do that did not care about it being found.

I believe at this point, that there was someone in the house before they got home and had plenty of time. I wonder if they were in the house prior to this night also.

 

[BBB167893]

One of the many inexplicable aspects of this case is how the Ramseys have managed to manipulate public opinion and escape scott free.

Just like the McCanns.

Expensive PR, expensive lawyers.

If these folks had been non-white or poor, they would've been on death row for years by now.

Money buys innocence, it seems. Well what a surprise.

:twocents:

Damn, it took me 250 pages to say all you did in just a few sentences.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Damn, it took me 250 pages to say all you did in just a few sentences.

:blush: sorry.

:seeya: