Father says DNA could solve one of country’s biggest murder mysteries: Who killed JonBenét Ramsey

[AddieBoo]

not according to her own personal doctor who has no reason to lie about it

 

[Chypre]

At best what they indicated was suggestive of prior sexual abuse but there's no certainty. There are simply other possible explanations.

Even some updated research (https://cdn.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Revised-Adams-Guidelines-2023.pdf) says

Healed hymenal transection/complete hymen cleft- a defect in the hymen below the 3 to 9 o’clock location that extends to or through the base of the hymen,with no hymenal tissue discernible at that location.

Is highly suggestive of abuse not indicative.

Thank you for this post noting suggestive is not necessarily indicative. I figured out I'm wanting to see actual reports and statistical facts. A lot of times reports are written and people don't give enough credit to the fact that more evidence and impressions should be there. A grand jury has a much lower burden of proof than a trial jury. I'm really not decided on a theory.

All in all, I'm thinking alot about the time period and culture was then. If this was a new case, I think it would be much more believable an intruder fixated on JBR entered their home more than once. Tomorrow maybe different.

 

[Tower]

The recommendations made public ….so far. There must be some relevant information there. If BR is responsible for the murder of JB, his rights of privacy are null.

Incorrect. He was 9. He didn’t have the capacity to murder anyone.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

That’s a statement of your personal values (commonly shared by many), but it’s not a statement of fact or legal necessity.

In fact, it’s not actually your job to ‘prove your innocence’ (although one may feel compelled to do so for a variety of reasons) - it’s the police/DA’s job to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the posters larger point was if you are innocent, do what you need to in order to allow the police to eliminate you and move on. I don't care what theory you subscribe to, there was very little to point to someone being in the home and plenty of strange behaviors exhibited by the Ramseys. JRs interview with Podcaster Ashley almost 30 years later raises so many red flags and he's had years to perfect his answers. He is great at creating a narrative but totally sucks at answering sticky questions. When he said he never discussed BR going downstairs after the Dr Phil interview, I give him zero credibility. It's that kind of nonsense that JR thinks he can spoon feed without raising questions.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I think the posters larger point was if you are innocent, do what you need to in order to allow the police to eliminate you and move on. I don't care what theory you subscribe to, there was very little to point to someone being in the home and plenty of strange behaviors exhibited by the Ramseys. JRs interview with Podcaster Ashley almost 30 years later raises so many red flags and he's had years to perfect his answers. He is great at creating a narrative but totally sucks at answering sticky questions. When he said he never discussed BR going downstairs after the Dr Phil interview, I give him zero credibility. It's that kind of nonsense that JR thinks he can spoon feed without raising questions.

Exactly, thank you.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Incorrect. He was 9. He didn’t have the capacity to murder anyone.

As I have stated I am not in the BDI camp. But saying that a 9 (almost) 10 year old is incapable of committing murder is simply not true.

The list of children who have committed murder is shockingly long, with the youngest on record having been 6 when they murdered someone.

 

[Chimera]

As I have stated I am not in the BDI camp. But saying that a 9 (almost) 10 year old is incapable of committing murder is simply not true.

The list of children who have committed murder is shockingly long, with the youngest on record having been 6 when they murdered someone.

Let's say if he had a hammer or flashlight and was in a fit of anger .....
Yes, it's possible.
Imo.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I think they could find as many doctors as they needed, of the same caliber as Dr McCann, who would give expert testimony refuting Dr McCann's opinion.

Then where are all of them disputing his findings?

 

[sunspun]

As I have stated I am not in the BDI camp. But saying that a 9 (almost) 10 year old is incapable of committing murder is simply not true.

The list of children who have committed murder is shockingly long, with the youngest on record having been 6 when they murdered someone.

A child that young can certainly kill a person intentionally, in an act that would be called murder if done by an older person, but legally, according to Colorado law at the time (and maybe now too, IDK) it's officially not a murder. Or maybe I should say, they legally are not responsible for the murder they committed. I have never fully understood how that works in real-life cases, however. I think if they decide a child under 10 was the person who did it, they couldn't by law report this fact, or much of any facts of that case from there on. So what are they supposed to do then? Just close the case with no explanation to the public? Or do they publicly report that the case remains unsolved? Neither of those options sound good to me. Maybe they've come up with some better way of handling it that I haven't heard about. Fortunately, it's a rare enough event that they wouldn't have this dilemma very often.

 

[CloudedTruth]

A child that young can certainly kill a person intentionally, in an act that would be called murder if done by an older person, but legally, according to Colorado law at the time (and maybe now too, IDK) it's officially not a murder. Or maybe I should say, they legally are not responsible for the murder they committed. I have never fully understood how that works in real-life cases, however. I think if they decide a child under 10 was the person who did it, they couldn't by law report this fact, or much of any facts of that case from there on. So what are they supposed to do then? Just close the case with no explanation to the public? Or do they publicly report that the case remains unsolved? Neither of those options sound good to me. Maybe they've come up with some better way of handling it that I haven't heard about. Fortunately, it's a rare enough event that they wouldn't have this dilemma very often.

Oh, it’s still considered murder, but legally someone under the age of 10 cannot be charged with murder under Colorado law. There would be investigations as to the mental & emotional health of the underage perpetrator as well as his home environment to determine if the child needed to be taken away from the parents and / or ordered to receive either in-patient or out patient therapy.

But it would have been reported with certain details kept sealed at the time.

 

[Tower]

As I have stated I am not in the BDI camp. But saying that a 9 (almost) 10 year old is incapable of committing murder is simply not true.

The list of children who have committed murder is shockingly long, with the youngest on record having been 6 when they murdered someone.

Legally, no murder is committed by a 9-year-old. He is not capable of deliberately taking the life of another by our definition of child cognition, so it is not murder and he cannot be charged.

Neither of us are BDI, but even BDI folks usually do not claim Burke accidentally ended her life, but instead that he harmed her somehow and the “staging” may have killed her. So at most Burke set events in motion and adults were responsible for murder. I suppose some BDI think he was fully responsible for her death, but literally no one believed that when Burke was young. It was a theory that developed many years later.

As a tangent, I think it’s fascinating that he’s often described as “almost 10” like that makes him more likely to murder someone. He was 9. Or almost 10. Either way, he certainly didn’t murder anyone and probably didn’t even harm his sister.

Imo

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

4

Legally, no murder is committed by a 9-year-old. He is not capable of deliberately taking the life of another by our definition of child cognition, so it is not murder and he cannot be charged.

Neither of us are BDI, but even BDI folks usually do not claim Burke accidentally ended her life, but instead that he harmed her somehow and the “staging” may have killed her. So at most Burke set events in motion and adults were responsible for murder. I suppose some BDI think he was fully responsible for her death, but literally no one believed that when Burke was young. It was a theory that developed many years later.

As a tangent, I think it’s fascinating that he’s often described as “almost 10” like that makes him more likely to murder someone. He was 9. Or almost 10. Either way, he certainly didn’t murder anyone and probably didn’t even harm his sister.

Imo

Why is it fascinating that he is described as almost 10? Do you not think there is any developmental changes between the 2 ages? I think to point out that one is more near a child development stage vs another is significant especially as one is approching puberty.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Legally, no murder is committed by a 9-year-old. He is not capable of deliberately taking the life of another by our definition of child cognition, so it is not murder and he cannot be charged.

Neither of us are BDI, but even BDI folks usually do not claim Burke accidentally ended her life, but instead that he harmed her somehow and the “staging” may have killed her. So at most Burke set events in motion and adults were responsible for murder. I suppose some BDI think he was fully responsible for her death, but literally no one believed that when Burke was young. It was a theory that developed many years later.

As a tangent, I think it’s fascinating that he’s often described as “almost 10” like that makes him more likely to murder someone. He was 9. Or almost 10. Either way, he certainly didn’t murder anyone and probably didn’t even harm his sister.

Imo

Legally it is still considered murder even if committed by someone not yet of legal age. The only difference is that the potential punishments are handled differently. They are then in the juvenile justice system where appropriate treatment or rehabilitation is undergone instead of jail time. If a 9 year old commits murder, he is still a murderer under the law. The only difference is the treatment rather than traditional punishment.

The reference to being almost 10 is simply acknowledging that at the age of 10 one can be held accountable and to a different standard than a 9 year old or younger. It was not an implication that a 10 year old is more likely to commit murder than someone younger. Age has no bearing other than legal considerations for accountability.

 

[AddieBoo]

I'm slow thos morning so bare with me.

Bare with me because I'm slow this morning but I'm not sure what you mean by highly suggestive of abuse not being indicative of abuse.
If I sat on the GJ and and expert or two told me something was highly suggestive of abuse, that is not going to play well for the person under suspicion. It would not be enough to hang a conviction on but it certainly would add credence to the totality of evidence if it was leaning

As I have stated I am not in the BDI camp. But saying that a 9 (almost) 10 year old is incapable of committing murder is simply not true.

The list of children who have committed murder is shockingly long, with the youngest on record having been 6 when they murdered someone.

Legally, no murder is committed by a 9-year-old. He is not capable of deliberately taking the life of another by our definition of child cognition, so it is not murder and he cannot be charged.

Neither of us are BDI, but even BDI folks usually do not claim Burke accidentally ended her life, but instead that he harmed her somehow and the “staging” may have killed her. So at most Burke set events in motion and adults were responsible for murder. I suppose some BDI think he was fully responsible for her death, but literally no one believed that when Burke was young. It was a theory that developed many years later.

As a tangent, I think it’s fascinating that he’s often described as “almost 10” like that makes him more likely to murder someone. He was 9. Or almost 10. Either way, he certainly didn’t murder anyone and probably didn’t even harm his sister.

Imo

Legally it is still considered murder even if committed by someone not yet of legal age. The only difference is that the potential punishments are handled differently. They are then in the juvenile justice system where appropriate treatment or rehabilitation is undergone instead of jail time. If a 9 year old commits murder, he is still a murderer under the law. The only difference is the treatment rather than traditional punishment.

The reference to being almost 10 is simply acknowledging that at the age of 10 one can be held accountable and to a different standard than a 9 year old or younger. It was not an implication that a 10 year old is more likely to commit murder than someone younger. Age has no bearing other than legal considerations for accountability.

It’s interesting that the Grand Jury cited the indictment charges to first degree murder.
Not manslaughter charges, or some other degree of murder.
They said “murder in the first degree.
Is that telling us anything?

 

[AddieBoo]

The person whose opinion I'm most interested in knowing what they think is Sirotnak who is the only expert who examined the body. We don't have a direct statement or report from him, and what second-hand info we have us contradictory.

This is confusing to me.

Your opinion is that JB had no history of SA and was not SA the night of her murder? Despite the evidence?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

This is confusing to me.

Your opinion is that JB had no history of SA and was not SA the night of her murder? Despite the evidence?

Not at all. She was absolutely SA the night of her murder. The evidence clearly shows this. I am far more ambivalent about the supposed evidence that she had a history of SA - while there have been experts who have made such statements going by photos, I'm interested in the opinion of Sirotnak on that particular issue, for the reasons I gave above.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

It’s interesting that the Grand Jury cited the indictment charges to first degree murder.
Not manslaughter charges, or some other degree of murder.
They said “murder in the first degree.
Is that telling us anything?

I have thought about that as well. To me, that means that the GJ thought it was no accident.
I find it interesting that they only partially released the indictment.

 

[Chimera]

I have thought about that as well. To me, that means that the GJ thought it was no accident.
I find it interesting that they only partially released the indictment.

Bbm.
What I wouldn't give to read the remainder !
*sigh*
It could close this case for good.
Omo.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Bbm.
What I wouldn't give to read the remainder !
*sigh*
It could close this case for good.
Omo.

Unlikely. They released the counts that the grand jury agreed on. None of the other counts would have got a majority of votes. So 4 out of 18 counts got true-billed and released.

 

[AddieBoo]

Not at all. She was absolutely SA the night of her murder. The evidence clearly shows this. I am far more ambivalent about the supposed evidence that she had a history of SA - while there have been experts who have made such statements going by photos, I'm interested in the opinion of Sirotnak on that particular issue, for the reasons I gave above.

Not at all. She was absolutely SA the night of her murder. The evidence clearly shows this. I am far more ambivalent about the supposed evidence that she had a history of SA - while there have been experts who have made such statements going by photos, I'm interested in the opinion of Sirotnak on that particular issue, for the reasons I gave

I have thought about that as well. To me, that means that the GJ thought it was no accident.
I find it interesting that they only partially released the indictment.

“Intent to kill” Premeditation. That’s a wallop from the GJ! They heard everything…..
Whatever those indictments mean they were attached to first degree murder. I could be flippant saying that wording/charges are the most difficult to prosecute…? but the jury majority agreed. I had been inclined to believe (or want to believe) it was an accident ….blah blah blah… but to me, this being the most severe charge, indicate something far more ….(fill in the blank here)
WTF.