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

[arielilane]

I think the author is female and has an over the top dramatic streak. It was meant as a diversion to point away from the family.

Agree, however, the letter apparently pointed directly to the female in the house.
Funny how that worked.

I won't waste my time watching the Netflix show.

All my own opinions.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

My problem with theories such as the train tracks is no one offers evidence from the crime scene ie her blood or skin was found on a piece of train track, or a piece was broken and found near the body, etc. They can't, because the train tracks were never investigated as part of the crime scene, they were never seized in the search warrants that are available.

In every other case I've followed, the forensic facts are established about the crime, from the scene, by forensic experts.

IMO, allegedly forensic evidence can't be pulled out of thin air 20 years later.

JMO

If this was a cover up there were several hours to get rid of or wipe down evidence. Such as the body that was wiped down and her clothing that had been changed.
The lack of evidence that anyone was ever in the house had never been been provenby forensics. No fibers, no hair, no pubes, no semen.
The DNA that is being held has been established as a mixture of several peoples DNA. She was in someone's home that day. JR said they were on the floor stringing beads. It has been established JB needed help toileting and wasn't picky who helped her. Children often let there clothing fall to the floor when using the bathroom. They let their clothing rest on the toilet seat. Point being made is she could have picked up urine on a toilet seat or any number of things a kids might pick up rolling around as children do. Hedging this whole case on DNA is a misdirect like everything else. The fact is they want us to believe in 101 theories with no factual evidence. This lack of evidence absolutely puts eyes on the Ramsys. If no one was in the home, they have a problem. This is no different than the Reutier case or any other case where a murder occurs in a home with family members present and no proof of an intruder.

 

[docyabut]

Is it possible John Ramsey's oldest son was involved in this case? and wanted his father's money ? He was jealous of his father's new family and was not given more money and gifts on christmas time, Is it possible he hired some one to go get the money;(

 

[Marysmith]

It's not hard to find someone's address - now or then. I think an intruder theory has a lot of merit... but that's just my opinion. She was known on the pageant circuit and certainly it would have been easy to find out her parent's names as well. When children have been kidnapped by strangers this has happened in the middle of the night through a window before. Maybe the intruder had been in the house before - I think that's likely. There were no alarm systems like now. Very scary and sad situation all around.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

The DNA that is being held has been established as a mixture of several peoples DNA.

This isn't true. The DNA found in the blood spot in the underwear was a mixture of only two individuals, JonBenet and an unknown male referred to as UM1. UM1 is not a composite, the profile is in CODIS and the people who have actually tested the material are willing to swear in court it is not a composite.

Subsequently touch DNA on the waistband of her longjohns showed the same mixture of JonBenet and UM1, albeit with two additional faint alleles belonging to a third (or more) individuals. This is not uncommon with touch DNA, but the presence of UM1 on two separate garments, from two different sources belies the notion that we're dealing with a composite.

 

[Cedars]

If this was a cover up there were several hours to get rid of or wipe down evidence. Such as the body that was wiped down and her clothing that had been changed.
The lack of evidence that anyone was ever in the house had never been been provenby forensics. No fibers, no hair, no pubes, no semen.
The DNA that is being held has been established as a mixture of several peoples DNA. She was in someone's home that day. JR said they were on the floor stringing beads. It has been established JB needed help toileting and wasn't picky who helped her. Children often let there clothing fall to the floor when using the bathroom. They let their clothing rest on the toilet seat. Point being made is she could have picked up urine on a toilet seat or any number of things a kids might pick up rolling around as children do. Hedging this whole case on DNA is a misdirect like everything else. The fact is they want us to believe in 101 theories with no factual evidence. This lack of evidence absolutely puts eyes on the Ramsys. If no one was in the home, they have a problem. This is no different than the Reutier case or any other case where a murder occurs in a home with family members present and no proof of an intruder.

My understanding is that the DNA in question is a male's, mixed with JBs blood, therefore it is directly related to her death. I don't understand how a layperson/non-investigator can assert the DNA is not relevant. Research on DNA is improving all the time. Many cold cases are being solved by DNA, many families are hopeful their case will be solved by DNA.

I guess my question is, if the DNA reaches a stage where it can be processed and tracked using genetic geneology, will believers in the Ramsey's guilt deny the results are valid?

JMO

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

This isn't true. The DNA found in the blood spot in the underwear was a mixture of only two individuals, JonBenet and an unknown male referred to as UM1. UM1 is not a composite, the profile is in CODIS and the people who have actually tested the material are willing to swear in court it is not a composite.

Subsequently touch DNA on the waistband of her longjohns showed the same mixture of JonBenet and UM1, albeit with two additional faint alleles belonging to a third (or more) individuals. This is not uncommon with touch DNA, but the presence of UM1 on two separate garments, from two different sources belies the notion that we're dealing with a composite.

I'll go with your theory. If it goes back to some one who was she came in contact with at the party, does that mean they killed her? No.
If it is BRs DNA, we will never be told because due to his age at the time of the murder it will never be revealed. If it was a cover up, Jr can scream from the highest mountain to test but it will Never be divulge if it was a child under the age if 10. As we type, we know the Grand Jury chose to indict Jr and PR for covering up a murder.
Lou Schmidt presented at the grand jury and his theory was rejected by 12 people who knew far more than you or I.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I'll go with your theory. If it goes back to some one who was she came in contact with at the party, does that mean they killed her? No.

Someone at the party pulled down her underwear, drooled on them, but only in the spot where JonBenet later bled? Even if we postulate that scenario, it still doesn't explain how this party-goer's skin cells ended up on the waistband of her longjohns, a garment she definitely didn't wear at the party. No, if UM1 was at the party, then the party-goer is the killer.

I think it's moot, though. I believe everyone at the party has been tested and excluded.

If it is BRs DNA, we will never be told because due to his age at the time of the murder it will never be revealed.

We know it's not Burke's DNA. He and his entire family are excluded from the possibility of being UM1.

If it was a cover up, Jr can scream from the highest mountain to test but it will Never be divulge if it was a child under the age if 10. As we type, we know the Grand Jury chose to indict Jr and PR for covering up a murder.
Lou Schmidt presented at the grand jury and his theory was rejected by 12 people who knew far more than you or I.

I doubt there's some secret evidence the Grand Jury knows that we don't. The indictments are a result of eighteen months of hammering in the police case into the GJ - giving Smit a half day barely matters.

Of course, only getting indictments on a minority of charges, and the weaker ones at that, even after eighteen months, shows how weak the case was.

 

[Tower]

My problem with theories such as the train tracks is no one offers evidence from the crime scene ie her blood or skin was found on a piece of train track, or a piece was broken and found near the body, etc. They can't, because the train tracks were never investigated as part of the crime scene, they were never seized in the search warrants that are available.

In every other case I've followed, the forensic facts are established about the crime, from the scene, by forensic experts.

IMO, allegedly forensic evidence can't be pulled out of thin air 20 years later.

JMO

I think we are in agreement. Because the crime scene was not secured, forensic evidence was lost forever. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but I thought you were criticizing the OP on this site for making their own assumptions. Forensic experts in fact did make these train track assumptions. Assumptions are all any of us can make because the scene was poorly preserved.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I can’t believe there is still people that genuinely believe the family did it. Do you really think the mom or dad would choke out their kid with a rope and sexually assault her with a paintbrush?

We've seen equally horrible things on W.S. Unfortunaley parents DO murdered their children sometimes.
Personally, I have never been comfortable saying Burke wasn't involved.
I also believe Pattsy wrote the "ransom" letter to cover up the fact that someone in the family murdered J.B. JMO

 

[Ray_of_hope]

If a nine-year-old accidentally kills his sister in a moment of anger, what need is there for a cover-up? How much punishment would be dished out to a child that young? I am guessing, none. There's more legal risk in the cover-up than admitting what happened if this theory was true.

I do agree with you. but status appeared very important to Patsy especially, and maybe John to a degree because of owning a profitable company. Patsy invited the public in to tour her beautifully decorated home with Christmas trees in every room. The cost of the tour was given to charity and many other homes participated but this also shored up their status within the community. The beauty pageants were also a way of achieving a status for her.
Patsy had also suffered ovarian cancer which left more biological children for her out of the picture. If they also lost their son to treatment or charges, this would adversely affect their status and community recognition and perhaps, they thought they may lose him as well.
The one issue which I struggle with is the vaginal penetration of the paintbrush/garotte handle. What parent would violate their child, even while deceased, in such a way?! I think because of the bleeding that it had to be done while she was living and I can't imagine a 9 year old boy doing such a thing unless he himself had been molested in some horrible way. And to asphyxiate her with a garotte which resulted in the 'rope' part embedding into her neck far enough that it was hard to see, seems too sophisticated (the knot as well) for a young boy to have known how to do. The Netflix special was from from Lou Smit's investigation and conclusions. I understand Lou Smit was well respected within the criminal justice community. Further, Lou Smit believed that at the time of DNA testing, the DNA may have been a mixture of male DNA and wanted it retested to today's standards. I forgot to mention that Lou Smit tested pig skin with stun guns and replicated the 2 sets of 'burns' on John Benet's little body.
I am for all of the DNA to be retested to current standards. I believe only the garotte handle and JB's panty DNA was tested but there were other sources as well left untested.
The whole kidnapping letter throws a monkey wrench into the fray because it does point to the parents. I do believe the handwriting was deliberately changed as well as the misspellings being purposeful to further confound law enforcement.
I do hope this case is solved. John Benet deserves justice and her killer must be punished.

 

[Cedars]

I think we are in agreement. Because the crime scene was not secured, forensic evidence was lost forever. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but I thought you were criticizing the OP on this site for making their own assumptions. Forensic experts in fact did make these train track assumptions. Assumptions are all any of us can make because the scene was poorly preserved.

I guess I am really more comfortable not making assumptions. I admire police forces that admit the evidence is not strong enough to convict anyone yet, and so they don't go after anyone in public.

I think not only did the Boulder PD mess up the crime scene, but they messed up any possibilty for a future fair trail by leaking and encouraging so much suspicion and speculation targetted at the Ramseys, without any hard evidence that would stand.up in court.

It seems to me very unprofessional for police to do that, instead it's almost passive-aggressive. Poor little police officers, how can we be expected to solve a crime with these forces of evil arrayed against us! I'll get back at them by telling all, after I retire!

JMO

 

[eishish]

We've seen equally horrible things on W.S. Unfortunaley parents DO murdered their children sometimes.
Personally, I have never been comfortable saying Burke wasn't involved.
I also believe Pattsy wrote the "ransom" letter to cover up the fact that someone in the family murdered J.B. JMO

It wld have to be hirrid as the note instilled fear. To this day it all worked, besides she is a sa victim

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

We've seen equally horrible things on W.S. Unfortunaley parents DO murdered their children sometimes.
Personally, I have never been comfortable saying Burke wasn't involved.
I also believe Pattsy wrote the "ransom" letter to cover up the fact that someone in the family murdered J.B. JMO

I work in a field where parents have been known to be afraid of the their children. It is not the norm for sure but emotional and behavioral issues can start very early.

 

[markmess]

Yes. Because we’ve seen parents do much worse

If son did it..parents cover up so they dont lose both her and the son. By him getting in trouble. The person writing the ransom note ( mrs,if you ask me) only could be the people who knew of mr. Bonus. Mom writes note to protect son

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Someone at the party pulled down her underwear, drooled on them, but only in the spot where JonBenet later bled? Even if we postulate that scenario, it still doesn't explain how this party-goer's skin cells ended up on the waistband of her longjohns, a garment she definitely didn't wear at the party. No, if UM1 was at the party, then the party-goer is the killer.

I think it's moot, though. I believe everyone at the party has been tested and excluded.



We know it's not Burke's DNA. He and his entire family are excluded from the possibility of being UM1.



I doubt there's some secret evidence the Grand Jury knows that we don't. The indictments are a result of eighteen months of hammering in the police case into the GJ - giving Smit a half day barely matters.

Of course, only getting indictments on a minority of charges, and the weaker ones at that, even after eighteen months, shows how weak the case was.

Someone at the party pulled down her underwear, drooled on them, but only in the spot where JonBenet later bled? Even if we postulate that scenario, it still doesn't explain how this party-goer's skin cells ended up on the waistband of her longjohns, a garment she definitely didn't wear at the party. No, if UM1 was at the party, then the party-goer is the killer.

I think it's moot, though. I believe everyone at the party has been tested and excluded.



We know it's not Burke's DNA. He and his entire family are excluded from the possibility of being UM1.



I doubt there's some secret evidence the Grand Jury knows that we don't. The indictments are a result of eighteen months of hammering in the police case into the GJ - giving Smit a half day barely matters.

Of course, only getting indictments on a minority of charges, and the weaker ones at that, even after eighteen months, shows how weak the case was.

Someone at the party pulled down her underwear, drooled on them, but only in the spot where JonBenet later bled? Even if we postulate that scenario, it still doesn't explain how this party-goer's skin cells ended up on the waistband of her longjohns, a garment she definitely didn't wear at the party. No, if UM1 was at the party, then the party-goer is the killer.

Is this the only way you can fathom the transfer of touch DNA? I gave you 2 logical scenerios but you only think DNA could get on her if someone slobbered on her?
Heck, if I went in my kids room that hasn't been vacuumed in weeks, God only knows where my hands might transfer his DNA to, not to mention there would be alot. If sat on his rug, then used the bathroom and wiped my bum, I could have his DNA on my bum. DNA on a person does not prove a case. It can help if it can't be explained away. JB picking up DNA after spending the day in someone's house is not proof that they murdered her. It is proof that they were in each other's presence and that is expected as we know they were at a party. What if the host had a separate party the night before? What if they had dry skin? Dermatitis? Do you not think DNA is picked up and left behind where ever we go? But your intruder left so little, you cant even difinitely point to an intruder. No santa DNA, No Mark Karr DNA, No Gary Olibas DNA and it goes on and on. One speck proves Jane Doe killed her. Zero speck proves Jane Doe killed her. Where do we anticipate someone would leave DNA behind in the house writing novels, fixing a snack, wiping down, redressing, molesting, opening drawers, getting new panties , grabbing her favorite blanket from the dryer, crawling through a Window without touching or losing a scalp hair or 2 or 3?
Our opinions differ greatly on DNA. In the lab, I know how easy it is to contaminate results therefore I understand how easy it is to transfer DNA. IMHO, DNA will not solve this case no matter who is responsible.

 

[Chimera]

We know it's not Burke's DNA. He and his entire family are excluded from the possibility of being UM1.
I doubt there's some secret evidence the Grand Jury knows that we don't. The indictments are a result of eighteen months of hammering in the police case into the GJ - giving Smit a half day barely matters.

Of course, only getting indictments on a minority of charges, and the weaker ones at that, even after eighteen months, shows how weak the case was.

Snipped for focus.
Bbm.

I believe the point of the OP was that if it was Burke's dna, that it will never be revealed, due to his age ?
Ergo, it's not impossible that it wasn't Burke's dna.
Mr. Ramsey doth protest too much ... and has been for years.
Imo.
Omo.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I guess I am really more comfortable not making assumptions. I admire police forces that admit the evidence is not strong enough to convict anyone yet, and so they don't go after anyone in public.

I think not only did the Boulder PD mess up the crime scene, but they messed up any possibilty for a future fair trail by leaking and encouraging so much suspicion and speculation targetted at the Ramseys, without any hard evidence that would stand.up in court.

It seems to me very unprofessional for police to do that, instead it's almost passive-aggressive. Poor little police officers, how can we be expected to solve a crime with these forces of evil arrayed against us! I'll get back at them by telling all, after I retire!

JMO

The Ramsey had no problem accusing innocent people publicly and those poor people didn't have Ramsey money to defend themselves publicly. I'm not even going to list them here because I think it was horrible what was done to them not to mention, I have list count. At some point, they should have accepted their detective skills weren't so great and stopped publicly accusing people beings that they found it so offensive when eyes were on them. For this reason, I find it very difficult to have compassion for the parents. After years of blaming innocent people, it has just become self serving.
Stick to what you know.

 

[Cedars]

Stick to what you know.

Ha! You're right, I haven't spent decades following this case. I don't consider that a problem. I certainly don't intend to spend decades embroiled in it now, either.

The Ramsey's are private individuals and like all citizens are entitled to use their wealth as they choose.

Everyone is entitled to be biased towards their own self-interest, except for the police. Police are funded by taxpayers and are subject to the legal system as well as public expectations about proper policing. Police seriously undermine their own credibility when they display tunnel vision in pursuing a case.

JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

If a nine-year-old accidentally kills his sister in a moment of anger, what need is there for a cover-up? How much punishment would be dished out to a child that young? I am guessing, none. There's more legal risk in the cover-up than admitting what happened if this theory was true.

As the theory goes, it was Burke that was sexually abusing her and Patsy knew about it. There was indeed an effort to clean up JonBenet, wipe her down and re-dress her…and make it look like something else entirely.