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

[Tower]

While I agree, I feel that's an unfair predicament to put someone in.
My friend and I exchanged babysitting duties with eachother. We both had boys that probably needed help toileting at some point. Were we wrong to do this? Should no one ever help a child that is not yours? Is it only wrong because he was the opposite sex? Daycare people all over the world are put in this position of trust with poeples children. It's kind of tough to leave a kid to their own devices when you are unsure of the amount of fecal matter they may have on them.
Six was far too old but if people were used to stepping up for PR from the time she was 3 years old, he was probably considered a trusted adult.
He then was put in the parenting position to say " I'm not doing this for you". Not necessarily naive but put in a situation of saying no to doing what he always had done for her.
Again, not saying it was a good practice but who is to say he didn't try to teach her. If his intentions were noble, he wouldn't have been thrilled to do it IMO.

Agree with everything you said here. He was put in a bad position. But (if it actually happened), it was up to him as a grown adult male to understand that he could be at risk being in that type of position with any 6-year-old, even his best friends’. I see what you’re saying about doing it since she was young, but it’s normal and entirely appropriate to tell a child: “JB, you’re 5 now, I’m not wiping you, you need to do it yourself.” Continuing at that age is exactly what draws my scrutiny. And yes, reality and culture dictate that men wiping a young girl IS a problem. Men are statistically more likely to abuse children, even though most men are moral, good and not abusing kids.

Daycare providers have background checks and are in open spaces with observation windows and often with others in the room. And never with 6-year-olds unless they have specifically documented issues, in order to protect the caregiver as well as the child.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Agree with everything you said here. He was put in a bad position. But (if it actually happened), it was up to him as a grown adult male to understand that he could be at risk being in that type of position with any 6-year-old, even his best friends’. I see what you’re saying about doing it since she was young, but it’s normal and entirely appropriate to tell a child: “JB, you’re 5 now, I’m not wiping you, you need to do it yourself.” Continuing at that age is exactly what draws my scrutiny. And yes, reality and culture dictate that men wiping a young girl IS a problem. Men are statistically more likely to abuse children, even though most men are moral, good and not abusing kids.

Daycare providers have background checks and are in open spaces with observation windows and often with others in the room. And never with 6-year-olds unless they have specifically documented issues, in order to protect the caregiver as well as the child.

I have never seen an observation window in a commercial daycare. Is that a requirement in your state? We have more private in home daycare in my area.
I think you make excellent points and in hindsight, I'm sure he sadly wished he and his wife never took care of her or befriended the Ramseys. I can't imagine the life long repercussions of suspicion and the loss of your child's playmate.

 

[Tower]

I have never seen an observation window in a commercial daycare. Is that a requirement in your state? We have more private in home daycare in my area.
I think you make excellent points and in hindsight, I'm sure he sadly wished he and his wife never took care of her or befriended the Ramseys. I can't imagine the life long repercussions of suspicion and the loss of your child's playmate.

It must be. I work with children 0-3 and go into about 12 daycare classrooms per month. I’m sorry, I’m too lazy to look it up, but every one has at least one window in which parents or other workers can observe.

I would guess, even though this may be grossly unfair, that leaving a small child alone with a male caregiver in an in-home daycare would be a dealbreaker for many parents.

And again, I do not wish to discriminate against men. My grandfather, stepdad, husband and son are the most trustworthy, lovely humans I know. But I would argue concern about the gender of caregivers is a reality.

I agree for all involved that the Whites never should have befriended the Ramseys.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Thanks for linking to this. While the information in the Cynic podcast is accurate, it shouldn’t surprise anyone who is familiar with the case. Clearly the Netflix coverage is yet another attempt for JR & team to a) continue to promote themselves as victims so as to gain/keep public support, b) continue to spread one sided or misinformation on the facts to sow doubt on the investigation, and c) continue pushing DNA as a venue for resolution when they (as WS Tricia alludes) know it’s a red herring that leads nowhere.

Cynic adds an appendix at the end discussing the RN, although not part of the Netflix doc, because it’s such a crucial portion of the case.

It should be clear to any familiar observer (and is also my opinion) that the Ramseys were involved and culpable at some level in the events of 25/26 Dec 1996 that resulted in what happened to JonBenet….and have successfully corrupted any attempt at being held responsible for doing so. What exactly they did…to what level…is not becoming any clearer as the decades past and likely never will.

What I find interesting in declaring a belief of “RDI”, or the clear innuendo that Cynic has in the JR doc rebuttal, is that these statements, beliefs always leave out the evil, sadistic, animalistic inhuman way that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and tortured during that evenings events. Anyone who hasn’t, should listen to ‘The Consult’, experienced FBI profilers who go through every detail of what was done to JonBenets body, and what kind of person it takes to do those unspeakable things. Yes, fathers and mothers have killed daughters. But not this way. JR, PR, nor BR did not do those things. My opinion, and also the opinion of multiple lifetime agents of the FBI with decades of experience in gross sexual torture and molestation cases.

Very convenient to leave that portion of the discussion out, for the RDI accuser camp. They did something. A lot of things. But according to the FBI, not that.

You bring some good points to the table. The Consult podcast is pretty good, interesting for sure.

I think criminal profiling is another tool in the toolbox used to assist in certain cases that may have some value, but many look at it as they do lie detector tests as being pseudoscientific. It's a very broad indication of the type of person who may have committed the given crime. It cannot pinpoint the probability that someone who may fit the profile was actually capable of committing the crime being investigated or not, nor can profiling rule anyone out with any certainty even though they might not fit the profile.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the FBI has been assisting in the Ramsey case since day one. They have not even come close to ruling out the Ramseys as being incapable of committing this crime.

 

[SteveS]

1 How can you say that the charge of child abuse was a broad catch-all unless you were part of the GJ and saw with your own eyes what was presented to them?

The wording of the indictment itself lacks ANY claim of a direct crime being committed. That speaks volumes. And the one grand juror who spoke about the evidence offered basically the very same idea that the indictment implies, telling us the jurors believed the Ramsey's 'placed JonBenet in a situation resulting in her death.'

He also said the evidence was NOT clear enough to tell them who was the person who did it, and saying it would have been "a waste of taxpayer dollars" to take any of it to trial.

2 I'm curious as you accuse others as presenting baseless theories.

I didn't cast any aspersions on anyone's personal theory. We don't have any way to grade any person's personal theory. The validity of each rests on their bias and pov and a widely varying knowledge of "facts" (or lack of knowledge in some areas) to decide which "facts" matter - and we all are forced to make widely varying assumptions about evidence none of us have personally seen. As a result, the discussion is interesting, but each point doesn't and can't change anything, because we have no way of knowing whose pov is reliable.

Obviously you don't like what I say, and you simply decide it's wrong, and that supports my point. We are all viewing everything and saying what we say based on the things we know and think we know, and we don't know what we don't know.

We ALL evaluate and accept or dismiss what each other person offers, but without an objective authority to grade the points made and opinions offered, as they are given, it's just a random stew of ideas of which not all are correct and perhaps none are correct. We have no way to know.

3 13 months of evidence was presented to the GJ. You are certain nothing was presented to them that raised red flags? How do you know this? Are you surmising?

The GJ looked and looked, and saw way more than we have access to. It was up to them to see if any red flags could lead them to a conclusion. All they offered up were indictments that the R's placed JonBenet in a situation resulting in her death, and the grand juror said the evidence was so weak that in a trial, he wouldn't be able to vote to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt using what they had.

It's informative to keep in mind that none of what the GJ was given was cross-examined or second guessed evidence, nor were they given conflicting evidence chosen by a defendant.

4 The one Grand Jurer who spoke said he felt he knew who was responsible but proving would be difficult.

That's NOT what he said. He said there was evidence for him to vote to "indict" (ie, make a formal accusation that could lead to a trial) which was of parents not protecting their daughter from harm and being an "accessory" after the fact, but that he didn't think there was enough for HIM to vote to convict anyone using a BARD criteria.

5 This more than lively discussion to some. A little girl was found dead in her home. Statistics are not in the Ramseys favor.

Yes, that's true. Finding Jon Benet's killer does matter most of all, and I am not saying otherwise. But statistics and suspicion are NOT evidence, so we share pov's with no way to separate correct pov's on various facts (or lack of facts) from those that are amiss. I am no exception.

Personally I find the fact that her father keeps stirring the pot on finding the killer (rather than just let this all fade away from the landscape) to be a positive in his favor - I think he wants justice too. And I think there is one piece of objective, potentially decisive evidence - the unidentified DNA - that can move this case forward. I don't know if they yet have the technology or database info that can get them over the hump, but my hope is that they get it.

PS - Someone above said they have "mixed DNA" that they can't separate. But my understanding is with the technology they now have, that's not necessarily true anymore. They know it's a male, and does NOT match anyone they know - it's a true outsider. It was found in 4 different places. They have isolated some of the distinguishing markers contained in the DNA - but not all. Better technology to isolate more markers (which then narrows the possible matches), and more pools of people's DNA to check against, are the ever-improving avenues to getting a match.

 

[CloudedTruth]

That's NOT what he said. He said there was evidence for him to vote to "indict" (ie, make a formal accusation that could lead to a trial) which was of parents not protecting their daughter from harm and being an "accessory" after the fact, but that he didn't think there was enough for HIM to vote to convict anyone using a BARD criteria.

Actually, when asked the question if he thought he knew who did it, he replied “I highly suspect I do”.

The jury felt the parents were guilty. They just weren’t sure which one did what.

 

[highfastflyer]

You bring some good points to the table. The Consult podcast is pretty good, interesting for sure.

I think criminal profiling is another tool in the toolbox used to assist in certain cases that may have some value, but many look at it as they do lie detector tests as being pseudoscientific. It's a very broad indication of the type of person who may have committed the given crime. It cannot pinpoint the probability that someone who may fit the profile was actually capable of committing the crime being investigated or not, nor can profiling rule anyone out with any certainty even though they might not fit the profile.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the FBI has been assisting in the Ramsey case since day one. They have not even come close to ruling out the Ramseys as being incapable of committing this crime.

Just wanted to clarify that I did not insinuate that the FBI cleared the Ramseys of anything. In fact they (FBI) are probably in line with the GJ TB’s, aiding, negligence, etc.

But once again it’s not “this” crime. There were many. Everyone here needs to look closely at the individual horrific sexual atrocities committed that night against JonBenet. It’s a difficult look …. and speaks directly at an accomplished sexually deviant monster. Which is why even the released GJ TB’s hint in that direction.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Are you saying the reason they took the time to write a lengthy fake ransom note about a fake kidnapping as punishment to JR for his business practices and/or the governments he serves, a fake kidnapping which was really a murder and SA or staged SA, but written mimicking PR’s handwriting to also frame her, was just because the perpetrator was “crazy”? And you see all this complexity as comparable to the “craziness” of a pervert molesting and taking photos of sleeping kids? Really?

Yes. The killer most definitely was/is crazy and he has a connection to John’s business. There’s no evidence linking the Ramsey family to the murder because if the police had evidence, they would have prosecuted them decades ago. Patsy Ramsey was not the author of the ransom note. Forget the money hungry tv shows, the forensic tests done through the police ruled her out. Case closed!

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Are you saying the reason they took the time to write a lengthy fake ransom note about a fake kidnapping as punishment to JR for his business practices and/or the governments he serves, a fake kidnapping which was really a murder and SA or staged SA, but written mimicking PR’s handwriting to also frame her, was just because the perpetrator was “crazy”? And you see all this complexity as comparable to the “craziness” of a pervert molesting and taking photos of sleeping kids? Really?

You said you Don’t believe someone would hang around to write the ransom note without fear of being caught. I provided some examples of men who have no fear of getting caught and remain in the house for hours. Just because your psyche doesn’t fathom someone staying at a crime scene for hours doesn’t mean perpetrators don’t. There are numerous cases where the perpetrator has remained at the scene for hours, days, weeks and even years!

 

[Slebby]

Yes. The killer most definitely was/is crazy and he has a connection to John’s business. There’s no evidence linking the Ramsey family to the murder because if the police had evidence, they would have prosecuted them decades ago. Patsy Ramsey was not the author of the ransom note. Forget the money hungry tv shows, the forensic tests done through the police ruled her out. Case closed!

The case is not closed, thanks.
There is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to defend the Rs and specifically PR, and it’s this: reputable experts in handwriting analysis have concluded the author of the RN is PR. For example, Cina Wong found I believe 200 similarities between PR’s handwriting and the note. It would be an incredible coincidence for the so-called intruder to have so many shared handwriting characteristics with someone who happened to be in the R home that night.
The test done by the police did not rule her out. In fact, they said hers was the only handwriting that could not be ruled out. If I recall correctly, it was “only” an 80 percent match.
So much shade has been thrown lately at other R associates, like Linda HP, Santa and FW, but contrary to some inaccuracies mentioned here recently, let me repeat, only PR’s handwriting could not be ruled out.
And honestly, if folks set aside their own biases, and look at the handwriting comparisons, PR’s to the RN, it would be very difficult to honestly say you don’t see it yourself. Try as I might to be fair and see things from an IDI pov, I can’t get past the handwriting. It is my belief that the GJ was not able to see past it either.
IMO

 

[Slebby]

You said you Don’t believe someone would hang around to write the ransom note without fear of being caught. I provided some examples of men who have no fear of getting caught and remain in the house for hours. Just because your psyche doesn’t fathom someone staying at a crime scene for hours doesn’t mean perpetrators don’t. There are numerous cases where the perpetrator has remained at the scene for hours, days, weeks and even years!

I would love to see this examples of those perps who hung around for hours, days weeks or even years (?) as long as they include a RN as well, written in handwriting barely distinguishable from the victim’s mother, who cannot be eliminated as author. Looking forward to learning more!
Imo

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The case is not closed, thanks.
There is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to defend the Rs and specifically PR, and it’s this: reputable experts in handwriting analysis have concluded the author of the RN is PR. For example, Cina Wong found I believe 200 similarities between PR’s handwriting and the note. It would be an incredible coincidence for the so-called intruder to have so many shared handwriting characteristics with someone who happened to be in the R home that night.
The test done by the police did not rule her out. In fact, they said hers was the only handwriting that could not be ruled out. If I recall correctly, it was “only” an 80 percent match.
So much shade has been thrown lately at other R associates, like Linda HP, Santa and FW, but contrary to some inaccuracies mentioned here recently, let me repeat, only PR’s handwriting could not be ruled out.
And honestly, if folks set aside their own biases, and look at the handwriting comparisons, PR’s to the RN, it would be very difficult to honestly say you don’t see it yourself. Try as I might to be fair and see things from an IDI pov, I can’t get past the handwriting. It is my belief that the GJ was not able to see past it either.
IMO

Have to concur fully @Slebby ….. and it is so infortunate.

I would add, sadly, IMO it appears that Boulder officials seem to think it is “closed” and unsolved. And for whatever reason thus it remains. Yet it is also IMO that the Boulder DA office seems to have interfered or confused or complicated early and significant portions of the investigation.

Three additional things are clear IMO. 1) There has been no justice sought or obtained for the death of a young child in a private residence. 2) Four people entered the residence that evening / morning, and by morning only three remained. 3) It seems that Boulder police and the Boulder DA office and DAs have spoken on more than one occasion to the individual(s) responsible for the crimes that occurred. MOO

 

[Deleted member 187229]

The case is not closed, thanks.
There is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to defend the Rs and specifically PR, and it’s this: reputable experts in handwriting analysis have concluded the author of the RN is PR. For example, Cina Wong found I believe 200 similarities between PR’s handwriting and the note. It would be an incredible coincidence for the so-called intruder to have so many shared handwriting characteristics with someone who happened to be in the R home that night.
The test done by the police did not rule her out. In fact, they said hers was the only handwriting that could not be ruled out. If I recall correctly, it was “only” an 80 percent match.
So much shade has been thrown lately at other R associates, like Linda HP, Santa and FW, but contrary to some inaccuracies mentioned here recently, let me repeat, only PR’s handwriting could not be ruled out.
And honestly, if folks set aside their own biases, and look at the handwriting comparisons, PR’s to the RN, it would be very difficult to honestly say you don’t see it yourself. Try as I might to be fair and see things from an IDI pov, I can’t get past the handwriting. It is my belief that the GJ was not able to see past it either.
IMO

Patsy’s handwriting was not a match. She didn’t have an 80% match to the ransom note. She scored 4.5 out of 5 with 5 being no match at all. Case closed. This case is a DNA case. Match the dna to someone and you have your killer. The killer was someone who was angry with John, someone related to his company. I’m hopeful they will test the last remaining half of the bloodspot found in jonbenets underoants this year and upload it to familial dna companies where it’s likely to receive familial hits.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

T

I would love to see this examples of those perps who hung around for hours, days weeks or even years (?) as long as they include a RN as well, written in handwriting barely distinguishable from the victim’s mother, who cannot be eliminated as author. Looking forward to learning more!
Imo

The ransom note was left before he fled the scene. He didn’t put the ransom note out before he killed her. He wrote it before the murder while the ramseys were at the whites Christmas party then after he killed her he went back upstairs, left the note and fled. There are lots of attacks from men hiding in the house for hours prior to carrying out their attacks. The ransom note was designed to give John false hope, to control the aftermath and taunt John. I haven’t found any evidence linking John or patsy to the murder. There’s lots of forensic evidence suggesting an intruder it. Of course it’s a possibility John or patsy did it but it’s not probable. Patsy went on tv days after the murder medicated to her eye balls! She never slipped up once while under the influence of powerful sedatives. Unless there’s concrete evidence pointing to the parents, I don’t believe they had any involvement in the murder. There’s only theories and speculation like Burke hit her over the head and the parents finished her off and staged the scene. There’s absolutely no evidence to back that up. Absolutely none!

 

[Deleted member 187229]

The case is not closed, thanks.
There is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to defend the Rs and specifically PR, and it’s this: reputable experts in handwriting analysis have concluded the author of the RN is PR. For example, Cina Wong found I believe 200 similarities between PR’s handwriting and the note. It would be an incredible coincidence for the so-called intruder to have so many shared handwriting characteristics with someone who happened to be in the R home that night.
The test done by the police did not rule her out. In fact, they said hers was the only handwriting that could not be ruled out. If I recall correctly, it was “only” an 80 percent match.
So much shade has been thrown lately at other R associates, like Linda HP, Santa and FW, but contrary to some inaccuracies mentioned here recently, let me repeat, only PR’s handwriting could not be ruled out.
And honestly, if folks set aside their own biases, and look at the handwriting comparisons, PR’s to the RN, it would be very difficult to honestly say you don’t see it yourself. Try as I might to be fair and see things from an IDI pov, I can’t get past the handwriting. It is my belief that the GJ was not able to see past it either.
IMO

Those handwriting tests done on tv shows aren’t even accurate. You can’t use copies of copies to examine the handwriting of patsy and the ransom note. They’ve never even seen the original and there’s no proof those examples are even patsys handwriting. Those people aren’t even fully qualified.

 

[GRT]

Actually, when asked the question if he thought he knew who did it, he replied “I highly suspect I do”.

The jury felt the parents were guilty. They just weren’t sure which one did what.

It's clear the jury didn't think they were guilty of murder--they didn't hand down any true bills accusing either of murder.

They did think they were guilty of child abuse, ostensibly allowing her to come into contact with the murderer or perhaps even putting her on pageant stages, which may have drawn pedo types. They also thought the Ramseys were guilty of accessory- they did, after all, not pay close attention to locking their doors, and they gave virtually anyone keys to their home, but they didn't monitor if those keys returned.

So yes, the GJ thought they were guilty of something.

But, that something wasn't murder.

 

[GRT]

Those handwriting tests done on tv shows aren’t even accurate. You can’t use copies of copies to examine the handwriting of patsy and the ransom note. They’ve never even seen the original and there’s no proof those examples are even patsys handwriting. Those people aren’t even fully qualified.

Those TV shows are all sensationalism.

Legally, however, JR was eliminated as a potential writer of the note, and Patsy had a low similarity score.

 

[Val1943]

The killers are properly dead and cremated hopefully this case can be solved like this one

DNA evidence helps identify woman’s killer 36 years after her death​

How genetic genealogy cracked the case

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/08/us/tracy-whitney-cold-case-dna-evidence/index.html

to add its hard to find the killers are from another country

THE RANSOM LETTER
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction.

Combined DNA Index System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While the U.S. database is not directly connected to any other country, the underlying CODIS software is used by other agencies around the world

 

[Ponytale]

I just watched an interview on Youtube with a Grand Juror on the case. It tells a lot. He stated out clearly that they did not buy the intruder theory presented by Lou, and believed the 3 handwriting experts who believed the ransom note was most probably written by Patsy. They left no room for the idea that someone else outside of the house did this crime.

They had the opportunity to visit the house. They had a chance to see and hear about evidence that we never have. They based their conclusions on the evidence and facts.

So I believe the jurors on this case - it was an inside job.

 

[SteveS]

I just watched an interview on Youtube with a Grand Juror on the case. It tells a lot. He stated out clearly that they did not buy the intruder theory presented by Lou, and believed the 3 handwriting experts who believed the ransom note was written by Patsy. They left no room for the idea that someone else outside of the house did this crime.

They had the opportunity to visit the house. They had a chance to see and hear about evidence that we never have. They based their conclusions on the evidence and facts.

So I believe the jurors on this case.

"So I believe the jurors on this case"... The only interview I have found was part of a 20/20 episode, and while the 20/20 commentary was long, the interview segments with the grand juror they showed were very brief. I have found lots of YouTube content where people are giving their own takes at length, but none that actually show more direct interview content where we see a (the) grand juror saying things themself.

Are you saying we have more than that, ie more than one juror on camera, and more coming from their mouth on camera than the brief comments on 20/20? If so, link please.