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

[Tricia]

Reporter-C.Lin You are right.​

One thing that people don't know is Lou Smit, the detective who was convinced an intruder killed JonBenet, actually testified in front of the grand jury to try and convince them it was an intruder.
The vast majority of the time, the prosecutor only presents the prosecution's side to the grand jury. I am looking for the link that explains why Smit sued to force the prosecution to let him testify. Otherwise, I can't imagine the prosecutor bringing Smit in to tell the other side. That's not what grand juries are for. Below is one story confirming Smit testified before the grand jury.
Even with their number one defender giving his all to the grand jury they still voted to indict.

Smit seeks justice for JonBenét

As a grand jury investigated the death of JonBenét Ramsey in January 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter fired off a letter to his former ace investigator, demanding that he return key crime-scene …

www.dailycamera.com

 

[Chypre]

From the article:

"But New York lawyer Darnay Hoffman, who claims in two civil lawsuits that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, is not as enamored with Smit.

“Lou Smit has never addressed the most important piece of forensic evidence in the case: the ransom note,” he said. “Until he does, (he) is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

IMO, This is false.
However, probably was true of the thinking at the time of where DNA science was.
Now, the most important piece of forensic evidence is the DNA on the the victim. The letter is after that I think.

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

From the article:

"But New York lawyer Darnay Hoffman, who claims in two civil lawsuits that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, is not as enamored with Smit.

“Lou Smit has never addressed the most important piece of forensic evidence in the case: the ransom note,” he said. “Until he does, (he) is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

IMO, This is false.
However, probably was true of the thinking at the time of where DNA science was.
Now, the most important piece of forensic evidence is the DNA on the the victim. The letter is after that I think.

I don't know why it has to be DNA comes first and other things have to be set aside.
The ransom note is also a piece of evidence. I don't know why somehow that piece of evidence is less important.

I would encourage you watch "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" and you'll see, there, the documentary also explored the DNA in length, and still, the conclusion was it didn't mean the family couldn't have done it.

Forensic evidence still needs to be interpreted along with background information.
There was one California man who was falsely accused of a murder because they found his DNA on a victim. Turns out, his DNA was on the victim because he was on a stretcher that the victim later was also using. This just tells you the danger of not looking at the whole picture and the circumstances.
It is also true that human interpretation could be affected by what they know about the circumstances, sometimes there is a risk of being biased.
That's why, we should not say what evidence is more important than what. They should be evaluated equally.

When DNA Implicates the Innocent

The criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, carries significant risks

www.scientificamerican.com

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

 

[docyabut]

JonBenét Ramsey's murder case has recently come to light due to a Netflix documentary – but now her dad has claimed her murderer was a hired hitman and ex-employee off his?

Is that true a ex-employee that was fired hired a hitman to get his money ?

JonBenét Ramsey's dad claims daughter was killed by a hitman

JonBenet Ramsey's dad suggests daughter’s killer motivated by money in resurfaced interview​

JonBenet Ramsey's dad suggests daughter’s killer motivated by money in resurfaced interview

 

[Chypre]

I don't know why it has to be DNA comes first and other things have to be set aside.
The ransom note is also a piece of evidence. I don't know why somehow that piece of evidence is less important.

I would encourage you watch "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" and you'll see, there, the documentary also explored the DNA in length, and still, the conclusion was it didn't mean the family couldn't have done it.

Forensic evidence still needs to be interpreted along with background information.
There was one California man who was falsely accused of a murder because they found his DNA on a victim. Turns out, his DNA was on the victim because he was on a stretcher that the victim later was also using. This just tells you the danger of not looking at the whole picture and the circumstances.
It is also true that human interpretation could be affected by what they know about the circumstances, sometimes there is a risk of being biased.
That's why, we should not say what evidence is more important than what. They should be evaluated equally.

When DNA Implicates the Innocent

The criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, carries significant risks

www.scientificamerican.com

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

I will watch the documentary. I see your point of view, and looking at the case as a whole.
In this specific case, I think the DNA on the underpants is more important.

 

[docyabut]

A ex-employee that was fired hired a hitman to get the money, Were they from the THE PHILIPPINES ?

JonBenét Ramsey's dad claims daughter was killed by a hitman

 

[docyabut]

JonBenét Ramsey's father receives bombshell letter naming his daughter's killer​

JonBenét Ramsey's father receives bombshell letter naming his daughter's killer

JonBenét was just six years old when she was found brutally murdered in 1996

www.hellomagazine.com

Speaking to Daily Mail, 81-year-old John explained that the letter came from a woman who believes her ex-husband is responsible for the crime that has haunted the Ramsey family and captivated the world for decades. "Based on all this publicity, recently I got a letter from a lady saying, 'My ex-husband’s the killer, and I’ve kept this inside for as long as I can – please, please call me,'"John shared.

 

[docyabut]

JonBenét Ramsey's Dad Shares His Theory on Ransom Amount Significance in Never-Before-Seen Interview​

JonBenét Ramsey's Dad Shares His Theory on Ransom Amount Significance in Never-Before-Seen Interview - E! Online

JonBenét Ramsey's dad John Ramsey shared his theory on why his 6-year-old daughter's killer demanded a $118,000 ransom in a Barbara Walters interview that had never been released until now.

www.eonline.com

 

[Indy_ar]

I don't know why it has to be DNA comes first and other things have to be set aside.
The ransom note is also a piece of evidence. I don't know why somehow that piece of evidence is less important.

I would encourage you watch "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" and you'll see, there, the documentary also explored the DNA in length, and still, the conclusion was it didn't mean the family couldn't have done it.

Forensic evidence still needs to be interpreted along with background information.
There was one California man who was falsely accused of a murder because they found his DNA on a victim. Turns out, his DNA was on the victim because he was on a stretcher that the victim later was also using. This just tells you the danger of not looking at the whole picture and the circumstances.
It is also true that human interpretation could be affected by what they know about the circumstances, sometimes there is a risk of being biased.
That's why, we should not say what evidence is more important than what. They should be evaluated equally.

When DNA Implicates the Innocent

The criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, carries significant risks

www.scientificamerican.com

Framed for Murder by His Own DNA

We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.

www.themarshallproject.org

I see this data differently. First, the DNA. The main difference between the links above and this case is that the DNA found on the underwear was mixed with JB blood. That makes the contamination case harder to occur. The other DNA was found on the nails of the victim where contact was more likely from the victim to a possible attacker. Another important aspect is that the fact that JB was alive while sexually assaulted per the forensic analysis. This makes it hard to believe that a family member was involved in my mind. About the grand jury, it is mentioned during the documentary that the prosecutor office and the police were not in the same page. The prosecutors did not find enough evidence to charge anyone. The grand jury was setup because the state wanted to have the high profile crime closed. Lou Smith was hired by the prosecutor office because of the differences they had with the police department. He worked for the prosecutor. As stated, in a grand jury the defenders have no representation as was the case here. The case was presented mainly by the police. Lou entered the suit to testify because as part of the prosecution team, he thought it was important to hear what he, as part of that team, had found but he was not representing the defendants at all. The case of the letter was presented mainly by the police which would have done it in a way that supported their main theory that it was a family crime so they made it look like getting the paper and the pen was an unlikely event for a stranger. The writing analysis was not conclusive from all the experts and writing analysis. It is important to remember that the stranger had likely intruded in the house while they were out for about 4 hours, so, the re were plenty of opportunities to find the pen and the paper. Per studies performed, the writing expert examination is probably the weakest evidence. Per a study from August 2022, several experts were evaluated and when examining writing during the test, at least half of them made a mistake https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119944119

 

[TizerisT]

I can say beyond any reasonable doubts that Patsy wrote the ransom note. From where the ransom note was left (at a small staircase to the back of the house that Patsy used the most) to the content (the exact amount of John's bonus), the paper and the pen used for the note (were from the house), all ruled out outsiders.

Extremely flimsy. What rules out an outsider, in your opinion? John's payslips of £118 are clearly seen on the video. The intruder saw this and included it in his note.

Just to add: why not leave the note on a staircase? it would be noticed there.
And yes, the intruder used the familys own paper and pen. I dont see why that would be implausible.

 

[FMB]

I see this data differently. First, the DNA. The main difference between the links above and this case is that the DNA found on the underwear was mixed with JB blood. That makes the contamination case harder to occur. The other DNA was found on the nails of the victim where contact was more likely from the victim to a possible attacker. Another important aspect is that the fact that JB was alive while sexually assaulted per the forensic analysis. This makes it hard to believe that a family member was involved in my mind. About the grand jury, it is mentioned during the documentary that the prosecutor office and the police were not in the same page. The prosecutors did not find enough evidence to charge anyone. The grand jury was setup because the state wanted to have the high profile crime closed. Lou Smith was hired by the prosecutor office because of the differences they had with the police department. He worked for the prosecutor. As stated, in a grand jury the defenders have no representation as was the case here. The case was presented mainly by the police. Lou entered the suit to testify because as part of the prosecution team, he thought it was important to hear what he, as part of that team, had found but he was not representing the defendants at all. The case of the letter was presented mainly by the police which would have done it in a way that supported their main theory that it was a family crime so they made it look like getting the paper and the pen was an unlikely event for a stranger. The writing analysis was not conclusive from all the experts and writing analysis. It is important to remember that the stranger had likely intruded in the house while they were out for about 4 hours, so, the re were plenty of opportunities to find the pen and the paper. Per studies performed, the writing expert examination is probably the weakest evidence. Per a study from August 2022, several experts were evaluated and when examining writing during the test, at least half of them made a mistake https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119944119

The Ramsey defense team WAS allowed to present their evidence.....Lou Smit was allowed to present his intruder theory to the Grand Jury and the GJ rejected it..... John Douglas was allowed to present a similar theory and again the GJ disregarded any intruder did it theory.

After 13 months of reviewing evidence, visiting the Ramsey home, listening to witness testimony the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to murder, one count for each parent.

 

[docyabut]

SBTC is also Saved By The Cross. Which is more likely, an enemy from the Philippines from 30 years earlier finally gets their revenge and quotes some bank, or Saved By the Cross, remembering the Rs were a Christian family?

If you look at SBTC on your phone dial pad, the numbers are 7282, which also correspond to P A T C (say those letters out loud) I’d believe that before the weak Philippine connection.

Santa Barbara Tennis Club
Southern Baptist Texas Convention (Christian angle)
Southwest Bell Telephone Company

You get my drift. We can find a lot of SBTCs. Even JR dismissed it as no sense.

It must mean the bank THE RANSOM LETTER is all about money money .

 

[CrimeTheorist]

If you think an intruder did it you have to believe that either the ransom note was written by someone with very similar writing as PR or intentionally tried to make their writing appear like PR's. If they were trying to make their writing appear like PR's than writing the note would have taken even longer to write. Ultimately for me the most damning evidence is that PR couldn't tell her writing from the ransom note's writing.

 

[wvmoonangel]

Can anyone confirm this new revelation? "The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter".

JonBenét Ramsey Case Solved? Murdered Beauty Queen's Father Tells How He's Received Bombshell Letter From Woman Who Claims Her Ex-Husband Is Girl's Killer - NewsBreak

The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter. RadarOnli

local.newsbreak.com

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Can anyone confirm this new revelation? "The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter".

JonBenét Ramsey Case Solved? Murdered Beauty Queen's Father Tells How He's Received Bombshell Letter From Woman Who Claims Her Ex-Husband Is Girl's Killer - NewsBreak

The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter. RadarOnli

local.newsbreak.com

Unfortunately @wvmoonangel , I can’t attest to the veracity of that. (And for full disclosure I did not watch the latest documentary on the case.) But maybe the family and Mr. Ramsey could share that in a future installment of a documentary? Even better they could send it to the current and former Boulder DA? Perhaps a new Grand Jury could be empaneled to review all of the case evidence in total? MOO

 

[Slebby]

Can anyone confirm this new revelation? "The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter".

JonBenét Ramsey Case Solved? Murdered Beauty Queen's Father Tells How He's Received Bombshell Letter From Woman Who Claims Her Ex-Husband Is Girl's Killer - NewsBreak

The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter. RadarOnli

local.newsbreak.com

First, I have to believe there have been many so called revelations in the 28 years since the murder. It’s a very well known case, prone to attracting crackpots.
Second, JR has taken it so seriously, but hasn’t handed it off to the FBI, or BPD. He’s given it to his own investigators. He’s tried calling the number given, but the woman hasn’t answered. Oh well. Does this sound like a man despite to solve the murder of his daughter?
IMO

 

[CloudedTruth]

Can anyone confirm this new revelation? "The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter".

JonBenét Ramsey Case Solved? Murdered Beauty Queen's Father Tells How He's Received Bombshell Letter From Woman Who Claims Her Ex-Husband Is Girl's Killer - NewsBreak

The father of murdered six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey has received a letter from a woman claiming her ex-husband killed his daughter. RadarOnli

local.newsbreak.com

This is actually an old story. The man involved, David Cooper, called John Ramsey directly 20 years ago and confessed. 3 separate phone calls IIRC. The way John tells the story, he asked Cooper a few questions to test him, and he was supposedly able to answer the questions correctly, so John deemed him credible. He turned over the info to the police and according to John they said "weren't interested". How many times have we heard that before? Pretty much every single time a public accusation is made by John / the Ramseys.

Cooper at some point admitted that "David Cooper" was not his real name. He also asked John for $3,000 to fly to Boulder to turn himself in. John refused at the advice of his attorney and one of his hired PI's who did not think the man was credible, and John never heard from him again. As it turns out, the man's real name is Darrel Kirkwood, who was found to have been incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility in Indiana on unrelated charges at the time of the murder.

A few people have made the point that if an enemy of John's was going to hire a hitman, it's more likely that it would be to hit John and not his 6 year old daughter. And then there's the SA aspect. Not typical hitman behavior.

 

[CloudedTruth]

First, I have to believe there have been many so called revelations in the 28 years since the murder. It’s a very well known case, prone to attracting crackpots.
Second, JR has taken it so seriously, but hasn’t handed it off to the FBI, or BPD. He’s given it to his own investigators. He’s tried calling the number given, but the woman hasn’t answered. Oh well. Does this sound like a man despite to solve the murder of his daughter?
IMO

I'm sure John will claim he wants his PI's to investigate because Boulder PD is inept and / or will just blow him off.

This guy called more than just John to confess, Rev, Holverstock, Mark Beckner and Lin Wood. He told Beckner he wanted to turn himself in, and Beckner said they'd be waiting. Didn't hear from him again. John continued to talk with Kirwood who was calling himself David Cooper. At one point he asked for $3,000 so he and his parents could fly to Boulder for him to confess. Said he didn't have any money. John said he was going to do it, but Lin Wood and one of their PI's told him not to do it, that he was being scammed. John says that they found the guy was a truck driver from Louisiana who was indeed trying to scam him. But it was determined by someone else that his real name was Darrel Kirkwood and that he was incarcerated in a facility in Indiana when the murder happened. John has also claimed that his attorney and PI Ollie Gray did think the guy was credible, but Boulder PD did not.

I guess it depends upon which David Cooper John is referring to at the time as to whether or not he is credible. The one from Louisiana was deemed not credible by Team Ramsey, but apparently they think the David Cooper who is really Darrel Kirkwood is credible.

 

[FMB]

First, I have to believe there have been many so called revelations in the 28 years since the murder. It’s a very well known case, prone to attracting crackpots.
Second, JR has taken it so seriously, but hasn’t handed it off to the FBI, or BPD. He’s given it to his own investigators. He’s tried calling the number given, but the woman hasn’t answered. Oh well. Does this sound like a man despite to solve the murder of his daughter?
IMO

" The real story here is not that a child was murdered , the real story here is what was done to us by an unjust system" Those were John Ramsey's exact words during his interview with Dr Phil..... Oh really John?? Its all about you??

Something in John keeps him trying to spin the narrative as he continues with the 11th hour media tours when he could just take the W and his money and fade away.....

 

[CloudedTruth]

" The real story here is not that a child was murdered , the real story here is what was done to us by an unjust system" Those were John Ramsey's exact words during his interview with Dr Phil..... Oh really John?? Its all about you??

Something in John keeps him trying to spin the narrative as he continues with the 11th hour media tours when he could just take the W and his money and fade away.....

Yes.

I have not read their book, The Death of Innocence and never will, but I have heard from many who have and they confirm that the Ramseys wrote from the perspective of them being the victims and not JonBenet. Which has turned a lot of people off, rightly so.

They have acted this way since day one. They were wealthy and had social status in the community. John was well respected as a successful businessman. Can you imagine if they were nobodies without money? They were for the most part treated with kid gloves. They hid behind their lawyers and a PR team that put out their very one sided narrative and a lot of misrepresentations. They did not cooperate with the investigation therefore not allowing for themselves to be cleared, and then complained because police thought they might be guilty.

One would think the Death of Innocence referred to the death of an innocent, their 6 year old child. But no, it was all about how they thought they were mistreated. John is still playing the victim and doing it on the public stage to keep his narrative going.