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

[Ponytale]

It's also worthy to note that after testimony and evidence had been presented, Mike Kane representing the DA's office issued statements exonerating both Bill "Santa" McReynolds and Burke Ramsey.

Should those statements be taken as the proof (beyond any reasonable doubt) to not believe in Burkes involvement? I mean, the DA later cleared/exonerated Patsy and John too (by DNA).

 

[CloudedTruth]

Should those statements be taken as the proof (beyond any reasonable doubt) to not believe in Burkes involvement? I mean, the DA later cleared/exonerated Patsy and John too (by DNA).

Well, first of all they’re different DA’s. I do think it’s significant that after seeing evidence and testimony presented to the GJ that there were those two exonerations.

Mary Lacy was clearly biased and John Ramsey made sure to pal up with her. She was warned by expert scientists who were dealing with the DNA findings that they in no way confirmed an intruder murderer. She decided on her own to do what she did, which wasn’t then or is now legally binding. It really was nothing more than a PR stunt.

 

[Ponytale]

I wish we could see the evidence that was presented, so that those statements would actually make sense and we here too could connect the dots. If there really is such evidence that will exonerate Burke... for Burke's sake, why not just put it out to the public.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I wish we could see the evidence that was presented, so that those statements would actually make sense and we here too could connect the dots. If there really is such evidence that will exonerate Burke... for Burke's sake, why not just put it out to the public.

With the exception of the indictments that the judge finally ordered to be released publicly, agreeing with the lawsuit that was filed that argued the public's right to know, the rest is all sealed and may very well remain that way. I would guess with regard to Burke it may have for some years been protecting his rights as a minor. Of course he is no longer a minor and hasn't been one for many years.

As I think we have agreed on before, I wish that the press would start to pursue some sort of legal action in the courts to get all of it released, but by the same token the case remains open and unsolved. We know that there is evidence that we have never seen or been privy to, and it's always a concern to keep certain details of crimes secret in hopes that someday the true perpetrator can be found by keeping those details close to the vest.

After all these years I guess we can only hope that when some people involved are no longer alive that those who are holding some of the strings will open up.

 

[AddieBoo]

According to a juror who did speak out (I think it might have been after the indictments were finally made public), he said that they were convinced that it was either Patsy or John, just not sure which one did what but that they covered for each other. They were also convinced that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

It's also worthy to note that after testimony and evidence had been presented, Mike Kane representing the DA's office issued statements exonerating both Bill "Santa" McReynolds and Burke Ramsey.

That’s major…

One of the two planned the murder with intent to kill?

Patsy had those jacket fibers everywhere in the wine room and into the ligature/garrote…
But no DNA. The CBI report was “mixed” sample. Could not identify although DNA of JB could not be ruled out. These are my findings-by no means the professional conclusions scientifically.

The microscopic birefringent material internally identified during JB autopsy, widely attributed to lacquer chards from the wooden paintbrush (was that Kolar who started that?) …that same material was attributed to be Talc by Wecht. Which didn’t exactly make sense to me…but talc is also found on gloves….which when identified during autopsy can commonly be attributed to gloves.

The paintbrush handle of the garrote - no discernible DNA (?)
but read there were brown fibers found on it that some said was from a glove? Still digging on this…
But no discernible DNA….again mixed sample. JB could not be ruled out.

I Wiki’ed the heck out of “Can you remove DNA…from a rope/nylon cord etc. The short answer is no. You can add DNA but not remove it
Unless you have the “DNA remover kit with some special chemical wash”…but in some circumstances you can use soap and water… ? Yeh.,,jumbled info.
No super DNA sample from that cord, with those knots..,,WTH?

The ligature is sloppy. And how/where was the handle of that garrote that the hair of JB was knotted into it? Was she moving about when they (?… he…she…) slipped it over her head and made it on her? It was constructed on her??? Someone was in such a hurry/fury… that JB hair is entangled …along with PR fibers..,
I am trying to recreate exactly what happened and how..,the choreography…
But the timing of the skull fracture vs. ligature are not absolute by experts..
And again, how is it there is no incredible DNA on any of that nylon cord .,, unless that is not public information?

There are those three latent fingerprints/palmprints identified on the wine cellar door., Two were PR and one was JAR.

I think Mike Kane is one of the good guys. His public statement exonerating Burke is definitive IMO., especially the timing of his statement. Especially the timing of his statement.
It’s almost easier for me to accept BR, a child did it … then to accept one of JB’s parents committed first degree murder. It somehow increases the horror of the crime for me. What could their state of mind be in to do that? Some weird religious ritual?

Cannot begin to speculate how that first degree murder association was determined by the GJ. What did they hear? What did they see?

Thanks Clouded Truth.

 

[AddieBoo]

According to a juror who did speak out (I think it might have been after the indictments were finally made public), he said that they were convinced that it was either Patsy or John, just not sure which one did what but that they covered for each other. They were also convinced that Patsy wrote the ransom note.

It's also worthy to note that after testimony and evidence had been presented, Mike Kane representing the DA's office issued statements exonerating both Bill "Santa" McReynolds and Burke Ramsey.

That’s major…

One of the two planned the murder with intent to kill?

Patsy had those jacket fibers everywhere in the wine room and into the ligature/garrote…
But no DNA. The CBI report was “mixed” sample. Could not identify although DNA of JB could not be ruled out. These are my findings-by no means the professional conclusions scientifically.

The microscopic birefringent material internally identified during JB autopsy, widely attributed to lacquer chards from the wooden paintbrush (was that Kolar who started that?) …that same material was attributed to be Talc by Wecht. Which didn’t exactly make sense to me…but talc is also found on gloves….which when identified during autopsy can commonly be attributed to gloves.

The paintbrush handle of the garrote - no discernible DNA (?)
but read there were brown fibers found on it that some said was from a glove? Still digging on this…
But no discernible DNA….again mixed sample. JB could not be ruled out.

I Wiki’ed the heck out of “Can you remove DNA…from a rope/nylon cord etc. The short answer is no. You can add DNA but not remove it
Unless you have the “DNA remover kit with some special chemical wash”…but in some circumstances you can use soap and water… ? Yeh.,,jumbled info.
No super DNA sample from that cord, with those knots..,,WTH?

The ligature is sloppy. And how/where was the handle of that garrote that the hair of JB was knotted into it? Was she moving about when they (?… he…she…) slipped it over her head and made it on her? It was constructed on her??? Someone was in such a hurry/fury… that JB hair is entangled …along with PR fibers..,
I am trying to recreate exactly what happened and how..,the choreography…
But the timing of the skull fracture vs. ligature are not absolute by experts..
And again, how is it there is no incredible DNA on any of that nylon cord .,, unless that is not public information?

There are those three latent fingerprints/palmprints identified on the wine cellar door., Two were PR and one was JAR.

I think Mike Kane is one of the good guys. His public statement exonerating Burke is definitive IMO., especially the timing of his statement. Especially the timing of his statement.
It’s almost easier for me to accept BR, a child did it … then to accept one of JB’s parents committed first degree murder. It somehow increases the horror of the crime for me. What could their state of mind be in to do that? Some weird religious ritual?

Cannot begin to speculate how that first degree murder association was determined by the GJ. What did they hear? What did they see?

Thanks Clouded Truth.

 

[CloudedTruth]

That’s major…

One of the two planned the murder with intent to kill?

Patsy had those jacket fibers everywhere in the wine room and into the ligature/garrote…
But no DNA. The CBI report was “mixed” sample. Could not identify although DNA of JB could not be ruled out. These are my findings-by no means the professional conclusions scientifically.

The microscopic birefringent material internally identified during JB autopsy, widely attributed to lacquer chards from the wooden paintbrush (was that Kolar who started that?) …that same material was attributed to be Talc by Wecht. Which didn’t exactly make sense to me…but talc is also found on gloves….which when identified during autopsy can commonly be attributed to gloves.

The paintbrush handle of the garrote - no discernible DNA (?)
but read there were brown fibers found on it that some said was from a glove? Still digging on this…
But no discernible DNA….again mixed sample. JB could not be ruled out.

I Wiki’ed the heck out of “Can you remove DNA…from a rope/nylon cord etc. The short answer is no. You can add DNA but not remove it
Unless you have the “DNA remover kit with some special chemical wash”…but in some circumstances you can use soap and water… ? Yeh.,,jumbled info.
No super DNA sample from that cord, with those knots..,,WTH?

The ligature is sloppy. And how/where was the handle of that garrote that the hair of JB was knotted into it? Was she moving about when they (?… he…she…) slipped it over her head and made it on her? It was constructed on her??? Someone was in such a hurry/fury… that JB hair is entangled …along with PR fibers..,
I am trying to recreate exactly what happened and how..,the choreography…
But the timing of the skull fracture vs. ligature are not absolute by experts..
And again, how is it there is no incredible DNA on any of that nylon cord .,, unless that is not public information?

There are those three latent fingerprints/palmprints identified on the wine cellar door., Two were PR and one was JAR.

I think Mike Kane is one of the good guys. His public statement exonerating Burke is definitive IMO., especially the timing of his statement. Especially the timing of his statement.
It’s almost easier for me to accept BR, a child did it … then to accept one of JB’s parents committed first degree murder. It somehow increases the horror of the crime for me. What could their state of mind be in to do that? Some weird religious ritual?

Cannot begin to speculate how that first degree murder association was determined by the GJ. What did they hear? What did they see?

Thanks Clouded Truth.

This is my opinion…..I’m not sure that it started out as a premeditated murder. I think the head blow could’ve been accidental, perhaps not meant for JonBenet. I also believe that the previous SA became the driving force of what happened next, which as part of the cover up then included what amounted to murder. I think the SA is a major part of this case.

The evidence at the scene is so confusing, and I think it was all by design. Chaotic and crazy, but that was the purpose. Most likely with some very good advice from someone that night. Probably more than likely, definitely. There is nothing pointing to the Ramseys being criminal masterminds, they had help in how to conduct the cover up.

The date of 12/25 does have ritualistic implications. I’m not 100% convinced of that connection, but there are some rumors that persist. Some of which are hard to dismiss completely. That is a very deep rabbit hole as I have commented before. I’m not convinced that the rumors have validity, but I do think they are worthy of further investigation.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

This is my opinion…..I’m not sure that it started out as a premeditated murder. I think the head blow could’ve been accidental, perhaps not meant for JonBenet. I also believe that the previous SA became the driving force of what happened next, which as part of the cover up then included what amounted to murder. I think the SA is a major part of this case.

The evidence at the scene is so confusing, and I think it was all by design. Chaotic and crazy, but that was the purpose. Most likely with some very good advice from someone that night. Probably more than likely, definitely. There is nothing pointing to the Ramseys being criminal masterminds, they had help in how to conduct the cover up.

The date of 12/25 does have ritualistic implications. I’m not 100% convinced of that connection, but there are some rumors that persist. Some of which are hard to dismiss completely. That is a very deep rabbit hole as I have commented before. I’m not convinced that the rumors have validity, but I do think they are worthy of further investigation.

Yes @CloudedTruth …. makes perfect sense. And it is unfortunate that more effort doesn’t seem to have been made to obtain all phones, communications, calls, and contact with others in those moments, hours, days, and weeks after that evening / morning. Have to wonder IMO what that could have revealed.

IIRC I thought I just read in one of the JBR threads that one of JR phones might have disappeared? And another was partially ‘cleaned’ IIUC? If true…. so unfortunate. And hard IMO not to conclude deliberate. And why weren’t authorities working harder to get that information? SMH. MOO

 

[CloudedTruth]

Yes @CloudedTruth …. makes perfect sense. And it is unfortunate that more effort doesn’t seem to have been made to obtain all phones, communications, calls, and contact with others in those moments, hours, days, and weeks after that evening / morning. Have to wonder IMO what that could have revealed.

IIRC I thought I just read in one of the JBR threads that one of JR phones might have disappeared? And another was partially ‘cleaned’? If true…. so unfortunate. And hard IMO not to conclude deliberate. And why weren’t authorities working harder to get that information? SMH. MOO

There was an effort to get the phone records. The DA’s office inexplicably sat on the police subpoenas for those records for a year. Police complained. They were told if they tried to circumvent the DA by going to a judge, the DA would object. The DA’s office did a lot to obstruct the investigation of this case. What they got away with is literally criminal.

 

[Ponytale]

With the exception of the indictments that the judge finally ordered to be released publicly, agreeing with the lawsuit that was filed that argued the public's right to know, the rest is all sealed and may very well remain that way. I would guess with regard to Burke it may have for some years been protecting his rights as a minor. Of course he is no longer a minor and hasn't been one for many years.

As I think we have agreed on before, I wish that the press would start to pursue some sort of legal action in the courts to get all of it released, but by the same token the case remains open and unsolved. We know that there is evidence that we have never seen or been privy to, and it's always a concern to keep certain details of crimes secret in hopes that someday the true perpetrator can be found by keeping those details close to the vest.

After all these years I guess we can only hope that when some people involved are no longer alive that those who are holding some of the strings will open up.

I'm just wondering here, but could there have been a chance that the jurors were told at court (or before GJ) that since Burke was a minor and they are not allowed to prosecute him by law, they are not allowed to take any factors that involve Burke into consideration in forming their opinions? I'm not sure if I put my thought in writing correctly, but maybe you understand what I'm thinking about here.

it's just that we know and talk about that Burke was not allowed to be prosecuted anyway, and jurors must have known that. If they were additionally asked or told that they should only focus on three possible scenarios - Patsy, John or someone outside the household - could that been a bases for exonerating Burke? Since they knew that they will never have any chance to go forward with it anyway.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I'm just wondering here, but could there have been a chance that the jurors were told at court (or before GJ) that since Burke was a minor and they are not allowed to prosecute him by law, they are not allowed to take any factors that involve Burke into consideration in forming their opinions? I'm not sure if I put my thought in writing correctly, but maybe you understand what I'm thinking about here.

it's just that we know and talk about that Burke was not allowed to be prosecuted anyway, and jurors must have known that. If they were additionally asked or told that they should only focus on three possible scenarios - Patsy, John or someone outside the household - could that been a bases for exonerating Burke? Since they knew that they will never have any chance to go forward with it anyway.

That seems unlikely. The fact that he could not be prosecuted would not mean that if the evidence were there that he was the guilty party, he would get off scot free. He would most likely need to undergo psychiatric examination to determine if there was some sort of disorder that he needed treatment for, I would imagine he would be ordered to be in therapy in any case. It would also affect the potential case against the parents, their involvement and what they knew or did not know.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

That seems unlikely. The fact that he could not be prosecuted would not mean that if the evidence were there that he was the guilty party, he would get off scot free. He would most likely need to undergo psychiatric examination to determine if there was some sort of disorder that he needed treatment for, I would imagine he would be ordered to be in therapy in any case. It would also affect the potential case against the parents, their involvement and what they knew or did not know.

What if he was already under psychiatric treatment? How could the parents be tried without disclosing a minor? Particularly a minor with psychiatric issues.
The BR involvement is tricky at times because I don't see how anything incriminating can be disclosed. I believe as the law is written, no evidence can touch him so to speak

 

[CloudedTruth]

What if he was already under psychiatric treatment? How could the parents be tried without disclosing a minor? Particularly a minor with psychiatric issues.
The BR involvement is tricky at times because I don't see how anything incriminating can be disclosed. I believe as the law is written, no evidence can touch him so to speak

Yes, certain things would be protected information under the law. That said, there would be some sort of repercussions dependent upon the circumstances. Whether that be psychiatric treatment that could be out patient or in patient, or something that falls under the jurisdiction of juvenile court.

The coroner immediately called DSS after the autopsy because a minor (Burke) was in the house when a murder was committed. The Ramseys had no choice in allowing the interview with the child psychologist because they risked DSS taking Burke into protective custody. Had the psychologist found that Burke exhibited certain traits or tendencies that would've pointed toward him being responsible, the outcome of that interview may have been different. The results of that interview have been disclosed even though he was a minor.

I think the takeaway is that when murder is on the table, that supersedes some protective rights even for a minor. We have seen many cases where minors were directly involved and a lot of the information specifically related to the murder is disclosed.

 

[ShadyLady]

Yes, certain things would be protected information under the law. That said, there would be some sort of repercussions dependent upon the circumstances. Whether that be psychiatric treatment that could be out patient or in patient, or something that falls under the jurisdiction of juvenile court.

The coroner immediately called DSS after the autopsy because a minor (Burke) was in the house when a murder was committed. The Ramseys had no choice in allowing the interview with the child psychologist because they risked DSS taking Burke into protective custody. Had the psychologist found that Burke exhibited certain traits or tendencies that would've pointed toward him being responsible, the outcome of that interview may have been different. The results of that interview have been disclosed even though he was a minor.

I think the takeaway is that when murder is on the table, that supersedes some protective rights even for a minor. We have seen many cases where minors were directly involved and a lot of the information specifically related to the murder is disclosed.

BR was called into the GJ, can anyone explain why JR and PR were not? Or is this incorrect info?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

BR was called into the GJ, can anyone explain why JR and PR were not? Or is this incorrect info?

John and Patsy were the subjects of the charges put before the Grand Jury. Burke wasn't. Subjects of charges are generally not called before the Grand Jury's.

 

[Ponytale]

If Burke was never going to be a subject of the charges, why were there statements made and needed to exonerate him? Sorry, it is just too confusing at times as I am not familiar with the law.

Edited: Why was Burke never going to be subject of the charges? Was it just because of Colorado Law - him being under 10 years old?

 

[FergusMcDuck]

If Burke was never going to be a subject of the charges, why were there statements made and needed to exonerate him? Sorry, it is just too confusing at times as I am not familiar with the law.

Because even back then there were people speculating that he did it. Not to extent that it became in the 2010s, but still.

Edited: Why was Burke never going to be subject of the charges? Was it just because of Colorado Law - him being under 10 years old?

Burke was never a suspect. The investigators and DAs said so

 

[Ponytale]

Because even back then there were people speculating that he did it. Not to extent that it became in the 2010s, but still.

So, if I understand correctly, the only reason why the DA's office issued statements exonerating Burke, were speculations? Is this true? Could that actually be so, based only on speculations, even in court?

So if a minor (or under a 10 year old in Colorado) commits a crime (by accident or by intent), and there is no factual evidence to support that he did it, other than speculations and possibilities that he could have done it, that is all that there is needed to exonerate that minor and he will forever be free if no factual evidence is found against him? Why couldn't that minor be a suspect, if there is no factual evidence to prove or disprove guilt?

Just trying to understand.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

So, if I understand correctly, the only reason why the DA's office issued statements exonerating Burke, were speculations? Is this true? Could that actually be so, based only on speculations, even in court?

So if a minor (or under a 10 year old in Colorado) commits a crime (by accident or by intent), and there is no factual evidence to support that he did it, other than speculations and possibilities that he could have done it, that is all that there is needed to exonerate that minor and he will forever be free if no factual evidence is found against him? Why couldn't that minor be a suspect, if there is no factual evidence to prove or disprove guilt?

Just trying to understand.

I don't know what that scenario would look like.

Here, Burke was never a suspect, and they confirmed that when asked. I don't think it's more complicated than that.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IANAL, but with regard to BR….. due to his age then it seems any possible statutes applied would be for a juvenile. Or even younger. And for those laws in place at that time.

IMO still so unfortunate of the DA influence and / interactions in this case. SMH. MOO