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

[ShadyLady]

It’s in Steve Thomas’ book, ”When the detectives asked if the couple had any black tape, Mervin dug three rolls from his garage, only one unused. Then the detectives said they wanted white lined notepads, and Linda handed over one that seemed to be a visual match of the ransom notepaper and admitted it had come from the Ramsey house. A key? Two. Any felt-tip pens of the sort that probably wrote the ransom note? Three. Police found a two-foot piece of narrow nylon rope, then another length wrapped around a stick!”

Must have forgotten, and I read that book. Wonder if she took some of it from Ramsey's home. Sometimes housekeepers have sticky fingers. At least pens and notepads. Wasn't the tape used grey, not black. I remember PR threw shade at housekeeper right away. But, I do not think Linda had anything to do with the crime. I think it was PR.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Bolding by me

I wish I could give this post multiple likes!
Smit was very well meaning, but extremely biased. The part I have bolded absolutely blows my mind. I have been part of religious circles where praying with someone who identifies as “Christian” is evidence of their goodness and character. I do believe Smit was sincere but sincerely wrong about the Rs. I believe he sought evidence to fit his gut feeling. It makes me sad the resulting influence he had on this case, and that, from what I’ve heard, his family has carried on his crusade to a certain extent. Can you imagine, being a junior Smit, looking at, say, the RN objectively and disagreeing with Lou?

I contrast LS as true believer in R innocence because “gut feeling” to the ridicule heaped on Linda Arndt for reporting her gut feeling that she was looking into the eyes of the killer, a comment she has paid for.

IMHO

I agree! Smit was well meaning. And he dedicated a lot of time and effort to this case. But he became completely biased to the point where he could not longer see the forest for the trees. And I am sure that he was motivated by wanting to give JonBenet justice.

Last I was aware two of his granddaughters were doing a podcast on the case, but they have not recorded anything for quite some time. Maybe they finally got to the point where they realized searching for an intruder is a dead end. And given the reputation he had when he entered the investigation, that would be a hard pill to swallow to recognize that his instincts were wrong on this one.

That's a great point about Linda Arndt's instincts vs Lou's! She is so easily dismissed and took a lot of heat. There is so much collateral damage in this case.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

There is evidence of an intruder. He left his saliva in her underpants. His skin cells under her fingernails and his touch DNA on the waist band of her long Johns.

This is an opinion. You can't say it belonged to anyone unless it is matched to an exact person.
I could say that because there is unknown DNA in my home, that there must have been an intruder in my home which would be categorically false.
A child whose own mom stated that she was not good at handwashing will have a treasure trove of crap under their fingernails that could have been picked up ANYWHERE. Do you not remember she was playing on the floor the day she died. How many people walked in that room since the house was built? 50? 1000? Please consider how much foreign DNA we all have on us at any given time.

 

[Indy_ar]

I agree! Smit was well meaning. And he dedicated a lot of time and effort to this case. But he became completely biased to the point where he could not longer see the forest for the trees. And I am sure that he was motivated by wanting to give JonBenet justice.

Last I was aware two of his granddaughters were doing a podcast on the case, but they have not recorded anything for quite some time. Maybe they finally got to the point where they realized searching for an intruder is a dead end. And given the reputation he had when he entered the investigation, that would be a hard pill to swallow to recognize that his instincts were wrong on this one.

That's a great point about Linda Arndt's instincts vs Lou's! She is so easily dismissed and took a lot of heat. There is so much collateral damage in this case.

Smit collected his evidence and generated his theory really early in the case after he was called by the prosecutor, the timeline on the documentary shows that. He likely felt more confident about his findings after meeting the Ramesys. I also haven't seen that his findings were explained, just dismissed. The autopsy report is also the most compelling part, JBR was sexually assaulted while alive and controlled using the ligament on the neck. That really seems unlikely to have been done by either parent. The DNA again, nobody that was in contact with the crime scene was matched to it. It is from an unknown male

 

[CloudedTruth]

Smit collected his evidence and generated his theory really early in the case after he was called by the prosecutor, the timeline on the documentary shows that. He likely felt more confident about his findings after meeting the Ramesys. I also haven't seen that his findings were explained, just dismissed. The autopsy report is also the most compelling part, JBR was sexually assaulted while alive and controlled using the ligament on the neck. That really seems unlikely to have been done by either parent. The DNA again, nobody that was in contact with the crime scene was matched to it. It is from an unknown male

For one thing, he proved that someone could've come through the window. But he had no answer for the undisturbed cobwebs that would have been wiped into the house if someone came through. They also would have brought debris into the house from the bottom of their shoes, yet there was none. But he stubbornly insisted someone came through the window. He argued there was no snow on the walkways, but used only pictures that were taken well after the sun came up and any frost or snow had melted. He was not on the scene that morning, so had no way of knowing what the police officers who were on the scene saw. He theory about the stun gun he could not reasonably prove. He was unable to find a stun gun that could replicate the distance between the marks. Stun gun manufacturers disagreed with his conclusions, and contracted his claims that it was a stun gun that made those marks. They were not consistent with a stun gun.

The majority of the medical experts who examined all the autopsy materials and findings are in agreement that the blow to the head came first. She was unconscious when the ligature was applied. The assault with the paint brush handle likely occurred while she was unconscious, alive yes, but not conscious.

 

[CloudedTruth]

This is an opinion. You can't say it belonged to anyone unless it is matched to an exact person.
I could say that because there is unknown DNA in my home, that there must have been an intruder in my home which would be categorically false.
A child whose own mom stated that she was not good at handwashing will have a treasure trove of crap under their fingernails that could have been picked up ANYWHERE. Do you not remember she was playing on the floor the day she died. How many people walked in that room since the house was built? 50? 1000? Please consider how much foreign DNA we all have on us at any given time.

She was also playing on the floor at the White's house that night, with a house full of people. And her lack of good hygiene is absolutely a consideration. When was the last time she bathed? According to Patsy, she did not bathe on the 25th. She didn't like baths.

 

[CloudedTruth]

This is why I do not believe her "losing it" and attacking JB to result a head blow. It would send me over the edge too, just like you. I'm quite a neat freak and care about my family's hygiene. But I do know of families with similar standards, where hygiene and a clean home are not a priority. And to me it seems that the parents of these standards and households do not get easily agitated about additional messes. They just do not care.

I sure think that she must have been under much more stress that Christmas and some time before it. I agree on that as there are statements that seem to tell the story and it is not hard to put yourself too in that situation, especially with all the known upcoming trips and events. She was doing it all, without much (if any) support. But again, IMO, JB was her world and she lived through her. That is what would have kept her from hurting her. Screaming, yes. Threats, yes. Psychological punishments like not allowing her to have/do something - yes. Even taking her red turtleneck aggressively off of her and throwing it balled to the sink. Scattering her hair ties to the floor while angry. Pounding doors and "going psycho" - I see all that and believe that there is truth in Burke's saying when he told he hear his mom doing that - he and JB must have seen and heard it multiple times, IMO, seeing Patsy acting out even on her police interview tapes. She sure had a temper. But, I think that something like JB not wanting to dress matching to Patsy, or not liking the doll she ordered for her - those things meant a lot more to her and caused her to be disappointed and angry, rather then JB's bet wetting issues. IMO

To me it rather would seem that she would not have cared if she had soiled herself or her bed again - the dirty sheets were in the laundry and someone did change her sheet. Her pull-ups and new clean sheets ready to be used when needed. It was a routine and neither of them cared. Just as same as they did not care about cleaning after themselves or keeping the house tidy. It was all a show. Like I said on another comment - their whole life seems like a pageant. They were used to put up a show of a perfect American family (and house) for everyone to see and believe, but when the curtains closed the masks came off and everything crumbled.

I think most people have certain trigger points. I agree that Patsy's did not seem to center around cleanliness or order. I also disagree with Thomas's theory that a bedwetting incident sent her over the edge, although I also have to admit it is possible. I have certainly been in the position where I'm at that point of exhaustion and frustration that something trivial that I would not normally get upset about has sent me over the edge.

But the stories both John and Patsy have told about the bedwetting are again not the whole truth. John claims he wasn't really even that aware of it and Patsy claims it was no big deal. And yet according to Nedra (I believe), they were concerned and had spoken with Dr. Beuf about it. It had escalated and that was a concern. So that would be another layer of stress.

My personal opinion is that it was something else that made Patsy fly into a rage, and she was angry with someone else. JonBenet was in the way and what happened was not meant for her.

 

[cenazoic]

But the stories both John and Patsy have told about the bedwetting are again not the whole truth. John claims he wasn't really even that aware of it …

There are certain things JR says that seem like lies due to shifting stories (and many that almost certainly are) but there are others that I’ve come to suspect occurred because he had very little idea about the day-to-day, nuts and bolts of running the house and children, but thought he did. (He reminds me of my FIL in this regard, who is otherwise a lovely man. )

So that would include things like 2 bikes or 3, what clothes JB was/wasn’t wearing, etc. Maybe even the bed wetting. Add on interviews that took place 7-18 months later, and those things he thought he knew are even more muddled.

The problem is it’s hard to distinguish after awhile:

- actual, conscious lies prompted by {whatever }
- lies of omission
- “confidently incorrect”
- genuine lapses in memory due to passage of time, etc.

I had somewhere I was going with this, I swear, but life intervened and now I’ve forgotten what that undoubtedly Very Profound Point was. (As an aside, when you’d forget what you were about to say during a conversation, my grandmother always responded with: “Musta been a lie!” Maybe there’s some truth to that.)

So this is just a stream of consciousness rumination in the end.

 

[nutkin]

This is an opinion. You can't say it belonged to anyone unless it is matched to an exact person.
I could say that because there is unknown DNA in my home, that there must have been an intruder in my home which would be categorically false.
A child whose own mom stated that she was not good at handwashing will have a treasure trove of crap under their fingernails that could have been picked up ANYWHERE. Do you not remember she was playing on the floor the day she died. How many people walked in that room since the house was built? 50? 1000? Please consider how much foreign DNA we all have on us at any given time.

If that is the case, then DNA cannot be used to solve crimes at all because it could have come from anywhere.

 

[Chypre]

There are certain things JR says that seem like lies due to shifting stories (and many that almost certainly are) but there are others that I’ve come to suspect occurred because he had very little idea about the day-to-day, nuts and bolts of running the house and children, but thought he did. (He reminds me of my FIL in this regard, who is otherwise a lovely man. )

So that would include things like 2 bikes or 3, what clothes JB was/wasn’t wearing, etc. Maybe even the bed wetting. Add on interviews that took place 7-18 months later, and those things he thought he knew are even more muddled.

The problem is it’s hard to distinguish after awhile:

- actual, conscious lies prompted by {whatever }
- lies of omission
- “confidently incorrect”
- genuine lapses in memory due to passage of time, etc.

I had somewhere I was going with this, I swear, but life intervened and now I’ve forgotten what that undoubtedly Very Profound Point was. (As an aside, when you’d forget what you were about to say during a conversation, my grandmother always responded with: “Musta been a lie!” Maybe there’s some truth to that.)

So this is just a stream of consciousness rumination in the end.

If I follow your line of thinking, I also read somewhere when older people explain their choices from their earlier years, it really doesn't align with what researchers captured at the time. As far as this case, I read your post as John lacked insight towards the household, and imo probably in general. People have different levels of insight.

 

[AddieBoo]

Hit the nail on the head.

John Ramsey stated that he and Patsy had heard that Lou used to park in front of the Ramsey house every morning on his way to work to pray. So John decided that they should go to the house, introduce themselves and pray with Lou. They got in his van and did just that.

What Lou Smit recorded about this gathering: "That prayer was really an emotional experience. And when I said that, I pray that the Lord will be with the soul of Jonbenet, and I felt John's hand squeeze so tightly*. And I just felt at that time, there's no way this man could have anything to do with the death of his daughter."*

From that moment on he not only lost objectivity but any sense of professionalism he may have had. It was highly inappropriate for him to embark upon a personal relationship with the Ramseys while investigating the case. And it then became all about proving their innocence and making the evidence fit to that scenario instead of following where the evidence led.

He defied the DA by keeping investigative materials that he should have returned, as they were in his possession because he was on the DA's payroll, when he resigned from the case and severed his relationship with the DA's office and the prosecution team. At some point after the GJ, he embarked on a self promoted media tour to anyone and everyone who would give him a platform, at which time his theories went virtually unchallenged. But we know in reality much of his theorized opinions were easily debunked.

Reading transcripts of Lou's interviews with John is quite revealing IMO.

If that is the case, then DNA cannot be used to solve crimes at all because it could have come from anywhere.

If I follow your line of thinking, I also read somewhere when older people explain their choices from their earlier years, it really doesn't align with what researchers captured at the time. As far as this case, I read your post as John lacked insight towards the household. Maybe in general, imo.

With investigators it can be all cat and mouse anyway…. If you’re guilty that is.
I swear the amount of inconsistencies is mind boggling and frankly, IMO, Ramsey arrogant.
Their confidence level about never having to appear in a court of law with judge and jury was through the roof. And with that mindset one could conveniently change the story to fit whatever the latest narrative was..
ie…“John doesn’t know anything about his household.” Which could be partly true or not - to fit the line of investigation?
Vapid inconsistencies to keep LE scrambling through different details?
MOO

 

[Chypre]

With investigators it can be all cat and mouse anyway…. If you’re guilty that is.
I swear the amount of inconsistencies is mind boggling and frankly, IMO, Ramsey arrogant.
Their confidence level about never having to appear in a court of law with judge and jury was through the roof. And with that mindset one could conveniently change the story to fit whatever the latest narrative was..
ie…“John doesn’t know anything about his household.” Which could be partly true or not - to fit the line of investigation?
Vapid inconsistencies to keep LE scrambling through different details?
MOO

They certainly were audacious.

 

[Slebby]

If that is the case, then DNA cannot be used to solve crimes at all because it could have come from anywhere.

Well that’s just not true. There’s a heck of a lot more to solving crime than swabbing dna off victims, like motive, means, opportunity, eyewitness accounts, victim ID, relationship with victim, other physical evidence such as hair and fibres, CCTV….
IMHO

 

[cenazoic]

Vapid inconsistencies to keep LE scrambling through different details?

LE, and amateur sleuths.

Their confidence level about never having to appear in a court of law with judge and jury was through the roof.

And well-founded, it seems, 29 years on.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

From Kolar,
"The entire notepad would eventually be examined by agents of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and they determined that the ransom note had indeed been written on Patsy Ramsey’s pad of paper. Chet Ubowski determined that the first 12 pages of the notepad were missing. Police never found these pages, and it was presumed that they had been discarded as a matter of routine and not necessarily germane to the criminal investigation at hand. The next four pages, 13 through 16, were intact and contained miscellaneous writings, doodling and some lists. The next sequence of pages, 17 through 25, were missing and had been torn from the pad and were never found by police. The “practice note,” discovered by Kithcart, was located on page 26. Ubowski observed on page 26 signs of ink bleed-through from the missing 25th page. The perforated tabs at the top of the sheets of paper on which the ransom note had been written were matched to the torn tabs remaining on the notepad. Comparison of the torn segments of the 3-page ransom note matched the missing pages 27, 28, and 29. To investigators, it appeared that at least one, and perhaps two attempts had been made at starting a ransom note on pages 25 and 26 before the final product was completed on pages 27 through 29."
Edit to add: Lou Smit's explanation is the intruder wrote the note in the house.

This is what Linda Hoffman Pugh wrote in her book “death of an innocent” I think if you look at it another way it could explain why Linda should be looked into as a possible writer of the ransom note. She explains the reasons why certain words and phrases were used in the note. Her handwriting also scored a closer match to the possible author of the note than patsy.
“What to do next? Well, a ransom note might be nice. It would explain why JonBenet was suddenly missing. But you forgot one thing. The handwriting and language of the note were all yours. I can hear your "voice" in the note. The word "hence," for example, was in your Christmas cards and letters and a word you liked to use in conversation. The phrase "use that good Southern common sense" is what you kidded John about, since he was anything but Southern, having been born and raised in Michigan; the phrase "fat cat" is what your mother, Nedra, used to call you after you and John became rich. The ransom demand asked that the money be put in an attaché, with a proper accent mark over the last e in attaché. I remember how careful you always were to put the proper accent mark over the e in the second syllable of JonBenet's name. The ransom note even ended with the initials SBTC. Do you remember how fond you were of using initials as abbreviations for all sorts of expressions?”

 

[Deleted member 187229]

This is an opinion. You can't say it belonged to anyone unless it is matched to an exact person.
I could say that because there is unknown DNA in my home, that there must have been an intruder in my home which would be categorically false.
A child whose own mom stated that she was not good at handwashing will have a treasure trove of crap under their fingernails that could have been picked up ANYWHERE. Do you not remember she was playing on the floor the day she died. How many people walked in that room since the house was built? 50? 1000? Please consider how much foreign DNA we all have on us at any given time.

It is a fact. The dna in her underpants was saliva. The dna under her fingernails was skin cells. The dna on her longjohns was touch dna. It’s impossible to have 3 different dna samples (saliva, skin, touch) from the same person and pick them up off the floor. I’ve read the official boulder police reports from I think it was called the bode technology group. The woman who analysed the dna said she would be willing to testify in court the dna came from one individual and not a combination of several people. That’s why the police entered the profile into CODIS. That’s why suspects have been cleared. If the DNA profile was weak, the police wouldn’t have cleared anyone based on the DNA.

 

[Slebby]

This is what Linda Hoffman Pugh wrote in her book “death of an innocent” I think if you look at it another way it could explain why Linda should be looked into as a possible writer of the ransom note. She explains the reasons why certain words and phrases were used in the note. Her handwriting also scored a closer match to the possible author of the note than patsy.
“What to do next? Well, a ransom note might be nice. It would explain why JonBenet was suddenly missing. But you forgot one thing. The handwriting and language of the note were all yours. I can hear your "voice" in the note. The word "hence," for example, was in your Christmas cards and letters and a word you liked to use in conversation. The phrase "use that good Southern common sense" is what you kidded John about, since he was anything but Southern, having been born and raised in Michigan; the phrase "fat cat" is what your mother, Nedra, used to call you after you and John became rich. The ransom demand asked that the money be put in an attaché, with a proper accent mark over the last e in attaché. I remember how careful you always were to put the proper accent mark over the e in the second syllable of JonBenet's name. The ransom note even ended with the initials SBTC. Do you remember how fond you were of using initials as abbreviations for all sorts of expressions?”

Re Bolded by me -
I have never heard that Linda Hoffman Pugh’s handwriting “also scored a closer match to the possible author of the note than patsy” .
What is your source?

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Could you please post where that information was found, I have never heard that.

I’ll have to go back through my info and find it. She couldn’t be excluded was the findings after her handwriting sample was examined. Bill McReynolds also scored a closer match too although I doubt he did it.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

If that is the case, then DNA cannot be used to solve crimes at all because it could have come from anywhere.

No, you just can't say it belongs to an intruder when you do not know who it even belongs to.
Let's reverse that. Anytime there is a crime committed, find anyone's DNA who doesn't live in the house and the case is closed. Solved. The person was in another state, doesn't matter. Guilty due to DNA.
I hope if you ever sit on a jury you know there's a few more steps involved to conclude guilt.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

No, you just can't say it belongs to an intruder when you do not know who it even belongs to.
Let's reverse that. Anytime there is a crime committed, find anyone's DNA who doesn't live in the house and the case is closed. Solved. The person was in another state, doesn't matter. Guilty due to DNA.
I hope if you ever sit on a jury you know there's a few more steps involved to conclude guilt.

The dna in her underpants was found no where else on the garment except the two blood spots. The dna was from saliva. Then the dna under her fingernails was skin cells. Saliva and skin cells came from two different sources but from the same dna profile, the same person. Then the left and right sides of the waist band of her longjohns johns contain his touch dna. Where he pulled her pants down and pulled them back up again, we know this because she has injuries to her vagina from a sexual assault. The vagina had birefringent material consistent with the paintbrush used to make the garrotte. They also have a ransom note claiming to be written by someone other than the family. So they have a note, three seperate types of the same dna profile (saliva, skin, touch) from an unidentified male and a sexual assault and murder. It’s all proof it was done by an intruder. If the family did it, she wouldn’t have had a random man’s saliva in her underpants, under her fingernails and on her pyjama pants.