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

[Deleted member 187229]

Yes, they did question Nedra.
I doubt that a police officer would feel the need to publish a book for a reason to profit from it - a police officer would rather need to write and publish a book about a child murder case when the facts of the investigation are not presented to the public in a truthful manner.

It’s unethical. He thought JonBenet was murdered for wetting the bed when there was absolutely no evidence of that. Why didn’t he donate the profits to a charity?

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Where is the factual proof that the testimony that you are stating here is the actual correct one? If someone knows "what really happened" we wouldn't be discussing this case here anymore.

The coroner knew what really happened. It’s in his autopsy report. There was no brain swelling. He said the strangulation and blow to the head happened simultaneously.

 

[SteveS]

Illegal or not, they are there. One mentioned here before is the 20/20. There is a version with the Jury members face blacked out and voice changed, but also a version with him coming completely public. As I stated, it was a brief interview form a Jury member using his own words with his face seen. The statements that he said are not made a secret.

What is this other version? You have claimed you saw such a video, but no one else has seen it. I have asked nicely multiple times for you to provide the website address so we can see this supposed video of the juror openly talking, and adding comments that were not on the 20/20 show, with no response of any kind.

This would be helpful information if it exists, because the grand jury information was kept secret.

Maybe you saw someone else talking ABOUT the case or ABOUT the juror's comments with their own opinions, and mistakenly believed it was the juror himself? The juror was aware he could be prosecuted for violating his grand juror oath unless he was close-lipped and hidden, so on the 20/20 show he didn't say much and wouldn't show himself. He didn't want to be known and put himself at legal risk.

Where is this video of the juror, so we can see it too?

 

[OneLove]

The coroner knew what really happened. It’s in his autopsy report. There was no brain swelling. He said the strangulation and blow to the head happened simultaneously.

What do you think is the most plausible scenario that precipitated this murder?

 

[Ponytale]

It’s unethical. He thought JonBenet was murdered for wetting the bed when there was absolutely no evidence of that. Why didn’t he donate the profits to a charity?

The question about whether it is ethical or not is debatable of course. I respect there are people with different opinions on that matter. Nevertheless, if the truth that you have worked for is not spoken, no one else will speak it out for you unless you do it yourself. My point being, there are two sides on each coin.
But, as we are discussing the matter of ethics, I do not think that the Ramsey's wasting money they made with their book about their own daughters murder on their lawyers and legal costs is any more ethical, considering that they did publicly state that all that money would go to charities. This, IMO, is a matter of blatant lying.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

The question about whether it is ethical or not is debatable of course. I respect there are people with different opinions on that matter. Nevertheless, if the truth that you have worked for is not spoken, no one else will speak it out for you unless you do it yourself. My point being, there are two sides on each coin.
But, as we are discussing the matter of ethics, I do not think that the Ramsey's wasting money they made with their book about their own daughters murder on their lawyers and legal costs is any more ethical, considering that they did publicly state that all that money would go to charities. This, IMO, is a matter of blatant lying.

Yes they were unethical too but one could forgive them because they were the ones being hunted and slandered by the media, the police and the general public. They still are to this day even though they’ve never been charged and were given a public apology snd exoneration.

 

[Ponytale]

What is this other version? You have claimed you saw such a video, but no one else has seen it. I have asked nicely multiple times for you to provide the website address so we can see this supposed video of the juror openly talking, and adding comments that were not on the 20/20 show, with no response of any kind.

I have never stated that there were comments added that were not on the 20/20 show. On my post I just wrote that you can see and hear the same snippets on the 20/20 show. What is there to not understand? There statements from the GJ member are publicly available with pieces from that show (20/20) and a previous podcast for everyone to read and see.
The version I referred to is that there is an interview with the same individual made with his face and voice distorted and one where they are not distorted.
If you have seen the 20/20 show you already know what I am talking about. I had not previously seen it and made a comment regarding an interview with a grand jury member. I based my opinions on believing the Grand Jury on seeing and hearing those statements .

 

[OneLove]

Yes they were unethical too but one could forgive them because they were the ones being hunted and slandered by the media, the police and the general public. They still are to this day even though they’ve never been charged and were given a public apology snd exoneration.

So it's okay that they spent JBR's charity money on themselves because they were "treated so unfairly" by media and the public? The shadow of suspicion without another indictable suspect and without evidence that cleared them is not exactly "being unfair". I'm not seeing how those two jive... JBR's "charity money" and then instead spending it on themselves. I guess her memory faded in importance pretty quickly in comparison to their being inconvenienced and spending money on themselves made them feel better?? I'm just not getting the logic here, at least in a non-narcissistic non-materialistic sense.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

What do you think is the most plausible scenario that precipitated this murder?

I think it was a planned murder. I think the murderer strangled her with the garrotte and couldn’t bear to see her suffering do finished her off with the blow to the head. Either John did it or patsy did it deliberately on Christmas night giving her the best day of her life before they carried out their plan or, it was an intruder who stewed over something to to do with John for months or longer and planned every detail. Someone who knew John through work. Planting evidence to frame the Ramseys and ruin John. What better way to ruin a man than to murder and sexually assault his beautiful daughter. Not his wife, not his son but his youngest child, his beauty queen daughter. But,,, then I think of the bowl of pineapple, who fed her the Pineapple? Why was there matching silverware on the table and a matching glass to the empty class of tea? Did it come from the victims advocates? Did the ramseys eat there before bed? Did the intruder put it there? If the ramseys murdered her, why the sexual assault with the sharp broken paintbrush? She was alive when that happened to her. If an intruder did it, would he really waste time serving pineapple and boiling the kettle to make tea? If the Ramseys did it, why put duct tape over her mouth, apparently while she was unconscious or dead due to the perfect lip imprints on the tape. And where is that roll of tape? If an intruder did it, why did he only bring tape and nylon cord into the house? Why such a long ransom note? Why make the garrotte out of patsy’s paintbrush? To frame them or confuse the investigation? Who’s dna is in jonbenets underpants, fingernails and longjohns? If dna clears other suspects, shouldn’t it clear the Ramseys? I don’t know what I think. I honestly go round and round in circles! One minute I’m convinced of the intruder theory then the next minute I suspect John or patsy. None of it makes any sense!

 

[Ponytale]

The coroner knew what really happened. It’s in his autopsy report. There was no brain swelling. He said the strangulation and blow to the head happened simultaneously.

The coroner performed an autopsy and wrote down his comments and observations. I do not see that there is a story of what really happened anywhere in the autopsy report.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

The coroner performed an autopsy and wrote down his comments and observations. I do not see that there is a story of what really happened anywhere in the autopsy report.

What really happened is what the coroner said. She died by strangulation associated with the blow to the head. He said they happened almost simultaneously. That’s what happened. The rest is up to the police to figure out.

 

[OneLove]

I think it was a planned murder. I think the murderer strangled her with the garrotte and couldn’t bear to see her suffering do finished her off with the blow to the head. Either John did it or patsy did it deliberately on Christmas night giving her the best day of her life before they carried out their plan or, it was an intruder who stewed over something to to do with John for months or longer and planned every detail. Someone who knew John through work. Planting evidence to frame the Ramseys and ruin John. What better way to ruin a man than to murder and sexually assault his beautiful daughter. Not his wife, not his son but his youngest child, his beauty queen daughter. But,,, then I think of the bowl of pineapple, who fed her the Pineapple? Why was there matching silverware on the table and a matching glass to the empty class of tea? Did it come from the victims advocates? Did the ramseys eat there before bed? Did the intruder put it there? If the ramseys murdered her, why the sexual assault with the sharp broken paintbrush? She was alive when that happened to her. If an intruder did it, would he really waste time serving pineapple and boiling the kettle to make tea? If the Ramseys did it, why put duct tape over her mouth, apparently while she was unconscious or dead due to the perfect lip imprints on the tape. And where is that roll of tape? If an intruder did it, why did he only bring tape and nylon cord into the house? Why such a long ransom note? Why make the garrotte out of patsy’s paintbrush? To frame them or confuse the investigation? Who’s dna is in jonbenets underpants, fingernails and longjohns? If dna clears other suspects, shouldn’t it clear the Ramseys? I don’t know what I think. I honestly go round and round in circles! One minute I’m convinced of the intruder theory then the next minute I suspect John or patsy. None of it makes any sense!

I can understand why if intruders did it out of vengeance toward John over work matters. But if you go with the Ramseys, what reason do you think they would have had, especially if was planned? ( really?? *that* was the best day of her life? Poor kid. )

 

[SteveS]

I have never stated that there were comments added that were not on the 20/20 show. On my post I just wrote that you can see and hear the same snippets on the 20/20 show. What is there to understand? There statements from the GJ member publicly available with pieces from that show (20/20) and a previous podcast to everyone to read and see.
The version I referred to is that there is an interview with the same individual made with his face and voice distorted and one where they are not distorted.
If you have seen the 20/20 show you already know what I am talking about.

You keep replying without a web address rather than taking the 5 seconds to provide a link, which make me think there was no such video, which is disappointing on many levels.

"I have never stated that there were comments added that were not on the 20/20 show." -- You actually did say that, when I said I couldn't find some of what you said the juror said, when I looked for it on the 20/20 show. Which is why I wanted to see this other supposed video you claimed exists. But no worries.

"If you have seen the 20/20 show you already know what I am talking about." -- Yes I have seen the 20/20 show, but no -- much of what you claimed the JUROR said was not said by him on 20/20. And it's a big difference whether the juror was who said it, or someone else, because only the juror can speak with credibility on his personal views of the case.

"and one [video] where they are not distorted." --- Again, where is this supposed version in which the juror is actually seen? A simple web address is all I am asking, and is easy to provide.

Because no one else has ever seen such a video by the grand juror, I think you must have seen something that was NOT the juror speaking, and now think he said things he never said. But I am open to seeing this video for myself. Link, please?

 

[Deleted member 187229]

I can understand why if intruders did it out of vengeance toward John over work matters. But if you go with the Ramseys, what reason do you think they would have had, especially if was planned? ( really?? *that* was the best day of her life? Poor kid. )

If John did it, I can’t think of any other reason than he was molesting her and he either felt shame and blamed her instead of hinself or he was scared she was going to tell someone. If patsy did it she might have found out about the abuse and got jealous as some weird mothers do. Didn’t want to lose her social standing and meal ticket? I can’t think of any other reason. I don’t think it had anything to do with bed wetting, patsy didn’t seem to care about hygiene much, with JonBenet soiling her pants regularly and patsy wearing the same clothes the next day. Etc I think if the Ramseys did it, it was because of molestation. Maybe that’s why the paintbrush was used, to disguise prior abuse? Maybe the pineapple was the last supper, her favourite fruit.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I don't remember them considering Burke to be in any danger. I don't remember any talk of CPS being involved.

But you do bring up a good point--if LE thought the Ramseys killed their own daughter--wouldn't Burke have been yanked out of that house the day JBR died?

There's another possibility there.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

There's another possibility there.

Would they be able to remove burke from their custody if they fled to Atlanta?

 

[OneLove]

I think it was a planned murder. I think the murderer strangled her with the garrotte and couldn’t bear to see her suffering do finished her off with the blow to the head. Either John did it or patsy did it deliberately on Christmas night giving her the best day of her life before they carried out their plan or, it was an intruder who stewed over something to to do with John for months or longer and planned every detail. Someone who knew John through work. Planting evidence to frame the Ramseys and ruin John. What better way to ruin a man than to murder and sexually assault his beautiful daughter. Not his wife, not his son but his youngest child, his beauty queen daughter. But,,, then I think of the bowl of pineapple, who fed her the Pineapple? Why was there matching silverware on the table and a matching glass to the empty class of tea? Did it come from the victims advocates? Did the ramseys eat there before bed? Did the intruder put it there? If the ramseys murdered her, why the sexual assault with the sharp broken paintbrush? She was alive when that happened to her. If an intruder did it, would he really waste time serving pineapple and boiling the kettle to make tea? If the Ramseys did it, why put duct tape over her mouth, apparently while she was unconscious or dead due to the perfect lip imprints on the tape. And where is that roll of tape? If an intruder did it, why did he only bring tape and nylon cord into the house? Why such a long ransom note? Why make the garrotte out of patsy’s paintbrush? To frame them or confuse the investigation? Who’s dna is in jonbenets underpants, fingernails and longjohns? If dna clears other suspects, shouldn’t it clear the Ramseys? I don’t know what I think. I honestly go round and round in circles! One minute I’m convinced of the intruder theory then the next minute I suspect John or patsy. None of it makes any sense!

Whose dna is in JBR's fingernails, long johns, and underpants? Unless they dna tested ever adult and child at the party that day( and maybe even day before?) It could be any of them under the fingernails. Kids that age tend to rough house and play like they're animals and monsters and such, playing on floors full of dna. Playing with other's toys and stuffed animals might even leave traces. On the panties, if PR or JR had dna of others on them then handled the panties, could that have transferred? And on the long johns, isn't there some question as to whether they might have been Burkes old outgrown longjohns from a bag PR had gathered for donation and set in the basement near the pile of gifts that had the opened day of the week panties missing it's wrapper? It seems possible those were grabbed hurriedly like the misfitting panties were, possibly by JR who really didn't care about and might not haven noticed about proper fit and such things. It seems they were too small for JBR. I kind of doubt Patsy would do that even under a panic of just having harmed JBR. I'd think she'd have wanted her to "look pretty" even in death. In any case, Burke's longjohns from the bag could have had yahoo dna samples on them what with his time with other kids and playing on floors, etc, maybe handling by the housekeeper.

 

[Ponytale]

You keep replying without a web address rather than taking the 5 seconds to provide a link, which make me think there was no such video, which is disappointing on many levels.

If it is a matter of 5 seconds you could have found it if you had looked. There is a already a link someone else posted here with the snippets from the same interview. There is no reason for me to lie about something like that. It seems to me that you are rather up for confrontations I do not like to engage in that.

"I have never stated that there were comments added that were not on the 20/20 show." -- You actually did say that, when I said I couldn't find some of what you said the juror said, when I looked for it on the 20/20 show. Which is why I wanted to see this other supposed video you claimed exists. But no worries.

What I wrote was (quoted):
"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."

Where in this comment did I state that there are comments added that were not on 20/20 show? I didn't even refer to that show on my post. You did so in your reply.

The same information about all that I wrote about it is available if you search online and is referred to 20/20 show:
Source: 20/20, The List: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? (January 15, 2021)
Grand juror Jonathan Webb
Jonathan Webb: My name is Jonathan Webb. I was a grand juror on the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Jami Floyd: Webb told us that the grand jury spent most of their time focused on two main issues. First, who wrote that ransom note.
Jonathan Webb: We heard from three handwriting experts, and even though the handwriting experts couldn't definitively say that she wrote it, they all three came to the same conclusion that it could have been Patsy Ramsey. And the grand jury believed that she wrote it.
Jami Floyd: The second focus for this grand jury, according to Jonathan Webb, was the viability of the intruder theory.
Amy Robach: Smit actually presented his intruder theory to the grand jury. [clip of Smit] But the grand jury wasn't buying the intruder theory because of those cobwebs in the window.
Jonathan Webb: The intruder theory didn't make sense to the grand jury. The Boulder Police had photographed cobwebs, so for someone to get through a small opening like that and not disturbing a cobweb would be remarkable.

"and one [video] where they are not distorted." --- Again, where is this supposed version in which the juror is actually seen? A simple web address is all I am asking, and is easy to provide.

I do not have the time to search for the exact one I watched yesterday and refer it here, but the same juror with the same statements that I posted about speaks on the first seconds of this You tube video also -

You can see his face and that he speaks for himself, nothing is distorted. Like I said on my previous replies, it is not a secret and everything regarding it is publicly available.

 

[OneLove]

I don't remember them considering Burke to be in any danger. I don't remember any talk of CPS being involved.

But you do bring up a good point--if LE thought the Ramseys killed their own daughter--wouldn't Burke have been yanked out of that house the day JBR died?

No, I don't believe they would have or could have "yanked him out of the house" merely due to suspicion. Both kids had obviously been well taken care of, Burke was being well cared for by the Ramseys and by their friends, and any social service agency I've ever known uses more due process than that before removing a child from the home. There were zero claims of beatings, withholding food, weird stuff, plenty of friends vouched for them, he was fed well, sheltered well, had medical care, etc Its important to remember here that NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED. I don't believe cps would risk the fallout of yanking him out of the home.

 

[GRT]

the coroner who performed the autopsy said the blow to the head happened simultaneously with the strangulation. There was only a think film of subdural haemorrhage about 7-8 cc which is 7 mls, a bit more than a teaspoon and that the 1450 gram brain has a normal overall architecture. There was no swelling. It sounds like the blow to the head couldn’t have been an accident because firstly the coroner said both injuries (blow to the head and strangulation) happened almost simultaneously) and second the brain had very little heamorrhaging and no swelling indicating JonBenet died very soon after the blow to the head via strangulation. Could it be the murder was premeditated and the garrotte was as ready and made before the blow to the head?

If the coroner got it right, yes, that does indicate (MOO) that the murder might very likely have been pre-planned.

In other words, no one staged the strangulation to divert attention away from a family member if the events happened almost at the same time.

Once again, I circle back to FDI. Of course, it still could be IDI, but we know breaking in and out of the house—and being able to navigate the rooms and all the layout—would be challenging.

So, I'm right back to looking for someone with keys, prior knowledge of the house, and the Ramsey's personal information ($118,000 bonus).

To be fair, FW wasn't the only one with keys to Ramsey's house, but his intimate interaction with JBR's toileting raises a red flag for me.

All MOO