If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[CloudedTruth]

A couple of things that truly astound me in this case, amomg many, are:

What on earth? JR was apparently “missing” for an hour on the morning-of? How was even letting either of the Ramsey’s out of sight permissible? Perhaps at the very, very first, but then, I’d think, as LE got control of the investigation, everyone would be accounted for. LE can’t automatically assume that every parent is telling the truth and there are no ulterior motives. Perhaps this was simply incompetence, or perhaps it’s more related to the problem that as I see as infecting this case from very early on: Hands-off, assumption of innocence, simply because the Ramsey’s are who they are. If this happened in someone else’s house, I do believe the whole case might have been handled differently.

Secondly, JR found JBR and brought her upstairs himself (again, as mentioned earlier on here) in spite of having been instructed not to touch anything. I just can’t imagine any situation where a parent finds their daughter either brutally murdered or unresponsive, done at the hands of a criminal, and doesn’t yell out. I found her! My God! She’s here! Help! Something. It sounds to me that he fairly calmly walked up the stairs with her. I find that very strange.

One has to question the decision to leave Det. Arndt as the only LE on the scene for hours after all other LE had left the premises, and with a room full of Ramsey friends for her to corral and keep track of.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

I could go lay on my bed for ten minutes, does that mean I slept in it all night? Would the fibers be different?

I believe the evidence would be different if you layed in a fresh bed for 10 minutes as opposed to sleeping in your bed for a few nights. There’d probably be a lot more fibres in your bed if you slept in it, hair, sweat, saliva, skin cells etc. the sheets had urobilinogen, a substance found in fecal material. Apparently jonbenets panties were soiled so the presence of urobilinogen corroborates John and patsy’s claim of changing jonbenets pants in her bed. Didn’t the police claim JonBenet never went to bed? Didn’t they also claim she wet the bed and the sheets were washed and replaced during the staging? The evidence clearly points to JonBenet being put to bed and being in the bed.

 

[CloudedTruth]

CBI report noted serological analysis detected creatinine on the sheets, blanket, comforter, nightgown, pants and shirt. Creatinine is excreted in urine.

 

[Bean&Cheese]

If her parents put her to bed and were with JB all night, then why wasn’t their DNA found on her at all? That’s a question that I have.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I believe the evidence would be different if you layed in a fresh bed for 10 minutes as opposed to sleeping in your bed for a few nights. There’d probably be a lot more fibres in your bed if you slept in it, hair, sweat, saliva, skin cells etc. the sheets had urobilinogen, a substance found in fecal material. Apparently jonbenets panties were soiled so the presence of urobilinogen corroborates John and patsy’s claim of changing jonbenets pants in her bed. Didn’t the police claim JonBenet never went to bed? Didn’t they also claim she wet the bed and the sheets were washed and replaced during the staging? The evidence clearly points to JonBenet being put to bed and being in the bed.

Why? Did you change the pillowcase?
The blanket?
The comforter?

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Why? Did you change the pillowcase?
The blanket?
The comforter?

The pillowcase had saliva on it and fibres consistent with being used

 

[Deleted member 187229]

CBI report noted serological analysis detected creatinine on the sheets, blanket, comforter, nightgown, pants and shirt. Creatinine is excreted in urine.

Oh yes, there was too.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The pillowcase had saliva on it and fibres consistent with being used

You said there was proof she slept in her bed that night due to evidence, do you factually know when she left evidence of being in the bed? The day before, 2 days before, or last night? How can you prove what night she slobbering on her pillow. You are assuming every piece of bedding was freshly laundered. We don't know this.

 

[She-Ra]

The torture sounds like something a twisted child would do, I still think BR did it and the parents tried to cover/confuse which sadly was very effective.

Both the father and son have been eliminated as suspects via DNA

 

[Deleted member 187229]

Because the fibres that were in her bed were on her clothing she was murdered in. We have the Christmas Day photos showing JonBenet wearing the pink pyjamas. The statements from the family and guests at the whites house saying she wore the white shirt to the Christmas dinner party, the same shirt JonBenet was wearing when she was murdered. And the clothing she was found dead in has the brown sack fibres and other fibres that were found in her bed.

 

[Ponytale]

I think so. MOO I think JBR was killed early in the night -- maybe before midnight, because some LE reported that they smelled decomposition on her body and that would indicate she died not long after being put to bed. That would give the killer plenty of time to sit down and write the note.

Det. Arndt stated that she could smell the decomposition on her, but we can assume that she had a trained nose to detect that. It is assumed that she died any time before 2 am, so yes there had been many hours to do all that needed to be done.

A little off-topic but were you aware that a top document expert found Chris Wolf's handwriting to be an exact match to the ransom note? That still gives me pause...

But there even if so, there is no other evidence at all to believe his involvement in this crime. Unless we think that he wrote it somewhere else and handed it to the "intruder" to take to the scene... another topic to discuss. But anyway, I think that if the authorities had any reason to suspect him, they would have investigated him a bit longer.

Nothing can be excluded, but the split in JBR's skull was so extensive it's hard to imagine someone as small as BR being able to do that. I guess he (theoretically) cold have pushed her over the rail on the stairs and she landed on her head on the hard tile floor, but no blood?

Accidents do not ask for gender, IQ or age. As we live in a house that we warm up with firewood during winter times, we chop wood for that and have taught our son how to do that since he was 7 years old. If a 7 year old is able to chop wood with an axe, I believe he would also be able to hit hard with anything object on another surface. Especially if angry...
I do not believe that she was pushed over or fell down from anywhere because it would have left additional marks on her body to suggest that.

I've never seen a major head wound that didn't bleed like a stuck pig. That's why I tend to think the theory about the strangulation and head smack to be about the same time--the perimortem phase. And for that to happen, a person (if it was only one person) would need to hold the twisted rope in one hand and then use a tremendous amount of force to hit her with an object in the other hand.

Neither have I, but it does not mean that it could not have happened. After all I am not an expert on that field nor have received any education about it - but there are experts on that field who have said that it is possible. So I tend to believe those who know what they are talking about.

I have a problem with the theory that strangulation came first because that would mean that there was an intent to kill - it was a deliberate act. I do not believe that any of the Ramsey's wanted to kill her. I see no reason nor motive for that. And as there is very little evidence of an intruder - especially an intruder with an intent to kill her - I have very hard time believing that too. Even If I'd believe Fleet or someone else that the family knew came and did it I do not believe that that someone would have come to the house and just strangled her. As I understand you also believe that Fleet was sexually motivated for this crime - why then strangle her to death first rather than fulfill his fantasies? And it makes me question - if someone strangled her first, why was the head bash needed at all? It makes no sense to hit her. If something seems too complicated. it is not the right way. IMO.

It's been pondered that FW might have been alone with the kids, which is why he couldn't call his wife. I can't say for sure why FW did what he did, and maybe it was innocent. But I sure don't feel good about it. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

I totally agree with you that it is something that would bother me too. But again we have no proof or reasons to be suspicious of any foul play in this case. And if there is no real cause to be concerned, I think of it as something that is probably not relevant to the case.

It's hard to imagine a parent doing that out of the blue. Typically, there are warning signs of building abuse. But no one noticed any abuse of either Ramsey kid. Teachers did notice JBR being more clingy to her mother in the month or two before the murder, but no one knew why.

But if it is not out of the blue bat there was an accident that had happened? And if it was caused by Burke? We do not know about the previous signs because all the records are sealed. To me, it is something to be suspicious of and tells that there is something to hide. Now, if there were signs and the parents chose to ignore them, they were guilty of knowingly putting JB into harms way (just like the GJ indicted).
If they knew that they would be seen guilty, they needed to cover it all up. Plus add the previous SA to the math.

I agree and just hope the killer is found one day. Such a horrible thing to happen to such a beautiful child.

It is all why we are here for. I hope we will see that day come.

 

[Ponytale]

Both the father and son have been eliminated as suspects via DNA

It is so illogical to eliminate someone via DNA if that someone is of your own blood and lives in the same household with the victim. IMO

 

[Ponytale]

If your child had an unknown man’s dna in her underpants, under her fingernails and on the waistband of her pyjama pants, what would you think?

I think that this is not a DNA case.
But I sometimes wish it was. Then it could finally be solved on day no matter who did it. Ramsey's, intruder, Santa, neighbors or Whites - I wouldn't even care honestly if the justice for JonBenet could be served. All I care about is an honest investigation, without politics and money involved. That is what I hope to see...

 

[Ponytale]

The Grand Jury saw the prosecution’s evidence and stated JBR’s death was 1st degree murder. A 9-year-old cannot commit 1st degree murder, so that rules him out. He also cannot be a suspect in any type of murder scenario. Accidental harm, yes, but not murder.

A 9-year old CAN commit 1st degree murder.
What you mean is that a 9-year-old can not be tried or be charged with an 1 degree murder.
There is a big difference here. If a 9-year old murders some one but can not be charged for murder in 1st degree - does that mean that he/she is innocent? Does that rule him/her out?
It is all legal wording and law. Truth is any child of any age can commit murder and have committed murders in many cases. The fact that he can not be prosecuted and tried in the court of law does not in any way prove that Burke did not murder his sister, accidentally or by intent.

 

[Ponytale]

Because the Forensic testing proved the sheets had been slept on.

How can forensic testing prove that the sheets were slept on? How can they point out and prove the difference of sheets when they had been slept on or just a child who spent time in her bed for a while, didn't sleep and climbed back out again? Yes, she had ben in her bed, but how can they say she SLEPT in her bed? Do they have proof of her dreaming?

My kids often just play in their beds. In their PJs or even in their day clothes. Of course the sheets would show that there has been someone in the bed, the bedding is disturbed and there are hairs and clothing fibers found. How does that prove that they slept there?
Even bed-wetting accident can happen when the child is awake, especially if she is not properly toilet trained and had accidents happen.

 

[Ponytale]

Because the fibres that were in her bed were on her clothing she was murdered in. We have the Christmas Day photos showing JonBenet wearing the pink pyjamas. The statements from the family and guests at the whites house saying she wore the white shirt to the Christmas dinner party, the same shirt JonBenet was wearing when she was murdered. And the clothing she was found dead in has the brown sack fibres and other fibres that were found in her bed.

It does not prove anything. It was her bed. It was her house. She wore her clothes.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

How can forensic testing prove that the sheets were slept on? How can they point out and prove the difference of sheets when they had been slept on or just a child who spent time in her bed for a while, didn't sleep and climbed back out again? Yes, she had ben in her bed, but how can they say she SLEPT in her bed? Do they have proof of her dreaming?

My kids often just play in their beds. In their PJs or even in their day clothes. Of course the sheets would show that there has been someone in the bed, the bedding is disturbed and there are hairs and clothing fibers found. How does that prove that they slept there?
Even bed-wetting accident can happen when the child is awake, especially if she is not properly toilet trained and had accidents happen.

I think it proves she slept in her bed because her top that she wore to the whites Christmas party and her longjohns both had fibres from her hed. It corroborates the parents version of events that they put her to bed. Also the boots and vest being next to the doll house and the black velvet pants folded on the spare bed corroborate the parents version of events because John said he took off her boots and vest and patsy said she took off her pants. It seems likely the parents are telling the truth in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 187229]

How can forensic testing prove that the sheets were slept on? How can they point out and prove the difference of sheets when they had been slept on or just a child who spent time in her bed for a while, didn't sleep and climbed back out again? Yes, she had ben in her bed, but how can they say she SLEPT in her bed? Do they have proof of her dreaming?

My kids often just play in their beds. In their PJs or even in their day clothes. Of course the sheets would show that there has been someone in the bed, the bedding is disturbed and there are hairs and clothing fibers found. How does that prove that they slept there?
Even bed-wetting accident can happen when the child is awake, especially if she is not properly toilet trained and had accidents happen.

It only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ponytale]

I think it proves she slept in her bed because her top that she wore to the whites Christmas party and her longjohns both had fibres from her hed.

How dos it prove that she slept in her bed? If I go climb in my bed with my day clothes on right now, does it prove I slept in my bed with them if my clothing fibers are now found in my bed? It does not. I posted an example of how my kids play in their beds - it does not prove anything. She could have just climbed in her bed with her clothes on leaving her fibers behind. And she also could have done it before they even left for the Whites party.

It corroborates the parents version of events that they put her to bed.

And maybe they did put her to bed or she went to bed for herself, but climbed out again some time after. It does not prove that she did not get out of the bed later, does it?

Also the boots and vest being next to the doll house and the black velvet pants folded on the spare bed corroborate the parents version of events because John said he took off her boots and vest and patsy said she took off her pants. It seems likely the parents are telling the truth in my opinion.

Patsy also said that she put her to bed with her red turtleneck but we know that she didn't. IMO, they can say all that they want but it does not prove anything - yes, it could be true but it also could be a lie. What we should think is - is this relevant to the case and how?

 

[Ponytale]

It only has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it can not be done.