Netflex JBR Documentary was full of false information.

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone
Over the next few weeks, I will post the truth compared to what the documentary said.
A great director directed the Netflix documentary. I am so disappointed that the same baloney was treated as the truth. It was highly disappointing.
On this thread, please post what in the documentary makes you believe there was an intruder.
DO NOT NAME ANYONE WHO YOU THINK MIGHT BE THE INTRUDER!
Please only post what evidence you saw in the documentary that leads you to think there was an intruder.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Manager/Websleuths.com

 

[Tricia]

Does anyone think the Netflix documentary had any points that looked good for the intruder theory?

 

[dkaras]

I am most confused by the foreign male DNA, which could point to an intruder. Suspects were ruled out because the DNA evidence cleared them. The Ramsey's were also ruled out by the DNA evidence yet they are also still suspected by many. I don't understand.

One suspect claimed he entered the house earlier in the evening and waited for the family. (Was it John Mark Karr? Who was ruled out.) But I could see that as feasible (coming into the house earlier), then possibly leaving through the window, or trying to.

I don't know, this whole case is sad and frustrating! So much conflicting evidence!

 

[887sMtreme]

Does anyone think the Netflix documentary had any points that looked good for the intruder theory?

Not I. They tried, though.

 

[CloudedTruth]

Not I. They tried, though.

Me neither.

It might be persuasive to people who are not familiar with the case, and based upon the previous reputation of the director. But for those of us who have followed the case, the main feeling was frustration at all the information that was left out which are important elements of the case and would have presented a more balanced and accurate presentation. As it was, it just felt like more of the same Ramsey manipulation.

 

[crime_junkie]

Ofc Netflix went with the intruder theory because John Ramsey was being interviewed. No way Netflix would accuse the Ramsey's and interview John Ramsey. It was a failed PR stunt, I don't think he is telling the truth, he may not even remember what the truth even is.

 

[Tricia]

I am most confused by the foreign male DNA, which could point to an intruder. Suspects were ruled out because the DNA evidence cleared them. The Ramsey's were also ruled out by the DNA evidence yet they are also still suspected by many. I don't understand.

One suspect claimed he entered the house earlier in the evening and waited for the family. (Was it John Mark Karr? Who was ruled out.) But I could see that as feasible (coming into the house earlier), then possibly leaving through the window, or trying to.

I don't know, this whole case is sad and frustrating! So much conflicting evidence!

In my opinion, the reason John Ramsey is pushing the DNA will find the killer theory is because he knows damn well the DNA will NOT lead to the killer/intruder. I'll post the link to the article written about l0 years ago that explains it. It's going to take me a bit to find it.
Patsy wrote the note, in my opinion, and therefore, no intruder. When you conclude Patsy wrote the note, all of the other intruder "evidence" goes out the window.
If anyone wants to post what intruder evidence they feel is strong please post it. We can show you why that evidence does not point to an intruder.

 

[Tricia]

Great opinion piece in the Washington Times by Nicholas Chambreras

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary.

From the article "The documentary’s thesis, that an intruder killed JonBenet, partially relies on unidentified foreign DNA found on the body but ignores the fact that many experts have assessed the biological material is so minuscule and degraded that it is most likely unrelated to the crime."

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary

Joe Berlinger’s new Netflix documentary on the killing of JonBenet Ramsey is sure to become a favorite of villains eager to learn how to use slick production to distort the truth.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[MesquiteO21]

I am most confused by the foreign male DNA, which could point to an intruder. Suspects were ruled out because the DNA evidence cleared them. The Ramsey's were also ruled out by the DNA evidence yet they are also still suspected by many. I don't understand.

One suspect claimed he entered the house earlier in the evening and waited for the family. (Was it John Mark Karr? Who was ruled out.) But I could see that as feasible (coming into the house earlier), then possibly leaving through the window, or trying to.

I don't know, this whole case is sad and frustrating! So much conflicting evidence!

some speculate the DNA is from a factory worker who had originally handled her underpants when they were made. it's my understanding that this can happen if you don't wash a garment after purchasing it. i don't know if any other DNA was also found, but if Patsy's/John's/Burke's was present i don't think it would necessarily mean anything since their DNA could reasonably be expected to be on JB and/or her clothes, even trace amounts, since they lived together.

the intruder theory is weak if not outright impossible IMO. the broken basement window was found to still have dust and cobwebs around it, meaning it was undisturbed and no one had touched it for awhile (i read this in a book so apologies for not having a source link on hand at the moment). the window wasn't large enough that an adult would be able to get through it without upsetting the dust and cobwebs. if no one in the immediate family was responsible, then it had to have been someone with a key to the house. i fully believe that whoever killed her did not forcibly break in that night. nothing else makes any literal sense.

MOO

 

[FergusMcDuck]

In my opinion, the reason John Ramsey is pushing the DNA will find the killer theory is because he knows damn well the DNA will NOT lead to the killer/intruder.

I have to say, that does not make sense to me from his perspective. If John was the killer, or if another in the family was and John knows this, he must know that the DNA belongs to someone who wasn't there that night. And since it is impossible for him to know whose DNA it is, if the person is found they could very well have an alibi, thus removing the biggest argument he has in favor of his and his family's innocence. As long as the owner of the DNA remains unknown, John has been able to convince a lot of people (me included) that this profile belongs to the thus far unidentified killer. It would be in John's best interest to keep it unidentified.

If anyone wants to post what intruder evidence they feel is strong please post it. We can show you why that evidence does not point to an intruder.

The DNA is what does it for me. The correspondence of alleles over so many loci for both the UM1 sample in the underwear as well as the non-adjacent touch DNA samples from the longjohns waistband have never been satisfactorily explained in my opinion, unless the DNA belongs to her attacker.

 

[Ponytale]

It does make sense if you see it from the perspective that talking about the DNA will give people something to do. The DNA is the only thing John has left that points to an intruder. He knows that it will not lead anywhere, but investigators and public do not. They see John as a doted father who fights for justice for his daughter by constantly talking about the DNA evidence and getting it looked at again and again. It takes time to investigate. Time is what John needs. Time is than wasted to search for an non existing intruder and matching the DNA. And people who search and talk about the intruder do not have time to point their fingers at the Ramsey's.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

It does make sense if you see it from the perspective that talking about the DNA will give people something to do. The DNA is the only thing John has left that points to an intruder. He knows that it will not lead anywhere, but investigators and public do not. They see John as a doted father who fights for justice for his daughter by constantly talking about the DNA evidence and getting it looked at again and again. It takes time to investigate. Time is what John needs. Time is than wasted to search for an non existing intruder and matching the DNA. And people who search and talk about the intruder do not have time to point at the Ramsey's.

But the DNA still belongs to someone. If he is identified he may well have a solid alibi, thus ruining John's claim that it belongs to the killer. John could have rested on his laurels and keep pointing to the DNA without pushing for more testing.

 

[Ponytale]

But the DNA still belongs to someone. If he is identified he may well have a solid alibi, thus ruining John's claim that it belongs to the killer. John could have rested on his laurels and keep pointing to the DNA without pushing for more testing.

Maybe he is just so sure that the DNA will never me matched. At least not in his lifetime...

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Maybe he is just so sure that the DNA will never me matched. At least not in his lifetime...

If John is the killer or one of his family members was and he knows it, how could he possibly know that it won't be? He has no idea whose DNA it is. The very techniques he's pushing to be used are those that could - if successful - identify the person via genetic genealogy. What assurance could he possibly have that it won't work?

 

[scarson1]

Great opinion piece in the Washington Times by Nicholas Chambreras

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary.

From the article "The documentary’s thesis, that an intruder killed JonBenet, partially relies on unidentified foreign DNA found on the body but ignores the fact that many experts have assessed the biological material is so minuscule and degraded that it is most likely unrelated to the crime."

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary

Joe Berlinger’s new Netflix documentary on the killing of JonBenet Ramsey is sure to become a favorite of villains eager to learn how to use slick production to distort the truth.

www.washingtontimes.com

Great article. The fact that the wife’s gown barricaded was found on the duct tape was something I didn’t know. Reading that article has convinced me further that the parents knew what happened

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

some speculate the DNA is from a factory worker who had originally handled her underpants when they were made. it's my understanding that this can happen if you don't wash a garment after purchasing it. i don't know if any other DNA was also found, but if Patsy's/John's/Burke's was present i don't think it would necessarily mean anything since their DNA could reasonably be expected to be on JB and/or her clothes, even trace amounts, since they lived together.

the intruder theory is weak if not outright impossible IMO. the broken basement window was found to still have dust and cobwebs around it, meaning it was undisturbed and no one had touched it for awhile (i read this in a book so apologies for not having a source link on hand at the moment). the window wasn't large enough that an adult would be able to get through it without upsetting the dust and cobwebs. if no one in the immediate family was responsible, then it had to have been someone with a key to the house. i fully believe that whoever killed her did not forcibly break in that night. nothing else makes any literal sense.

MOO

Also, after reviewing the crime scene photos and the house walk-through, one would know it's extremely difficult to land and step gingerly on that suitcase located under that small broken window (and the intruder wouldn't have known there was a suitcase anyway). But, Lou Smit said that was how the intruder came in, as the suitcase had some shards of glasses. The intruder then had to climb out of that small window where the pieces of broken glasses continued to stay on top of the suitcase after using the suitcase as a step stool. This, once again, is very physically challenging. If you browse the photo, you'll see it's more likely to fall or trip over it or at least kick it over than using it as a stepping stool.
The housekeepers all said that the window had been broken like that by John and it had not been fixed before the incident.
This already-broken window is apparently the only sign of "break-in."

 

[Ponytale]

If John is the killer or one of his family members was and he knows it, how could he possibly know that it won't be? He has no idea whose DNA it is. The very techniques he's pushing to be used are those that could - if successful - identify the person via genetic genealogy. What assurance could he possibly have that it won't work?

IMO, these thoughts are exactly why he is doing it. It gets people thinking like that. He wouldn't do it if this was the case, right?

I just think that he does not care about it really. He knows the DNA is not of any intruders. He knows that some foreign DNA was found. Foreign DNA could be found in anyone's house. He's probably just thinking that let people have their fun with it. Let them discuss and think their theories, let them test it and write articles. Let's keep it interesting. He already knows that the DNA is insignificant and is not connected to the case in any way. It got there probably from the factory where it was manufactured, packaging, transport. Or maybe someone took it out of the package and touched (or sneezed close to it) at the store when looking at it. It at least should be considered a possibility, right? My point is, the random person who is the owner of this DNA probably is not a criminal but just a simple person like all of us, and the chance to match the DNA to anyone is very small. Would a random, innocent person who has not committed any criminal acts in his past and has no record, would have his DNA at any database?

And even if there is a match and the person has an alibi - they would only have to say that the person who matched the DNA (or some part of the DNA) had a solid alibi and is not connected to the crime. What would it change for John? If he already knew that anyway. He'll just say that this is unfortunate and not what they hoped for. Or, that the DNA match is false or inconclusive. Or, that they will do more tests.

So the only reason for him to keep talking about the DNA and testing it to find a match, IMO, is that it makes the public see him as a good father who will forever search for the kidnapper/killer of his daughter.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

IMO, these thoughts are exactly why he is doing it. It gets people thinking like that. He wouldn't do it if this was the case, right?

I just think that he does not care about it really. He knows the DNA is not of any intruders. He knows that some foreign DNA was found. Foreign DNA could be found in anyone's house. He's probably just thinking that let people have their fun with it. Let them discuss and think their theories, let them test it and write articles. Let's keep it interesting. He already knows that the DNA is insignificant and is not connected to the case in any way. It got there probably from the factory where it was manufactured, packaging, transport. Or maybe someone took it out of the package and touched (or sneezed close to it) at the store when looking at it. It at least should be considered a possibility, right?

I don't think that's a possibility any longer, not since the Bode report. Factory worker should not be considered a realistic scenario, but that's irrelevant to the main point I'm making here. Let's just leave it at, if John or another Ramsey is the killer, then John knows the DNA didn't come from the killer, and have that as our postulation.

My point is, the random person who is the owner of this DNA probably is not a criminal but just a simple person like all of us, and the chance to match the DNA to anyone is very small. Would a random, innocent person who has not committed any criminal acts in his past and has no record, would have his DNA at any database?

But that is already the status quo. UM1 has been in CODIS since 2003, and obviously nobody has matched against it for 20 years. What John is requesting - genetic genealogy - is a tool to find a suspect who isn't in any database, but can be found through his relatives, who have uploaded their genetic information to a database. The Golden State Killer wasn't in a database, but was still found with this method.

And even if there is a match and the person has an alibi - they would only have to say that the person who matched the DNA (or some part of the DNA) had a solid alibi and is not connected to the crime. What would it change for John? If he already knew that anyway.

The point isn't what John knows, it's what the public knows. If the public knows UM1 wasn't the killer, John has lost his best argument for the innocence of his family.

He'll just say that this is unfortunate and not what they hoped for. Or, that the DNA match is false or inconclusive. Or, that they will do more tests.

Which will not work. UM1 is a strong piece of evidence - I would say the strongest piece of evidence in the case - and it's its existence that made Lacy exonerate them as well as Beckner state that UM1 is their number one suspect until proven otherwise. Whatever you think of those statements, they have had a big effect on the public at large. If all John cared about was public perception, he could have left it there - he would know this is as good as it gets for them. Pushing for an identification of a person that he knows wasn't in the house at the time of the murder is extremely counterproductive.

So the only reason for him to keep talking about the DNA and testing it to find a match, IMO, is that it makes the public see him as a good father who will forever search for the kidnapper/killer of his daughter.

Or he could just have left well enough alone, say he has accepted they won't find the killer, share his grief at anniversaries, criticize the police for botching the case. After the CBS fiasco it's not like there was a major push for a documentary accusing the Ramseys anyway, so what reason would he have for this latest campaign - unless he actually is telling the truth and recent progress in DNA technology - with famous solved cases like the Golden State Killer - has given him hope that the actual killer can be found?

 

[Ponytale]

Or he could just have left well enough alone, say he has accepted they won't find the killer, share his grief at anniversaries, criticize the police for botching the case. After the CBS fiasco it's not like there was a major push for a documentary accusing the Ramseys anyway, so what reason would he have for this latest campaign - unless he actually is telling the truth and recent progress in DNA technology - with famous solved cases like the Golden State Killer - has given him hope that the actual killer can be found?

You clearly know a lot about the DNA matter - thank you for sharing your insights, it is interesting to read. And I see your point. If it is true that this is the ultimate chance to match the DNA and the chances of this happening are realistic, I really would like see if they will find a match. I doubt that there will be any break through or something that would make this case take a turn, but I'm intrigued to know more. IMO, I still believe that this is not the DNA case and won't get us closer to solving it, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what John and his team will come up with next.

 

[dkaras]

Great opinion piece in the Washington Times by Nicholas Chambreras

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary.

From the article "The documentary’s thesis, that an intruder killed JonBenet, partially relies on unidentified foreign DNA found on the body but ignores the fact that many experts have assessed the biological material is so minuscule and degraded that it is most likely unrelated to the crime."

Netflix owes Boulder police an apology for vindictive JonBenet documentary

Joe Berlinger’s new Netflix documentary on the killing of JonBenet Ramsey is sure to become a favorite of villains eager to learn how to use slick production to distort the truth.

www.washingtontimes.com

Thanks for this article! I didn't know about some of this.

Question for anyone who understands DNA: How did the DNA exclude other/external suspects if it was degraded/miniscule? Or is repeated testing the reason it's degraded? Or is it untrue that other suspects were excluded based on their DNA not matching?

I have no idea what to think about the ransom note. It makes no sense in this crime no matter who the murderer is. I'm definitely no expert but I can certainly see handwriting similarities between the note and samples from PR.

I do get caught up on motive. For the murder and/or the coverup. If the murder was accidental, why the extreme staging including SA? And if effort put into staging, why in the world write a ransom note? Did they think no one would search the house?