Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by shamu
They can't be tried because nobody can prove who did it. You can't try a family because you think "they" did it. You need to have a clearer idea of who to charge; it can't be just general family fishiness. Even those of us who suspect family involvement concede that one or two Rams may be innocent. (Or at least, I do.)

"OH" but you can read AND THEN SOME...???!!! IMHO read ALL books even the latest ... by Walter Davis (it's a play ... IT TRIES THEM(THE RAMSEYS) IN A DIFFERENT COURT".... even though tragic,...it's enlightning/educational IMHO...

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
IMO all we know for sure is what the autopsy findings say, per the meaning of "chronic":

In the world of forensic pathology, chronic means at least forty-eight to seventy-two hours old. There's no fudging that time frame... Mortal Evidence, p. 54.

Therefore, JonBenét had vaginal injury that was inflicted during that time frame. Whether she was molested/abused prior to that is speculation. It's possible, but the 48-72 hour window is what we know for certain based on the medical findings. She had an ongoing bedwetting problem, which may be a clue but is hardly proof in and of itself that she was being abused.

IMHO ... we know more than "we want to know using 'common sense'... but that's TOO MUCH a different story, right?!?!

 

[Interested novice]

I have to admit, I do not come in JBR topic most of the time. When I do, it seems people are so intense on their beliefs... either for or against the parents.

I know this is an intense topic. I'm finding so many that are against the mother.

I have a question though...

Do you believe a rookie drug detective (thomas) who NEVER DID A MURDER CASE...

OR DO YOU BELIEVE A SEASONED MURDER DETECTIVE WITH ALMOST AN IMPECABLE RECORD OF SOLVING MURDERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 1 CASE... THINKS THIS IS AN INTRUDER MURDER.

come on people... all around us is TRUE EXAMPLES OF children abducted from their own bedrooms... this was a LARGE LARGE HOME... HE COULDN'T RESIST HIMSELF, SHE DIED PREMATURELY,

How can people be so against the parents here?

(btw, I AM NOT A JAMS SUPPORTER)


I do honestly want to know peoples perspective as mine is obviously stated.

The most compelling pieces of evidence against the parents in my view are the changing statements of John Ramsey. Over the years he has added additional detail to his statements particularly his noticing unfamiliar vehicles parked or driving around outside on the morning of the 26th.

Any reasonable person would have provided all relevant information to the police immediately. He did not. In fact it took him years to reveal this information.

Delaying talking to the police for 4 months about your dead daughter and then taking 2+ years to provide all the details is just completely inconsistent with a grief stricken parent and completely consistent with a cover up by a guilty party.

 

[kaykay543]

The most compelling pieces of evidence against the parents in my view are the changing statements of John Ramsey. Over the years he has added additional detail to his statements particularly his noticing unfamiliar vehicles parked or driving around outside on the morning of the 26th.

Any reasonable person would have provided all relevant information to the police immediately. He did not. In fact it took him years to reveal this information.

Delaying talking to the police for 4 months about your dead daughter and then taking 2+ years to provide all the details is just completely inconsistent with a grief stricken parent and completely consistent with a cover up by a guilty party.

Agree. Innocent people aka people not lying; never change their story. Because the truth is easy to remember. A lie is hard to remember and often changes.

 

[Charlot123]

I don't know who killed her. I am shocked at how contaminated the crime room and the scene of crime were. This was a case of police inadequacy. And each time I try to explain it to myself by the havoc, the prestige of the family, the Christmas time and stress of the policemen, another thought pops up. In California, someone was diligent enough to collect DNAs and keep a good chain of custody; this many years later led to the identification of the Golden State Killer. Unfortunately, there was no such perfectionist in JonBenet case.

All photos of JonBenet that have been published show here haunting precociousness. I know her biological age, but there was nothing childish in her clothes, makeups or hairdos. Much later, I saw photos of "reborn dolls" and was shocked by their eerie resemblance of JonBenet.

To me, JonBenet's looks were indicative of some strange traits of her mother Patsy. We know that ex-pageant queen lived her life vicariously through her daughter, maybe this is all that there was to it. Perhaps in real life, JonBenet was allowed to look like a child? But if not, what else does it signify?

Here is also what surprises me. That the Ramseys did not decline polygraph tests was a good sign. But even the validity of these tests managed to be somehow "contaminated". Polygraph results released

How many things could go wrong in one case?

 

[leslievernon]

there is an almost 3 hour long special "The Case of Jonbenet Ramsey" on YT - former FBI and Scotland Yard detectives, along with a whole reconstruction of the ramsey house, full dissection of the ransom letter by linguistic experts... very insightful.

two things i found particularly odd:
1. according to dr. werner spitz, veteran pathologist, he was not "allowed" into the house by the ramseys, for whatever reasons. spitz doesn't know why he couldn't enter.
2. certain marks on jonbenets body - it was thought to be a stun gun... but they (in the above mentioned special) performed a test, and the marks on the skin did not look like the marks on her body. to my surprise, they took an end of a children's railway, the end where you stick the pieces together, and that looks a lot more like it could have been the cause of those 2 marks.

also:
in the boulder police video of the ramsey house, you see a black flashlight on the table. it didn't belong to anybody in the house, well, a relative gave it to john ramsey, as a gift or whatever... there were no fingerprints on them, bizarrely, on the batteries themselves, where you would find prints - no prints found...
there was a crack in her skull, so some object was used to hit her in the head.

 

[UKGuy]

there is an almost 3 hour long special "The Case of Jonbenet Ramsey" on YT - former FBI and Scotland Yard detectives, along with a whole reconstruction of the ramsey house, full dissection of the ransom letter by linguistic experts... very insightful.

two things i found particularly odd:
1. according to dr. werner spitz, veteran pathologist, he was not "allowed" into the house by the ramseys, for whatever reasons. spitz doesn't know why he couldn't enter.
2. certain marks on jonbenets body - it was thought to be a stun gun... but they (in the above mentioned special) performed a test, and the marks on the skin did not look like the marks on her body. to my surprise, they took an end of a children's railway, the end where you stick the pieces together, and that looks a lot more like it could have been the cause of those 2 marks.

also:
in the boulder police video of the ramsey house, you see a black flashlight on the table. it didn't belong to anybody in the house, well, a relative gave it to john ramsey, as a gift or whatever... there were no fingerprints on them, bizarrely, on the batteries themselves, where you would find prints - no prints found...
there was a crack in her skull, so some object was used to hit her in the head.

leslievernon,
The R's probably wanted minimal legal eyes overseeing the crime-scene, so Spitz was vetoed?

The marks on her body are quite important since they suggest to us a scenario beyond a kidnapping case.

They could have arrived via any object, similar for her head injury, yet the marks tell us someone violently assaulted JonBenet.

Other marks might be drag marks indicating she was pulled along the floor?

Some pathologists say it takes about 5-7 minutes to asphyxiate a child, the use of a ligature implies planning so that might mean it was premeditated, not a response to some unusual event?

Together the planning and premediatation says the case is Murder in the First Degree.

Looks like someone coldly executed JonBenet which was followed up by staging in the wine-cellar.

JonBenet's injuries and manner of death are something a male would do, few women kill in this manner.

Here's the thing though, if you intend to kill JonBenet by asphyxiating her why bother with the Blunt Force Trauma?

If Patsy did it why would she leave JonBenet in male longjohns and size-12 underwear, i.e. as a staging strategy it fails at step 1?

On the recent Dr Phil show John says he took the Flashlight upstairs when putting Burke to bed, why: I do not have a clue?

Like did the Ramsey house not have light bulbs? John uses his flashlight gift for putting his child to bed, why?

Of course John (via Dr Phil's lips) failed to tell us how the flashlight arrived downstairs the next day?

So although prints were not recovered maybe they found touch-dna on the flashlight?

I reckon its linked to Burke in some manner and thats why Spitz is alleging it was used as the Blunt Force weapon to whack JonBenet?

.

 

[leslievernon]

The R's probably wanted minimal legal eyes overseeing the crime-scene, so Spitz was vetoed?
but they invited some friends, right? and john ramsey, and i feel for him cause he finds his daughter murdered, but, he made the job very hard for police cause he altered the crime scene, i mean, contaminated it. he found her, loosened(?) the binding, picked her up, took her into another room, on the carpet...? not good. again, not meant to be harsh.

The marks on her body are quite important since they suggest to us a scenario beyond a kidnapping case.
true. i know some cases but i never heard about one that has a ransom letter while the kidnapped victim is dead and still in the house where she was taken, i mean.. the ransom analysis is really eye-opening in some aspects. for example: writing duration: 22 minutes(!) just for copying it.

Other marks might be drag marks indicating she was pulled along the floor?
i actually never read the autopsy report. i have to do that first.

Some pathologists say it takes about 5-7 minutes to asphyxiate a child, the use of a ligature implies planning so that might mean it was premeditated, not a response to some unusual event?
yes, i'd say pre-meditation.

Together the planning and premediatation says the case is Murder in the First Degree.
sure, definitely murder. NO accident here!

Looks like someone coldly executed JonBenet which was followed up by staging in the wine-cellar.
yes.

JonBenet's injuries and manner of death are something a male would do, few women kill in this manner.
yes, murder might look male, while the analysis of the letter indicates female (and apparently a film fan.. references from Dirty Harry and Speed..)

Here's the thing though, if you intend to kill JonBenet by asphyxiating her why bother with the Blunt Force Trauma?
overkill? or, just complete panic.. making sure she's dead, for real.

If Patsy did it why would she leave JonBenet in male longjohns and size-12 underwear, i.e. as a staging strategy it fails at step 1?
? was jonbenet found in different clothing (different from what patsy said she wore)?

On the recent Dr Phil show John says he took the Flashlight upstairs when putting Burke to bed, why: I do not have a clue?
yes, strange..

Like did the Ramsey house not have light bulbs? John uses his flashlight gift for putting his child to bed, why?
as long as there wasn't a genereal power failure.. this is strange behaviour, sure.

Of course John (via Dr Phil's lips) failed to tell us how the flashlight arrived downstairs the next day?
interesting thing with the flashlight..

So although prints were not recovered maybe they found touch-dna on the flashlight?
the DNA guy said "no DNA". he mentioned Touch DNA though, so, i guess he meant really no DNA was found. also none on the batterys. Touch DNA - whoever made the garotte, had to pull hard. might be a chance to find skin cells there, too. i don't know if that was ever done.

I reckon its linked to Burke in some manner and thats why Spitz is alleging it was used as the Blunt Force weapon to whack JonBenet?
right now i am completely freaked out by the interview i saw of burke ramsey, questioned by police as a 9 year old, and then again with 11.
yeah, he freaked me out, maybe it's just him being a little smart *. but he was in such a funny mood, i don't know what they (parents) gave him. also, apparentely there was an incident where burke whacked jonbenet over the head with a golf club(!) talk about angry siblings. i think the neighbour told the ex-investigators that.
strange boy... smearing feces (i never knew that) all over the house back then, i mean... urgh.

----------------------------------

reg. the garotte:
it is so strange because the garotte actually makes you think "no, no way that a family member could've done that"... and i think it was, like the letter, not brought but made there in the house.

re. foreign DNA on jonbenets panties:
they (dr. henry lee in his labor) even performed a DNA test with a fabric-new kids underpanties. there was biological material on it... fabric new. so it's the DNA from a factory worker somewhere in thailand, most probably. nothing to do with the crime. still, it could be DNA from the killer but his profile is not in any database. hard to say at this point.

 

[Interested novice]

Does anyone know when the latest DNA testing reported a few months ago by the Daily Camera will be made public? It was under the impression that this latest testing could separate out the male DNA from the samples and overcome the isssue of potential mixing or contamination.

The R's probably wanted minimal legal eyes overseeing the crime-scene, so Spitz was vetoed?
but they invited some friends, right? and john ramsey, and i feel for him cause he finds his daughter murdered, but, he made the job very hard for police cause he altered the crime scene, i mean, contaminated it. he found her, loosened(?) the binding, picked her up, took her into another room, on the carpet...? not good. again, not meant to be harsh.

The marks on her body are quite important since they suggest to us a scenario beyond a kidnapping case.
true. i know some cases but i never heard about one that has a ransom letter while the kidnapped victim is dead and still in the house where she was taken, i mean.. the ransom analysis is really eye-opening in some aspects. for example: writing duration: 22 minutes(!) just for copying it.

Other marks might be drag marks indicating she was pulled along the floor?
i actually never read the autopsy report. i have to do that first.

Some pathologists say it takes about 5-7 minutes to asphyxiate a child, the use of a ligature implies planning so that might mean it was premeditated, not a response to some unusual event?
yes, i'd say pre-meditation.

Together the planning and premediatation says the case is Murder in the First Degree.
sure, definitely murder. NO accident here!

Looks like someone coldly executed JonBenet which was followed up by staging in the wine-cellar.
yes.

JonBenet's injuries and manner of death are something a male would do, few women kill in this manner.
yes, murder might look male, while the analysis of the letter indicates female (and apparently a film fan.. references from Dirty Harry and Speed..)

Here's the thing though, if you intend to kill JonBenet by asphyxiating her why bother with the Blunt Force Trauma?
overkill? or, just complete panic.. making sure she's dead, for real.

If Patsy did it why would she leave JonBenet in male longjohns and size-12 underwear, i.e. as a staging strategy it fails at step 1?
? was jonbenet found in different clothing (different from what patsy said she wore)?

On the recent Dr Phil show John says he took the Flashlight upstairs when putting Burke to bed, why: I do not have a clue?
yes, strange..

Like did the Ramsey house not have light bulbs? John uses his flashlight gift for putting his child to bed, why?
as long as there wasn't a genereal power failure.. this is strange behaviour, sure.

Of course John (via Dr Phil's lips) failed to tell us how the flashlight arrived downstairs the next day?
interesting thing with the flashlight..

So although prints were not recovered maybe they found touch-dna on the flashlight?
the DNA guy said "no DNA". he mentioned Touch DNA though, so, i guess he meant really no DNA was found. also none on the batterys. Touch DNA - whoever made the garotte, had to pull hard. might be a chance to find skin cells there, too. i don't know if that was ever done.

I reckon its linked to Burke in some manner and thats why Spitz is alleging it was used as the Blunt Force weapon to whack JonBenet?
right now i am completely freaked out by the interview i saw of burke ramsey, questioned by police as a 9 year old, and then again with 11.
yeah, he freaked me out, maybe it's just him being a little smart *. but he was in such a funny mood, i don't know what they (parents) gave him. also, apparentely there was an incident where burke whacked jonbenet over the head with a golf club(!) talk about angry siblings. i think the neighbour told the ex-investigators that.
strange boy... smearing feces (i never knew that) all over the house back then, i mean... urgh.

----------------------------------

reg. the garotte:
it is so strange because the garotte actually makes you think "no, no way that a family member could've done that"... and i think it was, like the letter, not brought but made there in the house.

re. foreign DNA on jonbenets panties:
they (dr. henry lee in his labor) even performed a DNA test with a fabric-new kids underpanties. there was biological material on it... fabric new. so it's the DNA from a factory worker somewhere in thailand, most probably. nothing to do with the crime. still, it could be DNA from the killer but his profile is not in any database. hard to say at this point.

V

 

[UKGuy]

The R's probably wanted minimal legal eyes overseeing the crime-scene, so Spitz was vetoed?
but they invited some friends, right? and john ramsey, and i feel for him cause he finds his daughter murdered, but, he made the job very hard for police cause he altered the crime scene, i mean, contaminated it. he found her, loosened(?) the binding, picked her up, took her into another room, on the carpet...? not good. again, not meant to be harsh.

The marks on her body are quite important since they suggest to us a scenario beyond a kidnapping case.
true. i know some cases but i never heard about one that has a ransom letter while the kidnapped victim is dead and still in the house where she was taken, i mean.. the ransom analysis is really eye-opening in some aspects. for example: writing duration: 22 minutes(!) just for copying it.

Other marks might be drag marks indicating she was pulled along the floor?
i actually never read the autopsy report. i have to do that first.

Some pathologists say it takes about 5-7 minutes to asphyxiate a child, the use of a ligature implies planning so that might mean it was premeditated, not a response to some unusual event?
yes, i'd say pre-meditation.

Together the planning and premediatation says the case is Murder in the First Degree.
sure, definitely murder. NO accident here!

Looks like someone coldly executed JonBenet which was followed up by staging in the wine-cellar.
yes.

JonBenet's injuries and manner of death are something a male would do, few women kill in this manner.
yes, murder might look male, while the analysis of the letter indicates female (and apparently a film fan.. references from Dirty Harry and Speed..)

Here's the thing though, if you intend to kill JonBenet by asphyxiating her why bother with the Blunt Force Trauma?
overkill? or, just complete panic.. making sure she's dead, for real.

If Patsy did it why would she leave JonBenet in male longjohns and size-12 underwear, i.e. as a staging strategy it fails at step 1?
? was jonbenet found in different clothing (different from what patsy said she wore)?

On the recent Dr Phil show John says he took the Flashlight upstairs when putting Burke to bed, why: I do not have a clue?
yes, strange..

Like did the Ramsey house not have light bulbs? John uses his flashlight gift for putting his child to bed, why?
as long as there wasn't a genereal power failure.. this is strange behaviour, sure.

Of course John (via Dr Phil's lips) failed to tell us how the flashlight arrived downstairs the next day?
interesting thing with the flashlight..

So although prints were not recovered maybe they found touch-dna on the flashlight?
the DNA guy said "no DNA". he mentioned Touch DNA though, so, i guess he meant really no DNA was found. also none on the batterys. Touch DNA - whoever made the garotte, had to pull hard. might be a chance to find skin cells there, too. i don't know if that was ever done.

I reckon its linked to Burke in some manner and thats why Spitz is alleging it was used as the Blunt Force weapon to whack JonBenet?
right now i am completely freaked out by the interview i saw of burke ramsey, questioned by police as a 9 year old, and then again with 11.
yeah, he freaked me out, maybe it's just him being a little smart *. but he was in such a funny mood, i don't know what they (parents) gave him. also, apparentely there was an incident where burke whacked jonbenet over the head with a golf club(!) talk about angry siblings. i think the neighbour told the ex-investigators that.
strange boy... smearing feces (i never knew that) all over the house back then, i mean... urgh.

----------------------------------

reg. the garotte:
it is so strange because the garotte actually makes you think "no, no way that a family member could've done that"... and i think it was, like the letter, not brought but made there in the house.

re. foreign DNA on jonbenets panties:
they (dr. henry lee in his labor) even performed a DNA test with a fabric-new kids underpanties. there was biological material on it... fabric new. so it's the DNA from a factory worker somewhere in thailand, most probably. nothing to do with the crime. still, it could be DNA from the killer but his profile is not in any database. hard to say at this point.

leslievernon,

reg. the garotte:
it is so strange because the garotte actually makes you think "no, no way that a family member could've done that"... and i think it was, like the letter, not brought but made there in the house.

Sure made by Patsy using her own paintbrush to simulate asphyxiation, her fibers are embedded in the ligature knotting, so how is Patsy staging herself out of a prior crime-scene?

The DNA facts are even stranger than the garrote story:

James Kolar in his book Foreign Faction says: There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles - five male and one female on JonBenet.

.

 

[leslievernon]

James Kolar in his book Foreign Faction says: There are six unique and unidentified genetic profiles - five male and one female on JonBenet.

yeah this is really perplexing.... i mean how come?

as Interested novice asked - it seems like they performed DNA tests very recently, in july, with state of the art technology, i hope.. but they didn't give any details.

jesus... that makes you think: where did the author of the book get this from? where was it all the time, actually...? if you have only a tiny bit of DNA, in the early years of DNA.. you test it, and then it's gone. so i really wonder what is the real deal here with the DNA... is technology really so good that they can get a profile out of almost nothing, or, they found new spots.. which would be baffling, i mean, how many times were the items already looked at and tested..?

and the knot, on the garotte.. not a "normal" knot, right? would PR have known how to bind such a specific knot?

 

[leslievernon]

oh i see... yeah, i found the DNA portion of kolar's book online, here is an excerpt:

"[Greg] Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion."

it is an interesting read... i mean they're testing nanograms of biological material. it's fascinating.
but still, i don't know.. five male and one female - that doesn't mean automatically that this has to be a 6 people faction just because it's 6 different profiles. that's an absurd thought, really.

also, how can you ever actually rule out a fabric worker, i mean... that's a huge task to begin with.

they're making a big fuzz about the New DNA Testings, as i read, they began in 2016 and just finished.

 

[UKGuy]

oh i see... yeah, i found the DNA portion of kolar's book online, here is an excerpt:

"[Greg] Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpetrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion."

it is an interesting read... i mean they're testing nanograms of biological material. it's fascinating.
but still, i don't know.. five male and one female - that doesn't mean automatically that this has to be a 6 people faction just because it's 6 different profiles. that's an absurd thought, really.

also, how can you ever actually rule out a fabric worker, i mean... that's a huge task to begin with.

they're making a big fuzz about the New DNA Testings, as i read, they began in 2016 and just finished.

leslievernon,

but still, i don't know.. five male and one female - that doesn't mean automatically that this has to be a 6 people faction just because it's 6 different profiles. that's an absurd thought, really.

Absurd, really? That's Kolar's point there was a Foreign Faction in the house that night according to the DNA Profiles !

Nanograms is they need nowadays, even a partial cell, and they can recover a full genome.

Basically the only dna that will matter is that belonging to the Ramsey's and where it is located.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Spitz thought JonBenet had been assaulted internally using the paintbrush about the time of death.

Also we have:
Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt

Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital hild Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét. He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted
during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position.

Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.

Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical
examiners.

So that is three independent opinions regarding acute and chronic sexual assault.

Coroner Meyer said JonBenet had been subjected to Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact

Looks to me as if JonBenet's homicide was sexually motivated, since if it had been intended as staging why wipe her down and cover it all up?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Here is where Kolar links Patsy via her fibers to JonBenet in the wine-cellar:

Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt

It would take a year before the black and red Essentials brand jacket Patsy was photographed wearing was finally delivered to them. It was frustrating. The clothing articles seemed to trickle into their office a piece or two at a time. In one instance, a sweater – that Patsy was said to be wearing under the jacket – was delivered that looked like it had just come off the shelf of a retail clothing store. The fold marks were crisp and clearly present, suggesting it had never been worn.

Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket.

Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor. Some intruder theorists thought that the transfer of Patsy’s jacket fibers to the duct tape may have taken place after John had
removed it from JonBenét’s face, and placed it on the white blanket in the cellar. They believed it possible that prior contact taking place between the blanket and jacket could account for the transfer of these fibers to the tape.

Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but
Trujillo told me lab technicians didn’t think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence.

BPD investigators looked to the other jacket fibers found in the Wine Cellar, in the paint tray, and on the cord used to bind JonBenét as physical evidence that linked Patsy with the probable location of her daughter’s death – the basement hallway and Wine Cellar. The paint tray was reported to have been moved to the basement about a month prior to the kidnapping, and investigators doubted that Patsy would have been working on art projects while wearing the dress jacket. The collection of jacket fibers from all of these different locations raised strong suspicions about her involvement in the crime.

Investigators also learned that fibers collected from the interior lining of the Essentials jacket did not match control samples from the sweater that had been provided to police by Ramsey attorneys. Investigators thought that this suggested she had been wearing some other article of clothing beneath the jacket.

.

 

[leslievernon]

it's just horrible, i don't wanna even think about it (reg: sexual assaults)
i rather like to think it was a complete maniac who did this to the child, rather than any of the family or friends or relatives.

is there also a section in the book where kolar talks about any potential suspects who were living in the neighborhood?

 

[UKGuy]

it's just horrible, i don't wanna even think about it (reg: sexual assaults)
i rather like to think it was a complete maniac who did this to the child, rather than any of the family or friends or relatives.

is there also a section in the book where kolar talks about any potential suspects who were living in the neighborhood?

leslievernon,
Not really, he is at pains to rule out any intruder scenario, basically because there is zero forensic evidence, so its an open and shut case as far as family involvement is concerned. Just consider all those dna profiles which are meant to represent an intruder, duh !

You should reserve a copy of Foreign Faction at your library, its a good read and goes over all the main theories, even if you end up disagreeing with him.

.

 

[leslievernon]

what's your opinion reg. the 6 unknown DNA profiles?

 

[BlueEyedSunflower]

leslievernon,
Not really, he is at pains to rule out any intruder scenario, basically because there is zero forensic evidence, so its an open and shut case as far as family involvement is concerned. Just consider all those dna profiles which are meant to represent an intruder, duh !

You should reserve a copy of Foreign Faction at your library, its a good read and goes over all the main theories, even if you end up disagreeing with him.

.

UK Guy, Thanks for the book title , I didnt know there was a book about it .

 

[UKGuy]

UK Guy, Thanks for the book title , I didnt know there was a book about it .

BlueEyedSunflower,
No problem, just enjoy the book, its one of the best on the case, since Kolar has access to the case files, other books are dated now and the theories superceded by new forensic evidence.

Another good read that really does summarize the evidence quite comprehensively with no flannel is:

Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey Case by True Crime Detectives Guild 2016.

.