Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[otg]

WOW! If this is true, what a slopy job the coroner did!

That's not even the half of it, Tex.

• When he was called to examine the dead body before official pronouncement, he waited outside the house for BPD to get a Search Warrant before going in (a breach in protocol for a coroner).
• After entering the house, he only spent a total of 20 minutes inside before leaving.
• While there, he failed to perform either of two different tests which would have given an accurate time frame for the exact time she died.
• Other tests should have been done while the body was at the crime scene that would have contributed to knowing so much more about what happened.
• He failed even to remain at the crime scene to supervise the required documentation which instead he left to his assistant to do.

But don't take my word for it. If the link works, read this excerpt beginning on page-227 from the book Dissecting Death, by famed Medical Examiner Dr. Frederick Zugibe:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GDxRCVT1AnsC&q=boondoggle#v=snippet&q=boondoggle&f=false

 

[TexasTuff]

Has anyone here ever tabulated how much $$ the Ramseys have collected in legal settlements? I guess they're probably protected by non-disclosure clauses...at least Patsy Ramsey stated such when referring to the Globe settlement.
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising/ramseys-settle-suit-vs-globe-47202

It probably all went for lawyer fees. When they moved to Michigan Patsy only made two visits to doctors when her ovarian cancer returned and they didn't even have enough money for her to continue cancer treatment. It was reported that John had considered taking a job as a carpenter to make ends meet since he lost his job.

 

[DeDee]

In the Patsy and John Ramsey interview with Larry King, John has a school picture of JonBenet that he keeps in his shirt pocket. Larry King asks Patsy if she carries one as well. Patsy slightly nods an affirmative response.

March 27, 2000
[video=youtube;zH9PesH7Wbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH9PesH7Wbg[/video]

In the year 2000, during Barbara Walters 20/20 interview with the Ramsey's, Patsy shows Barbara Walters the little white glove that she carries with her. I was unsuccessful in obtaining an exact date of the 20/20 program but would be interested to know, for interview purposes, if Patsy began carrying the tiny glove AFTER John showed LK that he carried a sentimental memento of his murdered daughter in his shirt pocket.

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nltc6UeKigw I had to break this link of the 20/20 interview, per TOS

 

[icedtea4me]

In the Patsy and John Ramsey interview with Larry King, John has a school picture of JonBenet that he keeps in his shirt pocket. Larry King asks Patsy if she carries one as well. Patsy slightly nods an affirmative response.

March 27, 2000
[video=youtube;zH9PesH7Wbg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH9PesH7Wbg[/video]

In the year 2000, during Barbara Walters 20/20 interview with the Ramsey's, Patsy shows Barbara Walters the little white glove that she carries with her. I was unsuccessful in obtaining an exact date of the 20/20 program but would be interested to know, for interview purposes, if Patsy began carrying the tiny glove AFTER John showed LK that he carried a sentimental memento of his murdered daughter in his shirt pocket.

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nltc6UeKigw I had to break this link of the 20/20 interview, per TOS

The interview with Barbara Walters was on Fri 17 March 2000, the same day DOI was released. (Interestingly enough, that date is St Patrick's Day and Patricia is a feminized version of Patrick.)

 

[TexasTuff]

That's not even the half of it, Tex.

• When he was called to examine the dead body before official pronouncement, he waited outside the house for BPD to get a Search Warrant before going in (a breach in protocol for a coroner).
• After entering the house, he only spent a total of 20 minutes inside before leaving.
• While there, he failed to perform either of two different tests which would have given an accurate time frame for the exact time she died.
• Other tests should have been done while the body was at the crime scene that would have contributed to knowing so much more about what happened.
• He failed even to remain at the crime scene to supervise the required documentation which instead he left to his assistant to do.

But don't take my word for it. If the link works, read this excerpt beginning on page-227 from the book Dissecting Death, by famed Medical Examiner Dr. Frederick Zugibe:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GDxRCVT1AnsC&q=boondoggle#v=snippet&q=boondoggle&f=false

That's absolutely heartbreaking! When that information is gone, it's gone forever, you can never get it back.:tears:

 

[andreww]

It probably all went for lawyer fees. When they moved to Michigan Patsy only made two visits to doctors when her ovarian cancer returned and they didn't even have enough money for her to continue cancer treatment. It was reported that John had considered taking a job as a carpenter to make ends meet since he lost his job.

Maybe John could have sold his boat, his plane, his summer home? I doubt very much that the Ramsey's were ever broke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

Maybe John could have sold his boat, his plane, his summer home? I doubt very much that the Ramsey's were ever broke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you know he didn't? I can promise you one thing the lawyers in this case were getting astronomical fees.

 

[TexasTuff]

Foind this:

http://jonbenet-ramsey.com/facts.php

 

[Anti-K]

Did they have DNA testing in 1996 and if so why was the panty evidence not tested until 2001?

Yes, they had DNA testing in 1996. I’ll try to go over this as simply as I can. But, this is all going to be from memory (I’m temporarily without access to most of my jbr files. ); and, in Two Parts.

Okay. Part One: Before CODIS

First, consider that when they test a sample they use a Kit. Kits vary. Some target these markers, some target those markers; some target these many and some target that many; etc.
We have Before CODIS Kits, and After CODIS kits.

The first samples taken were Before CODIS. We know from a screen shot captured from a 48 Hours television program (year, anyone?) that these samples (fingernails, tape, shirt, panties, and ?) were processed using a Kit that only targeted (looked for) five (5) markers.

Note that if a Kit is for 5 markers and 5 markers are identified, this is a Full Profile. A Full Profile has nothing to do with the number of markers identified, it only means that all the markers targeted were identified.

Before CODIS Kits looked for different regions (markers) on the DNA strand then what After CODIS Kits look for. So, they may not be able to say whether the Before CODIS findings match or do not match the After CODIS findings.

There is some confusion. A blood spot from the panties was tested with a Before CODIS Kit (Kolar does not mention this in his book just as he does not mention the first blood spot tested After CODIS). IIRC, one marker was identified (presumably, same 5 marker kit used as with fingernails). According to Smit’s under-oath deposition in the Wolf case, this marker matched the foreign, male DNA markers found in the fingernail samples (Kolar says that the fingernail samples do not match each other, and he doesn’t acknowledge this panty sample).

Kolar also tells us that these 2 separate fingernail samples don’t match any of the other samples found. But, if the fingernail samples are Before CODIS and the other samples are After CODIS… how can he make this claim?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Part Two: After CODIS

The so-called CODIS standard didn’t take hold until 1999/2000. For reasons I can’t remember ever knowing, the new Kit couldn’t be used until cleared by the Courts. Once the Courts gave assent, the first blood spot from the panties was re-tested using an After CODIS Kit and, iirc, one marker was identified (Kolar doesn’t mention this, either).

The second panty blood spot was tested in 2003, and this time 9 markers and one very weak marker were identified; we sometimes call this 9 and ½ markers.

Think of a marker as being a line drawn on a piece of paper. The darker the line, the easier it is to see. This is a strong marker; you can be certain of it’s identity. A lightly drawn line is harder to see. This is a weak marker; but, it is still a marker.

One of the ten markers found in the second blood spot, foreign, male sample was lightly drawn. It was hard to see. But, it was eventually enhanced and identified. Now, with ten markers, this sample was entered into the CODIS databanks.
New panties, bought and tested, had traces of DNA on them, but 1/10th to 1/12th the size as that found on jbr’s panties.

This sample is probably saliva. It could be something else, but it is probably saliva (therefore, wet). It is not tDNA (touch DNA). It was found on the inside, crotch of the panties, commingled in the victim’s blood.


The DNA found on the exterior, sides (hip area) of the leggings is probably skin cells (dry). It could be something else, but it is probably skin cells. This is tDNA. These samples, according to Kolar, are weaker than the CODIS sample. This only tells us ‘lightly drawn lines,” and tells us nothing about the number of markers in each sample. These samples and the CODIS sample all match each other.

Also, After CODIS Kits were used and tDNA was found on the wrist ligature and the garrotte (on the cord). These samples are partial samples (less then the number of markers looked for were found) and do not match each other or any other samples.
IIRC, also After CODIS Mrs Ramsey’s and Burke’s tDNA was found on the Barbie nightgown.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

How do you know he didn't? I can promise you one thing the lawyers in this case were getting astronomical fees.

Sure he was paying his lawyers but he was also collecting donations that were supposed to be used to find JBRs killer, that were actually used to fund their defense. They published two best selling books and benefited from photo publishing rights. I also believe John wasn't exactly unemployed in Atlanta either. Although they did scale down their home in Atlanta, they kept their other home in Charlevoix. John still owns his boat an plane as well. And Burke didn't have any problem going to an expensive university either.

How on earth can anyone believe these people were bankrupt? Morally bankrupt maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

Yes, they had DNA testing in 1996. I’ll try to go over this as simply as I can. But, this is all going to be from memory (I’m temporarily without access to most of my jbr files. ); and, in Two Parts.

Okay. Part One: Before CODIS

First, consider that when they test a sample they use a Kit. Kits vary. Some target these markers, some target those markers; some target these many and some target that many; etc.
We have Before CODIS Kits, and After CODIS kits.

The first samples taken were Before CODIS. We know from a screen shot captured from a 48 Hours television program (year, anyone?) that these samples (fingernails, tape, shirt, panties, and ?) were processed using a Kit that only targeted (looked for) five (5) markers.

Note that if a Kit is for 5 markers and 5 markers are identified, this is a Full Profile. A Full Profile has nothing to do with the number of markers identified, it only means that all the markers targeted were identified.

Before CODIS Kits looked for different regions (markers) on the DNA strand then what After CODIS Kits look for. So, they may not be able to say whether the Before CODIS findings match or do not match the After CODIS findings.

There is some confusion. A blood spot from the panties was tested with a Before CODIS Kit (Kolar does not mention this in his book just as he does not mention the first blood spot tested After CODIS). IIRC, one marker was identified (presumably, same 5 marker kit used as with fingernails). According to Smit’s under-oath deposition in the Wolf case, this marker matched the foreign, male DNA markers found in the fingernail samples (Kolar says that the fingernail samples do not match each other, and he doesn’t acknowledge this panty sample).

Kolar also tells us that these 2 separate fingernail samples don’t match any of the other samples found. But, if the fingernail samples are Before CODIS and the other samples are After CODIS… how can he make this claim?
…

AK

To begin with thank you for this. Being Johnny come lately to all this I appreciate your help. :loveyou:

So, if i'm getting this correctly the before Codis at the time of JB's death only indentified "a male" and was not specific enough to clarify who that was?

 

[TexasTuff]

Part Two: After CODIS

The so-called CODIS standard didn’t take hold until 1999/2000. For reasons I can’t remember ever knowing, the new Kit couldn’t be used until cleared by the Courts. Once the Courts gave assent, the first blood spot from the panties was re-tested using an After CODIS Kit and, iirc, one marker was identified (Kolar doesn’t mention this, either).

The second panty blood spot was tested in 2003, and this time 9 markers and one very weak marker were identified; we sometimes call this 9 and ½ markers.

Think of a marker as being a line drawn on a piece of paper. The darker the line, the easier it is to see. This is a strong marker; you can be certain of it’s identity. A lightly drawn line is harder to see. This is a weak marker; but, it is still a marker.

One of the ten markers found in the second blood spot, foreign, male sample was lightly drawn. It was hard to see. But, it was eventually enhanced and identified. Now, with ten markers, this sample was entered into the CODIS databanks.
New panties, bought and tested, had traces of DNA on them, but 1/10th to 1/12th the size as that found on jbr’s panties.

This sample is probably saliva. It could be something else, but it is probably saliva (therefore, wet). It is not tDNA (touch DNA). It was found on the inside, crotch of the panties, commingled in the victim’s blood.


The DNA found on the exterior, sides (hip area) of the leggings is probably skin cells (dry). It could be something else, but it is probably skin cells. This is tDNA. These samples, according to Kolar, are weaker than the CODIS sample. This only tells us ‘lightly drawn lines,” and tells us nothing about the number of markers in each sample. These samples and the CODIS sample all match each other.

Also, After CODIS Kits were used and tDNA was found on the wrist ligature and the garrotte (on the cord). These samples are partial samples (less then the number of markers looked for were found) and do not match each other or any other samples.
IIRC, also After CODIS Mrs Ramsey’s and Burke’s tDNA was found on the Barbie nightgown.
…

AK

The housekeeper claims the Barbie nightgown was in the dryer with a blanket and did they ever test the knife she claims was found in the basement room where JB's body was?

http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

 

[andreww]

Part Two: After CODIS

The so-called CODIS standard didn’t take hold until 1999/2000. For reasons I can’t remember ever knowing, the new Kit couldn’t be used until cleared by the Courts. Once the Courts gave assent, the first blood spot from the panties was re-tested using an After CODIS Kit and, iirc, one marker was identified (Kolar doesn’t mention this, either).

The second panty blood spot was tested in 2003, and this time 9 markers and one very weak marker were identified; we sometimes call this 9 and ½ markers.

Think of a marker as being a line drawn on a piece of paper. The darker the line, the easier it is to see. This is a strong marker; you can be certain of it’s identity. A lightly drawn line is harder to see. This is a weak marker; but, it is still a marker.

One of the ten markers found in the second blood spot, foreign, male sample was lightly drawn. It was hard to see. But, it was eventually enhanced and identified. Now, with ten markers, this sample was entered into the CODIS databanks.
New panties, bought and tested, had traces of DNA on them, but 1/10th to 1/12th the size as that found on jbr’s panties.

This sample is probably saliva. It could be something else, but it is probably saliva (therefore, wet). It is not tDNA (touch DNA). It was found on the inside, crotch of the panties, commingled in the victim’s blood.


The DNA found on the exterior, sides (hip area) of the leggings is probably skin cells (dry). It could be something else, but it is probably skin cells. This is tDNA. These samples, according to Kolar, are weaker than the CODIS sample. This only tells us ‘lightly drawn lines,” and tells us nothing about the number of markers in each sample. These samples and the CODIS sample all match each other.

Also, After CODIS Kits were used and tDNA was found on the wrist ligature and the garrotte (on the cord). These samples are partial samples (less then the number of markers looked for were found) and do not match each other or any other samples.
IIRC, also After CODIS Mrs Ramsey’s and Burke’s tDNA was found on the Barbie nightgown.
…

AK

Interesting, but a couple of things...

1- as I have said many times, no sample was good enough to be entered in to CODIS. Your weakly drawn line analogy is cute but we both know it took a good part of a year to get that sample ready, it just wasn't as simple as you claim.

2- Whose brilliant idea was it to check that sample with a post CODIS kit when all the other samples were Pre CODIS and the results can't be compared. I think it's obvious that the objective was to get a sample in to CODIS, not to try and corroborate or eliminate any previously collected DNA. Of course by that point in time the DA was already all in on the intruder theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

Still believe in grand jury's after this?

"But according to Wise and several jurors who talked with the Daily camera, the decision was evetually made to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. This was even though the jurors {{{werent' sure who, exactly, had killed young Jonbenet}}}."



[video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html[/video]

 

[TexasTuff]

Still believe in grand jury's after this?

"But according to Wise and several jurors who talked with the Daily camera, the decision was evetually made to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. This was even though the jurors {{{werent' sure who, exactly, had killed young Jonbenet}}}."


[video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html[/video]

"As one former prosecutor put it, "If you gave [grand jurors] a napkin, they'd sign it."

(Richard L. Braun, The Grand Jury-Spirit of the Community?, 15 Amiz. L. REv. 893, 914-15 n.144 (1974) (quoting Nilson, Grand Jury Called Tool of the Prosecutor, Aviz. DAILY STAR, Feb. 10, 1974, at Al) (alteration in original).

 

[Annapurna]

Still believe in grand jury's after this?

"But according to Wise and several jurors who talked with the Daily camera, the decision was evetually made to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. This was even though the jurors {{{werent' sure who, exactly, had killed young Jonbenet}}}."



[video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html[/video]

This isn't as damning as you think. They couldn't decide which R did the actual killing, as both had opportunity.

 

[Ringfinger]

Still believe in grand jury's after this?

"But according to Wise and several jurors who talked with the Daily camera, the decision was evetually made to indict John and Patsy Ramsey. This was even though the jurors {{{werent' sure who, exactly, had killed young Jonbenet}}}."



[video]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/28/justice/colorado-ramsey-indictment/index.html[/video]

Didn't the GJ only decide on if there was enough of a case to take this to trial?

 

[Ringfinger]

If a trial had happened, it would have to be air tight. It seems that it is very difficult to prosecute against high money lawyers and high profile cases. And of course, the person can't be tried again.

 

[TexasTuff]

Didn't the GJ only decide on if there was enough of a case to take this to trial?

I think the grand jury indicted them on identical counts of felony child abuse and an accessory charge.