Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[UKGuy]

S. Thomas says in his book that Burke, when interviewed by Dan Schuller in 1998, stated that JonBenet had been awake when they got home and that she walked up the stairs.

Have the Ramseys ever been confronted in one of their interviews with that statement by Burke?
If not, I can't understand why.
For if what ST said is true, this would blow the Ramseys' story apart, In short, that statement by Burke is a bombshell, and if Kane, Levin & Co didn't make use of that bombshell to get the Ramseys into a corner, they have only got themselves to blame.

Does anyone know whether in other interwiews (before 1998), Burke also stated JonBenet was awake?
When was Burke first asked about this?

rashomon,
Well in a sense it has to be true. And it does blow the Ramsey's version of events apart, as does Johns story about reading a story to JonBenet, and helping to remove some of her clothing. All of which were retracted and re-interpreted as meaning something else. They would still be admissable in court though.

These statements are no different from Patsy telling the interviewers that she purchased two packs of size-12's in November of 1996. Yet none were found in the Ramsey house, and when some size-12's were returned at a later point once Patsy realized her big mistake. So were these an opened pack of size-12's, e.g. crime-scene evidence or an unopened pack of size-12's, thus suggesting that the killer removed the remaining size-12's and had intimate knowledge of the Ramsey underwear situation?

 

[Cappy]

When this murder first hit the media I watched everything broadcast about it since we lived in Atlanta previously. I initially thought that Burke might have been involved somehow while the parents protected him. That was logical.

However, shortly thereafter I began to research and read all the information that was forthcoming and changed my opinion.

There is obvious evidence and suspicions that someone .....an intruder...made it easily into the home and committed this crime knowing full well that the parents would immediately become prime suspects.

I know there are ones who hold a totally different opinion....and I respect that and have consider it. I just don't believe it.

We may never know.

 

[JMO8778]

Is everyone else as sick as I am to hear television pundits, etc., say that the Ramsey's were exonerated? NOTHING has exonerated them. The DNA in the wasteband meant nothing due to it being possible that the dna was left by the manufacturer...but I heard something on one of the shows recently (defending my opinion fortunately) that referenced DNA of John Ramsey in a place on Jonbenet (or her clothing) that was very inappropriate...also, weren't the underware in question pulled from a new pack of underware in a drawer that didn't even fit Jonbenet? How on earth could the perpetrator (if not a Ramsey) accomplish so much inside that house and yet only leave sloughed off DNA cells on the wasteband of her underware?

it doesn't make any sense,nor would any intruder ever bother to redress JB and wrap her (the way a parent would,at that) after she'd screamed.he'd have gotten the heck out of there!

I think UK would agree w me when I say ..since Patsy has passed,and 2 yrs later,walla...here comes JOHN,and apparently he has conspired with Lacy in this lastest scheme...but he has NO problem with getting the LJ's tested. WHY? I think the answer is that the dna came off of gloves from whomever redressed JB,and he has to have known this.SO...it goes to follow...WHO redressed JB? JOHN did.
It's the red herring...Patsy is dead,it couldn't have been her idea..John apparently has no problem with suggesting it,and even wants it to be done..JOHN redressed JB.It's that simple.

The dna could have come from someone he shook hands with while wearing the gloves.It wasn't like this was planned,and so they used what they had,(everyday gloves)..and what they had transferred the dna.

JMO.

 

[angelwngs]

The gloves were possibly moist from whatever fabric was used to wipe down JB's private parts. The gloves were on when he did this making transfer of DNA already on gloves from a handshake, a sneeze or from the previously handled paintbrush more probable. :waitasec:

 

[JMO8778]

The gloves were possibly moist from whatever fabric was used to wipe down JB's private parts. The gloves were on when he did this making transfer of DNA already on gloves from a handshake, a sneeze or from the previously handled paintbrush more probable. :waitasec:

good thought!!!!

 

[BBB167893]

Is everyone else as sick as I am to hear television pundits, etc., say that the Ramsey's were exonerated? NOTHING has exonerated them. The DNA in the wasteband meant nothing due to it being possible that the dna was left by the manufacturer...but I heard something on one of the shows recently (defending my opinion fortunately) that referenced DNA of John Ramsey in a place on Jonbenet (or her clothing) that was very inappropriate...also, weren't the underware in question pulled from a new pack of underware in a drawer that didn't even fit Jonbenet? How on earth could the perpetrator (if not a Ramsey) accomplish so much inside that house and yet only leave sloughed off DNA cells on the wasteband of her underware?

Join the club.

Which show was that?

 

[SleuthyGal]

{raises hand}

I'm sick of it.

This case makes me roll my eyes so much that I'm worried I could do some damage to my optical muscles.

... sigh ...

 

[DeeDee249]

{raises hand}

I'm sick of it.

This case makes me roll my eyes so much that I'm worried I could do some damage to my optical muscles.

... sigh ...

Me, too!

 

[Balthazar]

The Ramsays have been cleared. I visited Boulder shortly after the murder (business trip) and drove by the Ramsay's house out of curiosity. Little did I know I would discover something that is not mentioned in any reports or books on the case. As I turned onto the Ramsay's street I noticed a number of obviously indigent men walking around in this upscale neighborhood which seemed really out of place. It was around 5pm. They all seemed to be headed in one direction so out of curiosity I followed the trail of indigent men. On the block behind the Ramsay's about 3 houses down and sharing the alley with the Ramsay house is a home for men - it's either a halfway house or shelter and in addition, there is a night shelter all of 4 blocks away that people check into around 6 pm and are turned out of at 8 am with nothing to do but roam around the streets. JonBenet and Burke used to ride their bikes in the alley behind the house. With all the transients in the area it is not a stretch of the imagination to figure out that someone from one of these two facilities saw JonBenet and became obsessed with her. I believe he even talked to her and told her Santa was going to visit her on Christmas Night (not eve) which is what JonBenet told the neighbor that very night at the party. The neighbor just thought she was confused but she insisted she was getting a special visit from Santa that night. She wasn't afraid when her "special friend" came and got her in her bedroom that night to take her to Santa. Most likely he was in the house for hours and snooped around, found John Ramsay's bonus check stub and other elements he included in the ransom letter. He tried to take JonBenet out in the suitcase that he left under the window in the basement - there is fiber evidence of this. He couldn't get her out in the suitcase, she wound up dead.

 

[DeeDee249]

The Ramsays have been cleared. I visited Boulder shortly after the murder (business trip) and drove by the Ramsay's house out of curiosity. Little did I know I would discover something that is not mentioned in any reports or books on the case. As I turned onto the Ramsay's street I noticed a number of obviously indigent men walking around in this upscale neighborhood which seemed really out of place. It was around 5pm. They all seemed to be headed in one direction so out of curiosity I followed the trail of indigent men. On the block behind the Ramsay's about 3 houses down and sharing the alley with the Ramsay house is a home for men - it's either a halfway house or shelter and in addition, there is a night shelter all of 4 blocks away that people check into around 6 pm and are turned out of at 8 am with nothing to do but roam around the streets. JonBenet and Burke used to ride their bikes in the alley behind the house. With all the transients in the area it is not a stretch of the imagination to figure out that someone from one of these two facilities saw JonBenet and became obsessed with her. I believe he even talked to her and told her Santa was going to visit her on Christmas Night (not eve) which is what JonBenet told the neighbor that very night at the party. The neighbor just thought she was confused but she insisted she was getting a special visit from Santa that night. She wasn't afraid when her "special friend" came and got her in her bedroom that night to take her to Santa. Most likely he was in the house for hours and snooped around, found John Ramsay's bonus check stub and other elements he included in the ransom letter. He tried to take JonBenet out in the suitcase that he left under the window in the basement - there is fiber evidence of this. He couldn't get her out in the suitcase, she wound up dead.

All these things COULD have happened- but sorry, the Rs are not "cleared". Until that DNA is matched to someone- a transient living there in 1996, for example, the Rs remain suspects. The male DNA cannot be "dated", that is it cannot be determined the day and time it was left - so it has to be matched with someone who came into JBR that day for it to belong to the killer. If there is a way to find out every transient and homeless male that was in Boulder Dec. 25/26 1996- then we have a start in the right direction as far as IDI is concerned.
Lets start by testing the handle of that suitcase for "touch DNA" also. And lets see if it also matched the male DNA.
A transient/homeless person as you describe would have left some trace DNA/fiber evidence besides what was on JBR's waistband and panties. Something- a hair, clothing fibers, fingerprint. So far the only non-familial evidence is present ONLY on the clothing found on the body. NOT on the body itself, no where else in the home. It didn't spring into existence by itself- it got there somehow. If an intruder brought it in- there has to be other evidence there as well- either on JBR or in the home. And there just isn't.
So that could mean the male DNA was an innocent transfer- skin cells picked up by the parents (from contact with someone at the White's- a handshake, for example). Or from JBR herself, having touched something that this person also touched- a doorknob, toilet handle, etc.) and then put on her clothing herself.

 

[angelwngs]

Warning...male posters...if you are the least bit squemish about going down the feminine hygiene isle for your wife, grilfriend, sister or mom-read no further, please...

Ladies please tell me what you think-and the males who aren't bothered by the subject...

I have said it over and over that I thought the prior sexual abuse might have begun as PR cleaning aggressively after a soiling or wetting accident.
I always considered a bathcloth with her finger inserted inside the cloth and her doing damage that way. Tonight another similar type of 'cleaning' which would have caused that type of trauma occured to me... What if Patsy forced a douche upon JonBenet using the vaginal insert tube designed for adults? Originally, she could have begun it as a "necessary way" to clean to prevent urinary and vaginal infections brought on by JB's soiling her pants. It may have grown into a more abusive corporal punishment type of thing to force JB to get in line.

Reguardless, the adult size 6 inch tube insert could very well have caused vaginal trauma in a 6 year old. (Not the 'cute' little tubes packaged in boxed douches from the store but the 6 inch insert tube, that huge monster looking thing, that comes with a hot water bottle kit....That 'bad boy' scared me forever more into eating my daily allotment of fiber at about age eight or nine when my mom brought the newly bought kit used for 'both problems' into the room! )

PR would have known there was trauma due to bleeding... She would have still needed to cover it up because it would have looked like sexual abuse...If they already thought she was dead from the head wound, that part of the staging just protected Burke's mom and dad from going to prison for the head wound and the assumed sexual abuse....

Possible???

 

[JMO8778]

..actually we had talked about douching being a possibility here awhile back.poster coloradokares here said she knew,from living in Boulder,and knowing ppl who knew the R's,that it was said corporal cleaning of JB was a big concern.(perhaps that's what some of the intervention planned by friends after C-mas was to be about).but it was never substantiated if it was indeed douching or not.
Thomas says in his book he didn't think it was from molestation,but JR's fiber evidence hadn't yet came in.It's hard to say if he's changed his mind,although he did mention other experts opinion about JB and sexual abuse.As well as when he talked about JB crying and saying she didn't feel pretty,the nurse visits..which were always on a Mon,etc.,I thought the whole book had an underlying theme of molestation.I think he just couldn't reveal that,and I esp. found it odd he completely left out the size 12 underwear being placed on JB.I thought the silence was deafening on that,and it doesn't look good for JR,IMO.
anyway,yes,I think that's a possibility,what also gets me though...is Thomas gave JR a public pass on the abuse,yet JR still refuses to acknowledge it at ALL...to me that says there must be more to it;how easy would it be for him to say Patsy was corporally cleaning JB,but he didn't know about it? I just sense more to it than Patsy doing the damage by cleaning her.

 

[UKGuy]

..actually we had talked about douching being a possibility here awhile back.poster coloradokares here said she knew,from living in Boulder,and knowing ppl who knew the R's,that it was said corporal cleaning of JB was a big concern.(perhaps that's what some of the intervention planned by friends after C-mas was to be about).but it was never substantiated if it was indeed douching or not.
Thomas says in his book he didn't think it was from molestation,but JR's fiber evidence hadn't yet came in.It's hard to say if he's changed his mind,although he did mention other experts opinion about JB and sexual abuse.As well as when he talked about JB crying and saying she didn't feel pretty,the nurse visits..which were always on a Mon,etc.,I thought the whole book had an underlying theme of molestation.I think he just couldn't reveal that,and I esp. found it odd he completely left out the size 12 underwear being placed on JB.I thought the silence was deafening on that,and it doesn't look good for JR,IMO.
anyway,yes,I think that's a possibility,what also gets me though...is Thomas gave JR a public pass on the abuse,yet JR still refuses to acknowledge it at ALL...to me that says there must be more to it;how easy would it be for him to say Patsy was corporally cleaning JB,but he didn't know about it? I just sense more to it than Patsy doing the damage by cleaning her.

JMO8778,
Steve Thomas was constrained by the legal niceties of not revealing case evidence that may be used later. And of course he is going to tell his main suspect that he gets a pass, thats standard procedure. The vaginal injuries only have two interpretations, both are criminal offences. Also we don't know if the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet. What we do know is that she had chronic injuries inconsistent with corporal punishment, this does not rule out some form of corporal punishment, just that no forensic evidence e.g. foreign fluids was discovered, and no record of douching equipment being found in the house has ever been made?

Steve Thomas left lots of evidence out of his book but made sure that the evidence suggesting sexual abuse made it into his book.


That was not accidental.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Warning...male posters...if you are the least bit squemish about going down the feminine hygiene isle for your wife, grilfriend, sister or mom-read no further, please...

Ladies please tell me what you think-and the males who aren't bothered by the subject...

I have said it over and over that I thought the prior sexual abuse might have begun as PR cleaning aggressively after a soiling or wetting accident.
I always considered a bathcloth with her finger inserted inside the cloth and her doing damage that way. Tonight another similar type of 'cleaning' which would have caused that type of trauma occured to me... What if Patsy forced a douche upon JonBenet using the vaginal insert tube designed for adults? Originally, she could have begun it as a "necessary way" to clean to prevent urinary and vaginal infections brought on by JB's soiling her pants. It may have grown into a more abusive corporal punishment type of thing to force JB to get in line.

Reguardless, the adult size 6 inch tube insert could very well have caused vaginal trauma in a 6 year old. (Not the 'cute' little tubes packaged in boxed douches from the store but the 6 inch insert tube, that huge monster looking thing, that comes with a hot water bottle kit....That 'bad boy' scared me forever more into eating my daily allotment of fiber at about age eight or nine when my mom brought the newly bought kit used for 'both problems' into the room! )

PR would have known there was trauma due to bleeding... She would have still needed to cover it up because it would have looked like sexual abuse...If they already thought she was dead from the head wound, that part of the staging just protected Burke's mom and dad from going to prison for the head wound and the assumed sexual abuse....

Possible???

angelwngs,
Its possible given JonBenet had a toileting problem. Some variant may have occurred, but prior to her death there is no forensic evidence to suggest this happened. You reckon she might take JonBenet to Dr. Beuf and not tell him that she was douching JonBenet, even if the rumours suggest her friends already knew?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Steve Thomas was constrained by the legal niceties of not revealing case evidence that may be used later. And of course he is going to tell his main suspect that he gets a pass, thats standard procedure. The vaginal injuries only have two interpretations, both are criminal offences. Also we don't know if the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet. What we do know is that she had chronic injuries inconsistent with corporal punishment, this does not rule out some form of corporal punishment, just that no forensic evidence e.g. foreign fluids was discovered, and no record of douching equipment being found in the house has ever been made?

Steve Thomas left lots of evidence out of his book but made sure that the evidence suggesting sexual abuse made it into his book.


That was not accidental.


.

well-said! and that got me to thinking,I think it's significant that JR took a shower that morning,and Patsy didn't even bother to change clothes.To me this suggests JR felt the need to wash evidence off,while PATSY did not.could she not have taken a shower while JR did? obviously she didn't feel it important,while HE did.hmmmmm........

 

[UKGuy]

well-said! and that got me to thinking,I think it's significant that JR took a shower that morning,and Patsy didn't even bother to change clothes.To me this suggests JR felt the need to wash evidence off,while PATSY did not.could she not have taken a shower while JR did? obviously she didn't feel it important,while HE did.hmmmmm........

JMO8778,
more on this shortly.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
more on this shortly.

thanks,I love to read your posts!

 

[BBB167893]

JMO8778,
Steve Thomas was constrained by the legal niceties of not revealing case evidence that may be used later. And of course he is going to tell his main suspect that he gets a pass, thats standard procedure. The vaginal injuries only have two interpretations, both are criminal offences. Also we don't know if the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet. What we do know is that she had chronic injuries inconsistent with corporal punishment, this does not rule out some form of corporal punishment, just that no forensic evidence e.g. foreign fluids was discovered, and no record of douching equipment being found in the house has ever been made?

Steve Thomas left lots of evidence out of his book but made sure that the evidence suggesting sexual abuse made it into his book.


That was not accidental.


.

No, it probably wasn't.

 

[angelwngs]

angelwngs,
Its possible given JonBenet had a toileting problem. Some variant may have occurred, but prior to her death there is no forensic evidence to suggest this happened. You reckon she might take JonBenet to Dr. Beuf and not tell him that she was douching JonBenet, even if the rumours suggest her friends already knew?


.

Patsy? Yes. Most definitely. I sure do.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy? Yes. Most definitely. I sure do.

angelwngs,
So what if JonBenet tells Dr.Beuf? Also if Patsy can be so devious in that context then similar applies to her having knowledge JonBenet being molested, and not telling Dr. Beuf.