DNA clears JonBenet's family

[crystaldawn]

What a surprise...:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

[Stuck In The '70's]

That poor family. I always thought they were innocent.

[mphs95]

The Boulder screwed the pooch on that case big time. I never thought the family members did it. But it was easier and more convienent to blame them. Too bad Patsy Ramsey died before this came out. The father and son live about 2 hours away from me in Charlevoix from my understanding. Maybe now they can get some peace.

[siamesemeg]

What a horrorshow for an innocent, vicitmized family. I was impressed to read that the Boulder PD apologized formally to John Ramsey.

Thanks for posting this, CD.

[charmedsignora]

Hopefully they're going to solve this case, even if it takes them several more years.

[PrettyinPink55]

I feel really bad for the family. :(
I hope now they can focus their attention on catching the murderer.

[TeeVeeCloset]

Way too little way too late. Btw, JonBenet would have turned 18 this year....New technology proves their innocent after 12 years....too unbelievable.......I still and always believe The Ramsey family knew something about this murder and how it happened, john might have never even known that patsy was involved or vice versa. For no family DNA to turn up on the child is silly, she lived with them, was tucked in bed by them, etc. Proves even more, that she was washed and her clothes were changed after she was killed, otherwise some of her parents DNA would be on her somewhere from being tucked in and living in their house. It was just as easy for someone else's DNA to appear on her panties which was skin dna, nothing sexual...the child was at a christmas party near so many people....one visit to take her to the bathroom to slide her pants down, hence the mysterious "new DNA" appears from some other person that was sitting on the bowl, etc. but again they all share a house and there is NO FAMILY DNA on her at all....someone covered it up who was up all night for the family. There is no proof that they were even her owned panties or pants that she was wearing when found dead. Hence no "killer DNA" but no family either, I'm sorry but The Ramseys handled this whole thing right from the beginning like they were guilty, hiring lawyers, refusing police interviews, the handwritten "foreign fanction" ransom note never was proven it wasn't written by Patsy, the strange ramsom note dollar amount which was John's bonus that year..and then the kidnappers leave the child in the basement and leave the ransom note behind when they leave. And how come we never heard about obvious DNA on the ransom note and in her panties, was it the same? And of course the strangest and most unbelievable thing is that Patsy was wearing the same Christmas clothes from the night before in the morning BEFORE she knew JonBenet was missing. How many times have you put on your christmas night clothes back on in the morning? She was up all night....the whole Patsy getting mad at her bedwetting, so many holes.......they might not have been the one to strike any fatal blow but at least one of them knew something. This case was so botched from law enforcement right from the beginning, when John found her, who knows how many people actually touched that child...there is no proof that when they removed her panties and now newly discovered pants that it wasn't just some policeman's DNA (that's why the DNA is not in any criminal database) Not one other Boulder child kidnapping attempt ever again.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Hate to bust up the Ramsey rally here but this is wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong wrong WRONG!

Besides the Ramseys themselves, the man who played Santa Claus, who had a weird Christmas fixation and whose wife wrote a sick play about a girl murdered in a basement, was the most likely suspect.

JonBenét even supposedly told friends that Santa had promised to come by for a special secret visit to her. Creepy coincidence, but wouldn't DNA have been collected from all suspects at the time? That is, unless the cops were too busy screwing up to do it. Even if they didn't and have to dig up the now-dead Santa, I'm betting no match.

Saying the Ramseys are cleared by this is just as stupid as saying the REAL Santa Claus did this, assisted by his elves. Does being weird and creepy allow "Santa" to

--Write a rambling ransom note incorporating extensive knowledge of the Ramsey family, including a pet phrase they used with John, a paraphrase of a quote from a movie they had just rented, and the nearly exact amount of John's Christmas bonus, in handwriting so closely resembling Patsy's that she could not be ruled out as the writer? Not to mention using an unusual phrase Patsy was known to use both before and since?

--Leave no DNA on any of the other items the "intruder" supposedly handled, and no other evidence, such as hair, fiber, and fingerprints?

--Obtain a blanket the housekeeper said was in the dryer, in an out-of-the way place only a family member would know about? And don't crime scene photos show the bed undisturbed, although JonBenét was supposedly removed from it? Uh, think the bed could have been remade when Patsy changed it after JonBenét WET THE BED which was Patsy's reason for killing her?

--Know that the Barbie nightgown was JonBenét's favorite and place it with the body?

--Magically overcome being an old, overweight, practically disabled man and crawl out a basement window? (Oh, remember, he goes down chimneys!)

I'll believe the story when Burke finally comes clean and admits his mother did it, and not until then. This DNA could have come from anywhere, such as someone handling a piece of clothing for packaging purposes (it was new out of the package, and the DNA matched other brand new, unworn underwear in the package) or perhaps even JonBenét handling something a man had touched and then touching the underwear in the package, deciding which pair to put on (if touch DNA could be transferred this way.) Test every worker at the factory where the underwear was manufactured and you'll find your "culprit," who will have been working at a third world sweatshop at the time. This is a weak, pathetic, ridiculous proposal which will go the way of John Mark Karr and does nothing towards solving this terrible crime.

[PunkyP0WER]

i'm with you cori. none of this makes any sense. when this made the news yesterday i was expecting this huge smoking gun bombshell evidence that could pretty much rule out all other possibilities but it only leaves the same question. theres no doubt in my mind its an inside job.for the letter writer to know such intimate details mentioned in the ransom note is more than just coincidence.

[studster147]

im with you too- the presence of unidentified DNA evidence is hardly news- that was revealed ages ago....

[fabgourmet]

Yeah, I have read several, like 5 or 6, books about this case (including Perfect Murder, Perfect Town which I highly recommend) and even if this dna business is the case, I simply cannot believe in my heart of hearts that Patsy wasn't involved somehow. Too much links her to it: her unique use of "hence" linked to other letters she wrote, her handwriting essentially matching the writing on the note, the notes use of slang from a movie they had just watchced (caught by a reporter for the National Enquirer, not by Boulder police!) and most importantly, the fact that the way she claims she found the ransom note on the stairs is quite literally impossible (first not noticing it/stepping over it and then finding it on the way back up the stairs or whatever).

Plus, their actions after their daughter's murder (hiring a PR firm to film them going to church, refusing to cooperate with the police) and so many little things (pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, the bizarre location of her body in a little used room their maid didn't even know was there) just keep all pointing to an inside job.

Even if the parents are officially exonerated, after extensive reading, I believe in my hearts of hearts that Patsy, at least, was involved in her daughter's death. Everything leads back to her, nothing rules her out and her story just doesn't add up.

Also, to take this "intruder" theory, you'd have to assume that somebody:
1. Broke into the house somehow and wasn't afraid of an alarm system or their big dog (or knew that it was at the neighbor's already).
2. Went and roused JonBenet from her bed without raising so much as a peep or being worried that somebody else would wake up and find a stranger in her bed or that JonBenet would have screamed bloody hell.
3. Take JonBenet to the kitchen and feed her some pineapple.
4. Take her to a remote part of the basement that people intimately familiar with the house did not know existed.
5. Grab one of Patsy's paintbrushes and some rope you found there and strangle JonBenet because you didn't bring anything else to kill her with so you just pick up some stuff you find there.
6. Sit down at some point and write a ransom note again on a pad of paper you just find there using one of Patsy's pens and a pad of her's and also, just for fun, throw in a bunch of info (the amount of the father's bonus) only the family would know and an outdated, rather formal expression Patsy had a fondness for using. Then go back upstairs and place the note on the stairs by everyone's (Burke and the parents) bedroom without making a sound.
7. At some point, after she is dead, hang around and sexually assault JonBenet.
8. Escape unseen and unheard.

Yeah, that intruder theory sounds real likely to me, every step of the way.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

The good old Enquirer may not be the best at fact-checking, but they beat everyone when it comes to fact-finding! They came up with scoop after scoop on the O. J. case which people paid to find evidence did not.

"And hence" is an unusual, and grammatically wrong, phrase which Patsy not only used earlier, but in a Christmas message later. Sometime someone should run the ransom note with everything Patsy is known to have written through authorship software to determine the probability that she wrote it (besides it being in similar handwriting with a pen and paper which came from her house.)

She also implicated herself again and again with her behavior, such as:

--Wearing the exact same clothing the next morning as the night before. Even if she happened to throw on the same clothes, why take time to do hair and makeup when her child was missing? Because she never had time to get ready for bed the night before. The scream was heard around midnight, if I recall correctly--early enough that the neighbors were up and heard it, but late enough for JonBenét to have been in bed and gotten back up.

--Putting her hands over her face as if crying but peeking between her fingers to see if people were watching.

--Pointing the finger of guilt immediately at the housekeeper.

--Sitting with her sister reading Bible verses about forgiveness.

What NORMAL person acts this way under the circumstances? Then there was the way Burke acted, just saying "Okay" when told to leave the house with a friend and not even asking questions, then just going to school when there was supposedly a crazed kidnapper on the loose who specifically targeted his family and had already killed his sister. And the other brother, John's older son, when asked what should be done with the killer, said, "Forgiveness." At some point, the whole family was brought in on this. That's why I'm saying, even if Burke saw and heard nothing that night, which he may or may not have, he saw and heard enough since to know the deal and must be quite undone by all the denial and secret-keeping. Hopefully someday he can come out with the truth and have some closure.

As for the underwear, panties, or whatever the heck you choose to call them--without knowing the procedures of clothing manufacture, my guess is a machine makes them, then someone visually inspects them to make sure the elastics work and the machine didn't sew them together or something. Even if they aren't hand-inspected, someone has to handle the machines--maybe the same person feeds in the elastic for both the waistband and legs. There's your source.

I don't know who is trying to prove what here. Perhaps they've finally figured Patsy did it and it's too late ever to nail her for it, so they come out with this.

[mike890]

Unbelievable. I have read everything I could find on this case and this DNA evidence does not change my opinion that Patsy Ramsey murdered that little girl. If she wasnt so wealthy, she would have died in jail.

[unsolvedmysteriesfan]

The father is a Republican and is running for governor...it's NOT like the gov. to make up lies to help someone out politically..is it?

[Ireneparalegal]

My understanding is the same DNA found on those panties was also found on the long johns. Same manufacturer and the same garment worker made the same items that were sold seperately, happened to be purchased by the Ramseys? Help me here.

[mike890]

"My understanding is the same DNA found on those panties was also found on the long johns. Same manufacturer and the same garment worker made the same items that were sold seperately, happened to be purchased by the Ramseys? Help me here."


Yeah, long ago when talking about the possible DNA evidence investigators did mention the fact that it is possible that a person who was involved in the manufacturing of the items could have left traces of their DNA. I was surprised that this possibility is basically being thrown out and now they are saying this clears the Ramsey's. It was a terrible attempt at covering up the murder but unfortunately the investigation was so botched I guess you can say it was the perfect murder. Do some reading on the investigation and you will see that this police department in Boulder was just not equipped to handle a case like this but also too proud to admit that and get help from the FBI. The amount of fighting between the investigators and the DA's office is truly disgusting. It seemed the DA was scared of implicating Patsy Ramsey while the some of the investigators believe to this day they had the evidence to throw her butt in jail. The investigators had both hands tied behind their back from the beginning.

[crochetbuff]

"My understanding is the same DNA found on those panties was also found on the long johns. Same manufacturer and the same garment worker made the same items that were sold seperately, happened to be purchased by the Ramseys? Help me here."


Yeah, long ago when talking about the possible DNA evidence investigators did mention the fact that it is possible that a person who was involved in the manufacturing of the items could have left traces of their DNA. I was surprised that this possibility is basically being thrown out and now they are saying this clears the Ramsey's. It was a terrible attempt at covering up the murder but unfortunately the investigation was so botched I guess you can say it was the perfect murder. Do some reading on the investigation and you will see that this police department in Boulder was just not equipped to handle a case like this but also too proud to admit that and get help from the FBI. The amount of fighting between the investigators and the DA's office is truly disgusting. It seemed the DA was scared of implicating Patsy Ramsey while the some of the investigators believe to this day they had the evidence to throw her butt in jail. The investigators had both hands tied behind their back from the beginning.

Then BOTH the leggings and the underpants would have had to have NOT been laundered prior to Jon Benet wearing them that night. I have heard that possibly the underpants were out of a brand new package, but the leggings too?

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Sorry, guys, I didn't realize when I posted earlier that the long johns were also involved. That does seem more damning, but considering the same DNA was found on unused underwear inside the package, I'm still going with the factory worker theory. It seems whatever was on the long johns was enough fainter than what was on the underwear that it wasn't discovered until more sophisticated techniques became available years later. It does make a good argument for washing new clothing, even if it came in a plastic package, before wearing, if that much transfer could occur.

Still say someone ought to run everything Patsy is known to have written and co-written through authorship software along with the ransom note. This was done recently on History Detectives for some old smear someone wrote on the Mormons over 100 years ago under a pen name, to clear the lady accused of writing it. (I was glad she was cleared as she had the same first name as me! :lol:) Why didn't Patsy just sign her name to that friggin' note?

For another case in America where guilt or innocence was decided purely on the basis of how rich and influential one family was and how poor and voiceless another, check out the upcoming book on Bobby Dunbar. People at the time (well before DNA proved it) knew the child the family took was not the boy they had lost, but the powers that be went along with it, as did the little kid, who proved willing to live with a rich family that would lavish gifts on him, over a poor one barely able to feed him.

[Ireneparalegal]

Then BOTH the leggings and the underpants would have had to have NOT been laundered prior to Jon Benet wearing them that night. I have heard that possibly the underpants were out of a brand new package, but the leggings too?
That is what confuses me as well.

Two different set of underclothing -I assume packaged in two separate bags because I have never seen underpants packaged WITH long johns - have the SAME DNA but came from the same factory and the same worker touched them? What are the chances of that? :confused:

[crystaldawn]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1821473,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Early in the investigation, police found male DNA in a drop of blood on JonBenet's underwear and determined it was not from anyone in her family. But Lacy said investigators were unable to say who it came from and whether that person was the killer.

Then, late last year, prosecutors turned over long underwear JonBenet was wearing to the Bode Technology Group near Washington, which looked for "touch DNA," or cells left behind where someone has touched something.

The lab has only been using this technology for about three years.

The laboratory found previously undiscovered genetic material on the sides of the girl's long underwear, where an attacker would have grasped the clothing to pull it down, authorities said. The DNA matched the genetic material found earlier.

Lacy said the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

From what I read above this unknown dna from a third party was found in 3 separate places on her long johns but more importantly also on a drop of JonBenet's blood thus ruling out the manufacturing plant. Besides you would think the police would have probably already tested the person who handled the underwear at the factory (they usually always have inspector number stickers on each piece so would be relatively easy to track down). If this indeed is true and the murderer's dna was found in JonBenet's blood and wasn't anyone in her family or even anyone in the nationwide database regardless of how Patsy acted I can't understand why people would still think she was guilty.

[siamesemeg]

If this indeed is true and the murderer's dna was found in JonBenet's blood and wasn't anyone in her family or even anyone in the nationwide database regardless of how Patsy acted I can't understand why people would still think she was guilty.

I am so with you on this, CD. DNA from the manufacturing plant is just about the most far-fetched theory yet. I just don't get why some people want Patsy to be involved with her daughter's death. The DNA evidence points elsewhere. The. End.

[fabgourmet]

I am so with you on this, CD. DNA from the manufacturing plant is just about the most far-fetched theory yet. I just don't get why some people want Patsy to be involved with her daughter's death. The DNA evidence points elsewhere. The. End.

Yeah, the manufacturing plant theory is bizarre but I think that people on here just didn't read about the drop of blood matching the other DNA.

I mean it is obvious that somebody else was there but as I said in my earlier post, everything still leads back to Patsy and the "outsider" scenario is simply implausible for all of the reasons I outlined in my earlier post. I mean, it is not just one thing which links back to her, it is so many things that don't ring true.

The fact, for example, that she says she went downstairs to the kitchen then upon returning to her bedroom saw the ransom note was proven impossible by investigators due to the angle and size of the stairs. Patsy's version of events as relayed to investigators is literally impossible; she would have had to have stepped on or deliberately over the ransom note to get downstairs.

So if Patsy had nothing to do with it, why lie to them? They are only trying to find the murderer of your daughter, you'd think you'd do everything within your power to assist them, not hinder them and avoid giving them an interview.

This is only one example of many as to why many of us still feel strongly that Patsy had something to do with her daughter's murder - even if somebody else was there and a drop of blood which matches latent dna was also found- still Patsy lied to investigators and everything leads back to her. So maybe somebody else was there but there is simply too much other evidence linking her to her daughter's death.

Also, what nobody has really elucidated is how they think this speck of blood got in JonBenet's underwear. I mean, when, where, and how did the killer cut himself/herself ? It doesn't really fit in with any scenario.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

That's interesting, CD, that DNA was found on the outside of the long johns or in different places on them. I assumed we were merely talking about skin cells on the underwear which had then transferred to the inside of the long johns. I'd be all for the stranger theory except I can't figure out how or why a stranger would get Patsy to write a fake ransom note for him, or be both intimate and clever enough to manufacture one so evidently written by her.

It's been said that no one scenario fits all the evidence, which is true.

Is the detail about the DNA also being in the underwear still in the package true? I read that only on a message board, not in a book. If so, how did it get there? Even if the killer were going after a souvenir, why go for underwear she'd never actually worn? Also, do they know where the underwear was manufactured? Is the DNA profile typical of the racial makeup of that place? Was stranger DNA also found underneath JonBenét's fingernails? Did it match the underwear and long johns DNA?

It now seems the DNA found on the underwear appears in several places on the long johns. In the bedwetting theory, Patsy lied about putting JonBenét to bed in the same long johns she'd worn to the Christmas party. JonBenét would have been in a nightgown, which got wet and was removed after she wet the bed. (In one theory, Patsy strangled her with her own nightgown. This explained the small amount of blood found in the head wound which was inflicted after the strangulation.) Before Patsy took JonBenét to the basement, she would have had to put underwear on her--perhaps fresh ones new out of the package, which had never been worn, so any DNA on them would be full strength, as it were--and then put on the long johns. Perhaps some matter was transferred as Patsy dressed JonBenét, or again when JonBenét was undressed for the autopsy, or by the clothing being folded after being removed from her in such a way that DNA transfers were made to places where it was not originally present. I don't believe for a second that any stranger had his hands on her AFTER she got home that night, at least without Patsy's full knowledge and consent--and then it would have to be someone Patsy would lie, cheat, steal, and kill to protect.

By the way, the bedwetting theory doesn't fit well with the scream the neighbor heard around midnight, which she described as a loud and clear little girl's scream. When detective Lou Smit tested the house, a scream from JonBenét's bedroom could be barely heard, while one from the basement traveled to the neighbor's house as if through a conduit. In the bedwetting theory, JonBenét was already unconscious or dead when brought to the basement, so unless she somehow revived or Patsy let out a noise mistaken for a little girl's scream, the intruder theory makes more sense at least as far as some details.

Patsy nailed herself by writing that ransom note and then lying about her manner of finding it but they were too clueless and/or gutless to prosecute. Neither John nor any other adult in the family who was let in on the truth later dares ever talk about it for fear of being prosecuted as an accessory. Burke is the only hope of the truth ever getting out unless someone leaves a deathbed confession.

(By the way, I was rather disappointed in the movie about the event. I'd have liked a "Who Shot J. R.?" scenario showing different ways she could have been killed by John, Patsy, Burke, and an intruder.)

[Wicked_Mistress]

Yea....I still believe the family was in on it someway, somehow.

I have been meaning to read a true crime book on this crime for the longest time....since there are a lot of books about this topic out there can anyone recommend a really good one that covers all the bases about the murder?:confused:

[Stuck In The '70's]

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

[crystaldawn]

Also, what nobody has really elucidated is how they think this speck of blood got in JonBenet's underwear. I mean, when, where, and how did the killer cut himself/herself ? It doesn't really fit in with any scenario.

From my understanding the drop of blood was JonBenet's and the killer's dna was on the drop.

[fabgourmet]

Hey, Wicked_Mistress,

In terms of books about this investigation, I mentioned it already but Perfect Murder, Perfect Town is almost like play-by-play of the entire investigation. It borders on being too detailed for some (read some of the criticisms at amazon, I disagree though) but will provide you with the full story from the very beginning. Plus, it is available from Amazon for $.01 plus shipping, well worth the investment. Out of all of the available material on this case, this one is a cut above and imminently worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Murder-Town-Uncensored-JonBenet/dp/0061096962/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215874771&sr=8-1

[fabgourmet]

Browsing one of the above links, I was amused to find that psychic Dorothy Allison, herself the feature of an early UM profile which remains, perhaps, their finest psychic profile, had given a sketch of the man she says killed JonBenet. I must note that in her New York Times obit (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E0D61130F933A15751C1A96F958260&scp=2&sq=Dorothy%20Allison&st=cse) they go to painstaking lengths to discredit her and she herself admitted she was not of help in every single case but the ones where she was on, she was totally on - remember the Staten Island/MER case from her UM profile?

Anyway, here is the link to her vision of the man who killed JonBenet:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/epilogue_12.html

[mike890]

"I am so with you on this, CD. DNA from the manufacturing plant is just about the most far-fetched theory yet. I just don't get why some people want Patsy to be involved with her daughter's death. The DNA evidence points elsewhere. The. End."


It is far fetched but not nearly as far fetched as the idea that someone snuck into their house, kidnapped Jon Benet, fed her pineapple, constructed a ransom note with items of info only John or Patsy would know using a pen and paper from their house, take her to the basement, kill her, and then disappearance without a trace. What is really damning however is the Ramsey's behavior after the incident. I honestly believe John knew nothing until he went downstairs. Several eyewitneses said he went downstairs earlier and when he came back up his demeanor was completely changed. He was withdrawn and stayed away from his wife. I think he knew right then what happened and when he went back downstairs later he knew exactly where to find his daughter.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Anyway, here is the link to her vision of the man who killed JonBenet:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/epilogue_12.html

Geez, that looks creepily like John Mark Karr.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

From my understanding the drop of blood was JonBenet's and the killer's dna was on the drop.

Well, if the DNA was on her clothing already, however it got there, then the blood mixed with it when the real killer did the sexual assault. Another lucky break for the real killer.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

I honestly believe John knew nothing until he went downstairs. Several eyewitneses said he went downstairs earlier and when he came back up his demeanor was completely changed. He was withdrawn and stayed away from his wife. I think he knew right then what happened and when he went back downstairs later he knew exactly where to find his daughter.

Yeah, the note seems entirely Patsy's work. She was the kind of drama queen to come up with something like that. John would have been too sensible. He strikes me as sincere, at least much moreso than Patsy, but very crafty and cagey. No way would he have allowed her to give away so much on a co-authored note. Even if there was noise during or after the murder, he wouldn't have heard it. I trust the housekeeper's story that he took something before bed that would have prevented a cannon going off waking him. The housekeeper's story, if the full version is ever allowed out, is the closest to the truth without someone in that household coming clean.

The finding of the body was definitely fake or set up at some point. Although JonBenét was wearing a white shirt and wrapped in a white blanket, someone who was there said the darkness and angle of where she was in the room would have prevented seeing her from the doorway, yet John acted as if he'd seen her through the doorway. This was also the last room left after the whole house had been searched.

I agree, it would have been nice had the family not been involved at all, but I can't believe it's so.

[Wicked_Mistress]

Thanks for the link fabgourmet!;)

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

I dunno, the housekeeper says Patsy did it, then says she will never turn off her porch light till the killer is found. Did she think Patsy would come after her for knowing too much?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b463a1e66e8.htm

Wrote a book she said she would publish five years ago, apparently still unpublished.

[hottstuff25]

I definitely think the son, Burke Ramsey, is the key to solving this mystery.

He is almost in his 20s now, and I think there is only so long he's going to hold information inside. If he had anything to do it, he will probably remain quiet for the rest of his life. Though, if it was his parents or anyone close to the family, I am sure he will eventually spill the beans. Whether it be when his father and the rest of the people involved are deceased, so be it, but I'm sure he will eventually come forth at some point in his life. I think this case is still far from being solved.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Here is an interesting theory, not presented terribly well: http://www.reversespeech.com/ramsey.htm

A book that goes with it, JonBenét Knows Evil Love, drew reviews at Amazon.com calling it rubbish. He has things wrong, such as saying she was found in a locked room. Much would have been made if that room was locked. It was just a very obscure room even the housekeeper didn't know was there. Too bad that even though Patsy is "innocent," releasing the Grand Jury testimony is probably still out of the question?

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

It seems the DNA is from two different sources. The DNA on the underwear is fluid and that on the long johns is skin cells. People are saying that means the same unknown male, not a Ramsey, and not a previously tested subject, came into contact with both garments. The only time those garments are ever together at the same time is on JonBenét's lifeless form.

Is there any way a factory worker could have left both sweat and skin cells on a garment? Also, could the way in which the evidence was collected have proven misleading as to the source?

The Swiss army knife is an important clue. It was discovered in the same room as JonBenét's body. The housekeeper had taken it from Burke and hidden it in the linen cabinet, and Patsy would have found it when she went to get new sheets for the bed. The blanket and nightgown came out of the dryer, where an intruder also wouldn't look. The bedwetting theory further casts suspicion off Burke. Why would he know, care, or bother to change the bed had JonBenét wet it?

[Todd Mueller]

While the DNA evidence seems pretty clear, something about Patsy Ramsey and her behavior always bothered me.

Not that she did it, but more like she (or both parents) knew more than they were telling.

The ransom note is way too specific for this to be random and I've always thought the Ramsey's weren't being totally forthcoming with all the info.

BTW, I agree "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" is a great read. ;)

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

While the DNA evidence seems pretty clear, something about Patsy Ramsey and her behavior always bothered me.

Not that she did it, but more like she (or both parents) knew more than they were telling.

The ransom note is way too specific for this to be random and I've always thought the Ramsey's weren't being totally forthcoming with all the info.

Exactly. And it makes way more sense to me that they would be the sole parties involved in committing and covering up the murder, rather than go to elaborate lengths to protect the murderer of their daughter, unless he had some REAL dirt on them! It boggles the mind to imagine what motivation a family would have to protect such a person. :crazy:

[Allierain]

Yea....I still believe the family was in on it someway, somehow.

There are lots of things about this case that make no sense to me...Like the bowl of pineapple on the table that wasn't put there by JonBenet's parents...the fact that she was killed and left in the basement...it took eight hours for her body to be found...

I cannot believe that it took that long for someone to find her body. If your child is missing from your home, you search your home first...right? And how could an intruder take JonBenet from her bed, assuming she wasn't up doing something else, get food for her (???), take her down to the basement, possibly sexually abuse her, and THEN beat her to death, without anyone hearing anything? Nothing adds up to me at all.

I am not an expert on this case so my details could be innaccurate. Nevertheless, I feel that someone in that house knew more than what they were admitting.

[Mastermind]

To me the key to this case has always been the "ransom note".

It was thething that always bothered me the most about the case.

1. What kidnapper leaves a letter that long and ornate. Why risk wasting valuable time writing the note, anyway? And why use the paper of the house you broke into write it in your own handwriting? If your sending a ransom note, why not use the old cut and paste letter technique that we have all seen in movies and mail it to them or leave it for the police?

2. How the heck could a complete stranger know about the amount of John Ramsey's bonus?

That note had to have been written by Patsy Ramsey.

I don;t think the Ramseys did the killing but they sure as hell know who did and have been fighting hard to keep that person's identity secret.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

As for the pineapple, the only fingerprints on the bowl were Patsy's and Burke's, so if an intruder got it he was pretty clever about it. Not even JonBenét's fingerprints were on the bowl, though traces of the food were in a portion of her digestive system where they shouldn't be had she gone straight to bed after the party.

The ransom note not only included the amount of John's bonus, but the "southern common sense" phrase was one of the dead giveaways that Patsy wrote it. John was from Michigan and this was a family term of
endearment--a joke because he was not from the south. Only a family
member or very close friend would be familiar with it. John is especially intelligent and shrewd and would never write such a melodramatic, overblown note--he'd keep it to the point. Another reason Patsy wrote it alone. No skin flakes, no matter the source, are convincing enough to show she wasn't in on it unless you can produce a Ramsey family insider able to imitate Patsy's writing and modes of speech. As for one being touch DNA and the other being moisture, or whatever other kind--could this have anything to do with the samples being collected years apart by different methods, rather than them being different types?

Also, no one seems able to answer my question: what's the source for the story that the DNA found on JonBenét's underwear was also found on
brand-new underwear in the opened, but unused package taken as evidence?

[freshwater]

I think Burke is the key to this case now. Seriously, if he knows something, someone needs to get that kid drunk and see what spills out of him.

[slasherman]

First of all lets take a look at the letter. Many of you seems to be sure that the letter was written by Patsy. The only thing that the letter reveals is that the one who wrote it "knew" the family pretty well. A person that could optain personal information without beeing noticed. Maybe a person who lives in the neighborhood who have watched JonBenet regulary and collected personal information about the Ramsey's by going through their mail.
By the way the handwriting was not a match with Patsy's.
If you look at the letter it is full of distractions but if you look closely you could see how the killer was thinking.
Here is the letter from the JonBenét Ramsey case:
"Mr. Ramsey.
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early toarrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pickup of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
It is up to you now John!
Victory!
S.B.T.C."


I have tried to highlight (with red) what I think is important in the letter. Everything else in the letter is bull**** just to buy time. The red parts indicate that we are dealing with a killers mind, not a mother that's trying to get away with murder. Also another interesting thing about the note is the urge to emphasis that he lives a long way from the Ramsey's. Guess what I think he lives pretty close to the Ramsey's. Nobody heard or saw a car which to me indicates the killer came on foot. And if he was walking he probably lives in the neighborhood.
The ransom note was probably written before the killing cause of the style and calmness of the content. The killer was probably in the house before the family came home (doing research).... Or he took the time to write it before he went upstairs to abduct JonBenet.
And making a big point of Patsy stepping on or over the ransom note to get downstairs is silly. Maybe she saw it on the way down maybe not the point is that she had no reason to think it was important. She did'nt know her daughter was missing yet.
How did JonBenet get down the basement without somebody hearing screams or noises ?
The answer is simple; Stun Gun (Air Taser) and here is the picture that "proof" it..
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/neckkk-sten-gun.jpg
This is a picture of JonBenet's neck. You can clearly see two marks which is common when Stun gun is used. These two marks exactly replicated the injuries on JonBenét and the distance; 3.5 centimeters.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/sgd2-1.jpg
There is also a blue stripe between the two marks which even more indicates Stun Gun:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/neck-2.jpg

And there was no sign of struggle or urin in bed:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/bed-un.jpg

How did the killer get in and out of the house ?
This picture tells it all !
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/cssuitcase.jpg
Window open and a suitcase to step on to get out.
You can also see footmarks on the wall and on top of the suitcase:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/wall.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/suitcase.jpg

There was also fingerprints and dust cleary showing somebody had been outside the window:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/window-frame-dust.jpg

His intention was to abduct JonBenet Ramsey but when he could not get her out of the basement window, he decided to rape and kill her there. Or maybe he decided not to abduct her just rape and kill her.
When JonBenet woke up from the Stun Gun blast she screamed one of the most terrible scream. The neighbour who heard the scream could only have heard it coming from the basement. Not if the scream came from the Ramsey's bedroom. This has been tested.
The scream was suddenly put to an end, probably when the killer put duct tape on JonBenet's mouth. The killer then began sexual insulting her. The killer used a garrote (an handheld execution device made by the killer ) to strangle her during the act.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/made-the-garrot.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/csgaro1.jpghttp://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/dask/neck222.jpg

She had foreign DNA under her finger nails and in her underwear. There was also a foreign hair (male) found on the blanket covering JonBenet. When the killer had finished his pedophile acts, he hit JonBenet in the head with massive force. She was dead.

"In order to find a killer you have to look for him"...Lou Smit

I advice you all to see the documentary Who Killed the Pageant Queen. My teory is built on the excellent detective work by Lou Smit. If the police had looked for a killer outside Ramsey's house early in the investigation they would have probably found him. This case has more evidence than most cases.
My guess is that the killer had been on some of the beauty contests that the Ramsey's had attended and that the killer got his information about the Ramsey's through that. He had developed a sick crush on JonBenet and was determend to abduct her. Or he is living in the neighborhood and has collected information by spying on them and going through their mail. Either way this is the same kind of sick mind that abducted Maddie, a person who like girls that is 4/6 years old.
I would say there is 90% probability that the killer was someone outside the Ramsey's house.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

She had foreign DNA under her finger nails and in her underwear. There was also a foreign hair (male) found on the blanket covering JonBenet.

Did all three of these match, or could they have come at different times from different people through different means?

[slasherman]

Did all three of these match, or could they have come at different times from different people through different means?
I think they all matcht to a unknown male Caucasian

[crochetbuff]

[QUOTE=slasherman]
"In order to find a killer you have to look for him"...Lou Smit

[QUOTE=slasherman]


Sounds like the Dowaliby case. Spent too much time finding the Father/Stepfather (he had legally adopted her) guilty and not enough time looking into other suspects/possibilities.

Due to their initial conclusions that she was 1. just at a friends house or otherwise innocently missing. and 2. that Mr. Dowaliby had done it, a lot of evidence was lost/never collected.

Luckily, in the Ramsey case the evidence was collected more carefully and not lost.

[suzannec4444]

Hi
I have followed her story very closely.I feel maybe the answer will be in one of the earlier leads.One of the very first newspaper articles that were written.Mr Barnhill the neighbor who lived across the street from them said he saw I believe on that day John Andrew Ramsey and apparantly a friend of his at the house and then later said maybe not.Am I right to say John Andrew Ramsey's DNA was found on a sham?in a suitcase not far from where JonBenet's body was found.I was always just real curious about that.I am wondering also did they check all the police officers in the house that day and all others in the police department and the police officers that were away on vacation for thier DNA for a possible match.It also could have been someone that was visiting someone for the holidays.

suzanne

[slasherman]

Hi
I have followed her story very closely.I feel maybe the answer will be in one of the earlier leads.One of the very first newspaper articles that were written.Mr Barnhill the neighbor who lived across the street from them said he saw I believe on that day John Andrew Ramsey and apparantly a friend of his at the house and then later said maybe not.Am I right to say John Andrew Ramsey's DNA was found on a sham?in a suitcase not far from where JonBenet's body was found.I was always just real curious about that.I am wondering also did they check all the police officers in the house that day and all others in the police department and the police officers that were away on vacation for thier DNA for a possible match.It also could have been someone that was visiting someone for the holidays.

suzanne
I'm pretty sure everybody close to the Ramsey family have been checked out due to DNA. I dont think the killer is close to the family(family member/friends) but rather a person that had some connection with the Ramsey's..at work or maybe in connection to the beauty contests. A person that could optain personal information without beeing noticed.....It could also be a person that lives in the neighborhood who have watched JonBenet regulary and collected personal information about the Ramsey's by going true their mail. And remember the killer probably was in the house before the Ramsey's came home, maybe doing his reseach for the ransom note. He could have easily collected pesonal infomation if he was in the house and also see where everybody slept.
I would probably have checked who was the postman at that time and checked him out or in the case....

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

I think they all matcht to a unknown male Caucasian

Yes, but if they all three match to the SAME one, it almost CERTAINLY proves an intruder. If they all match to three different ones, all it proves is that it's easy to pick up DNA in everyday life, like maybe by using the restroom at the Christmas party after a man had used it.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

[QUOTE=slasherman]Sounds like the Dowaliby case....

Luckily, in the Ramsey case the evidence was collected more carefully and not lost.

No, BOTH cases were botched, and the Ramseys were VERY interested in the Dowaliby case or any case like it.

[mike890]

"Luckily, in the Ramsey case the evidence was collected more carefully and not lost."


Wow, you need to do some research. Its hard to botch a crime scene more thoroughly than the authorities did in the Ramsey case.

[crochetbuff]

"Luckily, in the Ramsey case the evidence was collected more carefully and not lost."


Wow, you need to do some research. Its hard to botch a crime scene more thoroughly than the authorities did in the Ramsey case.

You're right, I probably would have to do some research. Haven't followed this case since years ago when it occurred. I was likening it to the Dowaliby case (in that they might have spent too much time trying to finger her family). Compared to the Dowaliby case it seems like they have a lot of the evidence from the scene. Lots of pictures, fingerprints, DNA, ransom letter, clothing, what choked her, evidence from the basement, everything in her bedroom, etc...

I've just read the book about the Dowaliby case, and that one was tremendously botched. Since they at first thought the girl was just missing (they didn't have a body yet) they didn't process much of anything. Several days later, well-meaning (clueless) relatives went in and cleaned the entire Dowaliby house, and painted Jaclyn's bedroom! Police completely clueless. By the time they realized the case was a homicide, there wasn't much to gather.

I'll have to find a book about the Ramsey case and catch up!

[user296686@aol.c]

The father is a Republican and is running for governor...it's NOT like the gov. to make up lies to help someone out politically..is it?


You have GOT to be kidding me... :eek:

Do you mean to tell me that John Ramsey is running for governor and just now, suddenly, after all this time, this new, futuristic DNA test AMAZINGLY clears the Ramseys - all of them - of JonBenets murder? That is nothing short of amazing. How fortunate For Mr. Ramsey.



puke:

[user296686@aol.c]

I don't believe for a second that any stranger had his hands on her AFTER she got home that night, at least without Patsy's full knowledge and consent--and then it would have to be someone Patsy would lie, cheat, steal, and kill to protect....That's what made my mother believe that Burke did it. That... the cover-up... Patsys lies. I don't know much as far as details in this case, so I really can't say. But from the first time she heard it, til the day she died, my Mom strongly believed that Burke was resposible.

Pam

[FanfromES]

i didnt know too much about this case. My opinions on who did it have changed through the reading of this thread. At first glance, it was obvious to me that Patsy did it because the ramson note indicates that its author was someone close to the family.

But after watching those pictures and reading the note, ive changed my mind. I could believe that Patsy killed her child during a rage attack. But using a taser gun, using a garrote FGS!. It seems that the killer took his/her time planning it, its not the typical "physical abuse went too far" scenario.

The killer is someone close to the family IMO, not a family member, but some neighbor, John's co-worker, a family friend who knew about John's bonus.

If Patsy was innocent, no apologies in the world will be enough. The damage is done.

[freshwater]

To me, the way she was killed doesn't seem to point to the parents, but I must disagree that Patsy wearing the same clothes isn't odd. I think it is odd. Even if you had to get up early, it would take the same amount of time and effort to put on the same clothes you wore the night before as it would to put on different clothes.

I can understand a 24 year old bachelor putting on the same clothing he wore the day before that he threw onto a pile next to his bed (I may have done this a time or two in my past), but not Patsy the beauty queen. She never struck me as that kind of woman.

I have no idea who killed that poor girl. I hope we find out someday. There's always hope. Some cases take decades to solve, but they get solved.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

My hope is that Burke outlives his father, knows the truth, and feels like telling it.

[Schmoopie]

You have GOT to be kidding me... :eek:
Do you mean to tell me that John Ramsey is running for governor and just now, suddenly, after all this time, this new, futuristic DNA test AMAZINGLY clears the Ramseys - all of them - of JonBenets murder? That is nothing short of amazing. How fortunate For Mr. Ramsey.
puke:

That is pretty amazing! I had no idea he was running for governor! This whole thing is just nuts and I'm actually getting sick of hearing the police say they can't solve it. I was really skeptical when I heard that they had cleared the family of the murder. It just seems to me that the family has been a little too slow in trying to get this thing solved. Funny that I don't remember hearing anything about the murder when it first happened; it was only after the investigation had been going on for a year or so that the information surfaced (as far as I know, anyway.)

Andrea

[wiseguy182]

Hate to bust up the Ramsey rally here but this is wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong wrong WRONG!

Besides the Ramseys themselves, the man who played Santa Claus, who had a weird Christmas fixation and whose wife wrote a sick play about a girl murdered in a basement, was the most likely suspect.

JonBenét even supposedly told friends that Santa had promised to come by for a special secret visit to her. Creepy coincidence, but wouldn't DNA have been collected from all suspects at the time? That is, unless the cops were too busy screwing up to do it. Even if they didn't and have to dig up the now-dead Santa, I'm betting no match.

Saying the Ramseys are cleared by this is just as stupid as saying the REAL Santa Claus did this, assisted by his elves. Does being weird and creepy allow "Santa" to

--Write a rambling ransom note incorporating extensive knowledge of the Ramsey family, including a pet phrase they used with John, a paraphrase of a quote from a movie they had just rented, and the nearly exact amount of John's Christmas bonus, in handwriting so closely resembling Patsy's that she could not be ruled out as the writer? Not to mention using an unusual phrase Patsy was known to use both before and since?

--Leave no DNA on any of the other items the "intruder" supposedly handled, and no other evidence, such as hair, fiber, and fingerprints?

--Obtain a blanket the housekeeper said was in the dryer, in an out-of-the way place only a family member would know about? And don't crime scene photos show the bed undisturbed, although JonBenét was supposedly removed from it? Uh, think the bed could have been remade when Patsy changed it after JonBenét WET THE BED which was Patsy's reason for killing her?

--Know that the Barbie nightgown was JonBenét's favorite and place it with the body?

--Magically overcome being an old, overweight, practically disabled man and crawl out a basement window? (Oh, remember, he goes down chimneys!)

I'll believe the story when Burke finally comes clean and admits his mother did it, and not until then. This DNA could have come from anywhere, such as someone handling a piece of clothing for packaging purposes (it was new out of the package, and the DNA matched other brand new, unworn underwear in the package) or perhaps even JonBenét handling something a man had touched and then touching the underwear in the package, deciding which pair to put on (if touch DNA could be transferred this way.) Test every worker at the factory where the underwear was manufactured and you'll find your "culprit," who will have been working at a third world sweatshop at the time. This is a weak, pathetic, ridiculous proposal which will go the way of John Mark Karr and does nothing towards solving this terrible crime.

To answer some of your questions, as I stated earlier, it was believed that the intruder didn't enter the home in the middle of the night, rather was already in the house when they got back. Whether he was somebody who attended the party and didn't leave right away, or broke into the home while they were gone, I don't know, either one of them is likely and and one of them is probable. This would have given the intruder hours to find the hidden room, the hidden dryer, and all the info on John that he would have needed, with time to spare to write the ransom note.

Now some questions for you:

1. it's interesting that you mention quotes Patsy was known to have used and that she supposedly used in the letter, as well as lines from a movie. Care to divulge what those were? It's intersting you bring them up, but don't say what they were.

2. Who do you think is more likely to write a ransom note:

a) Patsy, who would have had to calm her self down (after killing, raping, choking and stun gunning her daugher) to the point that she could write a long, rambling ransom note, without shaking (as the ransom note didn't appear to be written by someone who was shaking)
b) an intruder, who hadn't committed the crimes yet, and as such had more of a mental compacity to write a long, rambling note and keep from shaking.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Here http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/ is one example among many showing Patsy as the most probable author of the note. Why would she write the ransom note unless she, or another family member, were guilty?

As to why Burke would not inform on his parents, there are a number of possibilities, among which are denial, fear, family loyalty, and not wanting to further mess up his own life. Why would he want to lose a life of privilege with parents who could afford every luxury to go live in some foster home?

[wiseguy182]

Here http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/ is one example among many showing Patsy as the most probable author of the note. Why would she write the ransom note unless she, or another family member, were guilty?

As to why Burke would not inform on his parents, there are a number of possibilities, among which are denial, fear, family loyalty, and not wanting to further mess up his own life. Why would he want to lose a life of privilege with parents who could afford every luxury to go live in some foster home?

regarding that link, it believes that the since the words 'business' and 'possessions' were misspelled, that the Ramseys did it because it appeared that the misspellings were intentional. I don't know how they made that connection. But in any event, here is a link to the most commonly misspelled words. among them: business and possessions (or in this case possess). If Patsy misspelled the words intentionally, she somehow picked 2 that are commonly misspelled. If she were intentionally misspelling, she would probably pick 2 at random, but she picks 2 that give alot of people trouble.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/misspelled.html

What I'm getting at, is that, my belief is that the misspellings were intentional because they were 2 commonly misspelled words.

the link goes on to state that they believe Ramseys did it because the word attache (as in attache case) was spelled correctly, and only people with an attache case will know how to spell it. I knew how to spell attache before looking at the link: I don't have one, I'm just a good speller.

I still don't think Burke would risk his life by staying with the Ramseys if they were guilty. A foster home might not have been his first choice, but it's bettere than risking death.

[wiseguy182]

John stated that JonBenet's hands/arms were tied in such a way that he had a hard time untying the knots.

for the following questions, the options are

a) Patsy Ramsey
b) an intruder

1. who is more likely to have the knowledge of tying JonBenet in such a way that John has a hard time untying her?
2. who is more likely to know how to use a stun gun?
3. who is more likely to know how to construct and use a garrote?

I don't know how to do any of the preceding. And Patsy would have to know all 3 for her to be guilty. The above things are not things that most people know how to do.

[wiseguy182]

Hence

ah! they used the word hence. so it isn't all that rare of a word.

[wiseguy182]

Plus, their actions after their daughter's murder (hiring a PR firm to film them going to church, refusing to cooperate with the police)

The Ramseys allowed the Police to interview them on several occasions, and provided several handwriting examples voluntarily, hardly refusing to cooperate.

[wiseguy182]

Yeah, I have read several, like 5 or 6, books about this case (including Perfect Murder, Perfect Town which I highly recommend) and even if this dna business is the case, I simply cannot believe in my heart of hearts that Patsy wasn't involved somehow. Too much links her to it: her unique use of "hence" linked to other letters she wrote, her handwriting essentially matching the writing on the note, the notes use of slang from a movie they had just watchced (caught by a reporter for the National Enquirer, not by Boulder police!) and most importantly, the fact that the way she claims she found the ransom note on the stairs is quite literally impossible (first not noticing it/stepping over it and then finding it on the way back up the stairs or whatever).

Plus, their actions after their daughter's murder (hiring a PR firm to film them going to church, refusing to cooperate with the police) and so many little things (pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, the bizarre location of her body in a little used room their maid didn't even know was there) just keep all pointing to an inside job.

Even if the parents are officially exonerated, after extensive reading, I believe in my hearts of hearts that Patsy, at least, was involved in her daughter's death. Everything leads back to her, nothing rules her out and her story just doesn't add up.

Also, to take this "intruder" theory, you'd have to assume that somebody:
1. Broke into the house somehow and wasn't afraid of an alarm system or their big dog (or knew that it was at the neighbor's already).
2. Went and roused JonBenet from her bed without raising so much as a peep or being worried that somebody else would wake up and find a stranger in her bed or that JonBenet would have screamed bloody hell.
3. Take JonBenet to the kitchen and feed her some pineapple.
4. Take her to a remote part of the basement that people intimately familiar with the house did not know existed.
5. Grab one of Patsy's paintbrushes and some rope you found there and strangle JonBenet because you didn't bring anything else to kill her with so you just pick up some stuff you find there.
6. Sit down at some point and write a ransom note again on a pad of paper you just find there using one of Patsy's pens and a pad of her's and also, just for fun, throw in a bunch of info (the amount of the father's bonus) only the family would know and an outdated, rather formal expression Patsy had a fondness for using. Then go back upstairs and place the note on the stairs by everyone's (Burke and the parents) bedroom without making a sound.
7. At some point, after she is dead, hang around and sexually assault JonBenet.
8. Escape unseen and unheard.

Yeah, that intruder theory sounds real likely to me, every step of the way.

1. why does any intruder/home invader take that risk? Home invasions do happen, you know?
2. if the intruder broke into the house after the Ramseys had retired for the evening, he is not going to know how many people are in there, who they are, or where they are in proximity to JonBenet.
3. JonBenet could have gotten the pineapple herself. Your assumption proves nothing.
4. killer could have broke in the house while the Ramseys were away and had several hours to roam around.
5. see #4. He did bring a stun gun though, so he did have some weapon there. And a stun gun would have been enough to put her out, at least for ahile.
6. see #4.
7. someone did sexually assault JonBenet. You think Patsy did it?
8. It he left at night, which is when the scream was heard, nobody is going to see him, most likely.

[wiseguy182]

It seemed the DA was scared of implicating Patsy Ramsey while the some of the investigators believe to this day they had the evidence to throw her butt in jail. The investigators had both hands tied behind their back from the beginning.

The Boulder Police tried using that "we have the evidence" spiel on Patsy in their attempt to get Patsy and John to "crack", only it didn't work.

Now let me ask you this: Being that the Police focused SOLELY on Patsy and John, don't you think they would have gotten the evidence by now after 12 years? And you'd better believe they went through that entire house, and talked to everyone that knew the Ramseys.

[Mastermind]

The ultimate problem with this case is that the crime scene was compromised.

God knows how much evidence was lost in that mistake. :mad:

That Sheriff in the Eric Tamiyasu case must have relatives in Boulder.:lol:

[wiseguy182]

I forgot that there was also evidence of JonBenet being the victim of blunt force trauma, or something similar.

So now, JonBenet had experienced all of the following:

1. murder
2. sexual assualt
3. strangulation
4. blunt force trauma
5. being incompacitated with a stun gun.

this is overkill for parents on Christmas, isn't it, especially when they have no history at all of violence. Why would 2 normal parents suddenly snap to the point of commiting all of those atrociuos acts? Who is more likely to have done all of the preceding?

a) the Ramseys
b) some pervert who got some sick, twisted arousal out of it?

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

I always thought it was the brother or the father....more so the brother

If Burke did it, he would know even less about knots, garrotes, and ransom notes than Patsy. A stun gun has never been proven. The marks resembling one could have come from something else. Patsy seems to have either committed the crime, or helped in covering up for whoever did. It makes little sense, but more than an intruder managing all that was done. If anyone besides Patsy did this, they are the evil genius of the world. If Patsy did it, well, she just got away with it due to law enforcement's ineptitude.

Someone besides Patsy committing this crime is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility, it would just be astoundingly unlikely. There is no one scenario that fits all the known facts. One variation of the bedwetting theory has that Patsy strangled JonBenét with her own nightgown--this explains the very small amount of blood found in the head wound, as JonBenét was near death from strangulation when the blow was inflicted (to throw authorities off as to the cause of death.) That might account for the fingernail marks in the neck but makes little sense with the scream, as the bedwetting theory has JonBenét unconscious and dying by the time they were in the basement, and Patsy trying to be quiet, and detective Smit's investigation has shown the scream most likely emanated from the basement.

[Todd Mueller]

I never thought it's an issue of Patsy being the killer as much as it is Patsy and/or John knowing a lot more than they say.

The ransom note is just one example of something that is very personal and the killer(s) would need a lot of details and insight into the Ramsey family.

I've always felt Patsy and John know more then they have said, although I doubt very much either actually did the crime. Let me be clear -- that doesn't make them guilty of a crime, but that was the impression I got and I did a lot of reading on this case.

The ransom note is in my opinion what makes this case so freaking weird. Why write such a rambling, detailed note and then kill the victim? Or better said, why write such a note at all? I think if that piece of this case could be figured out, the rest will fall in line.

Because of the original evidence, I don't think it was out of line at all to suspect the family. However, once evidence seems to clear them I don't think we can continue to say they did it for sure just because there are no other suspects.

But this is far from a straight forward case.

[wiseguy182]

the use of a stun gun, and I believe one was used, says this was done by an intruder, for this reason:

The main purpose of a stun gun is to fight off someone. It's mainly a line of self-defense. For example, someone walking the streets of New York City might have one if they encountered a mugger or something to this effect. However, this obviously wasn't the case here: The user of the stun gun didn't use it on JonBenet because they felt threatened by her: she isn't going to put up much of a fight against an adult, paritcularly a man. So then, why was the stun gun used?

It was used to keep her silent, as the intruder transported her from her room to the basement/hidden room, so that he wouldn't risk waking up anyone else in the house.

And I pose this question. If the Ramseys did it, why did they do it in the basement as opposed to upstairs? The scream could be heard by the neighbors when it comes from the basement but not upstairs?

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Much has been made that the DNA on the underwear was from a fluid source while that on the long johns was a dry source--touch DNA. No one has been able to answer the following:

1. Is it true that this DNA also matched DNA found in an opened package of underwear with unused pairs still in it?

2. Did the DNA match the racial type of the country in which the underwear was manufactured? Wouldn't someone of Asian or Hispanic race be extremely out of place in the Ramseys' neighborhood?

3. What is more likely, that someone working in a factory shed some sweat and dry skin flakes at the same time, which got onto the underwear and then were transferred to the long johns when the items of clothing touched during normal wear, or that an intruder would break in, write that note, do all these things to JonBenét, then handle every pair of underwear in an unused package, fold them, and return them to the package?

I dare anyone to submit these questions to the Boulder police, or see if they're ever been satisfactorily answered.

[wiseguy182]

Much has been made that the DNA on the underwear was from a fluid source while that on the long johns was a dry source--touch DNA. No one has been able to answer the following:

1. Is it true that this DNA also matched DNA found in an opened package of underwear with unused pairs still in it?

2. Did the DNA match the racial type of the country in which the underwear was manufactured? Wouldn't someone of Asian or Hispanic race be extremely out of place in the Ramseys' neighborhood?

3. What is more likely, that someone working in a factory shed some sweat and dry skin flakes at the same time, which got onto the underwear and then were transferred to the long johns when the items of clothing touched during normal wear, or that an intruder would break in, write that note, do all these things to JonBenét, then handle every pair of underwear in an unused package, fold them, and return them to the package?

I dare anyone to submit these questions to the Boulder police, or see if they're ever been satisfactorily answered.

I don't know. My experience with DNA is limited to a college anatomy class, I am by no means an expert on it.

But I think it speaks volumes that it was enough to clear the Ramseys after the investiagtion focused SOLELY on them for all of these years. It would be tough for the Ramseys to get away with murder if they did it, being that they had never done it before. And the investigators, hellbent on the theory that Ramseys did it, did all of the following to try and prove "Ramseys did it"

1. interrogate the Ramseys for six days
2. had them provide at least 3 handwriting samples each.
3. traveled to at least 3 different states to search homes, talk to friends/relatives: Michigan, West Virginia and Georgia, not to mention all of the people they talked to in Colorado.
4. did a thorough search of the house
5. interrogate Burke for at least six hours

all the while not pursuing the probably hundreds of pedophiles in the city. And despite all of this, the Ramseys were eventually cleared.

[wiseguy182]

I should also mention that there were several other things found in the house that did not belong to the Ramseys, such as a Danish book (nobody in the household spoke Danish), http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The+House

[Perfectflaw]

The ransom note is in my opinion what makes this case so freaking weird. Why write such a rambling, detailed note and then kill the victim? Or better said, why write such a note at all? I think if that piece of this case could be figured out, the rest will fall in line.


Yes it is certainly an interesting aspect of this case. It was proven that the pen and pad came from the house, and there were even practice notes. So whoever wrote it was in that house for sometime in my opinion. It is just hard to imagine an unknown intruder or stranger just leisurely chilling in the Ramsey house writing ranson notes...before or after the murder..it's just a little too odd.

And like many others, I feel there is something to be said for statement analysis. The whole thing read like an individual attempting to be a little too clever. The foreign faction thing was laughably phony. And the whole 'instructions' bit with the money screamed nagging wife to me.

[wiseguy182]

unfortunately, lots of people have acted like the Boulder police by not considering suspects other than the Ramseys.

The reality is that the list of strong suspects is long, and includes people that had worked in the Ramsey home (and would have been familiar with the layout), the housekeeper and husband (both of whom had keys), people that worked at John's company and neighbors/friends/relatives.

The Boulder Police ignored any tips that weren't Ramsey related, including one from a mother who saved her child from perhaps a similar attack, the perpetrator had broken into the house and went into her daugher's room. This daughter went to the same dance academy as JonBenet.

There was also a mysterious blue van parked outside the Ramsey home the day before the attacks, and it was out of place in the neighborhood.

As far as the ransom note being bogus, I believe it may be, but that doesn't mean that Patsy wrote it. The letter write reveals an awful lot about themself (themselves), too much to be accurate IMO. The going back and forth between singular and plural tenses (I, we) also makes me think the letter was bogus. I think the ransom letter writer was a local perp and not some foreign faction.

to get info on alot of the suspects, there is a section on that in this link.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

a mention of the blue van as well as a unknown jaguar in area:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence

[mphs95]

unfortunately, lots of people have acted like the Boulder police by not considering suspects other than the Ramseys.

The reality is that the list of strong suspects is long, and includes people that had worked in the Ramsey home (and would have been familiar with the layout), the housekeeper and husband (both of whom had keys), people that worked at John's company and neighbors/friends/relatives.

The Boulder Police ignored any tips that weren't Ramsey related, including one from a mother who saved her child from perhaps a similar attack, the perpetrator had broken into the house and went into her daugher's room. This daughter went to the same dance academy as JonBenet.

There was also a mysterious blue van parked outside the Ramsey home the day before the attacks, and it was out of place in the neighborhood.

As far as the ransom note being bogus, I believe it may be, but that doesn't mean that Patsy wrote it. The letter write reveals an awful lot about themself (themselves), too much to be accurate IMO. The going back and forth between singular and plural tenses (I, we) also makes me think the letter was bogus. I think the ransom letter writer was a local perp and not some foreign faction.

to get info on alot of the suspects, there is a section on that in this link.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/

a mention of the blue van as well as a unknown jaguar in area:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Key%20Pieces%20of%20Evidence

It's ironic that this case was solvable if conducted properly. Unfortunately, it was flawed from the beginning. Cops with short attention spans and the media persecution pretty much guaranteed this would be an unsolved mystery.

[wiseguy182]

there were more than 100 burglaries in the Ramsey's neighborhood in the months preceding JonBenet's death. There were also 38 registered sex offenders living within a 2 mile radius of the Ramsey home.

scroll down about half way
http://marksesl.com/Lounge/jonbenet_ramsey.html

[Todd Mueller]

there were more than 100 burglaries in the Ramsey's neighborhood in the months preceding JonBenet's death. There were also 38 registered sex offenders living within a 2 mile radius of the Ramsey home.


That's what has always bugged me about this case. . .

If it was a burglar, then you have to say it was a crime of opportunity. So with that, why would the perpetrator use a garrate (sp?) and write (and re-write) a complicated ransom note that had details only an insider would know? So that's out.

Could be a sex offender. But again, why break in and risk getting caught? Why write (re-write) a complicated ransom note if kidnapping was most likely never part of the plan?

That's why I keep saying if they can solve the note, they will solve the crime. I'm not trying to be overly obvious but the motive for that note will tell you who did it and why.

This was not a crime of opportunity and the killer had to have knowledge of the family. That does not mean it WAS a family member, mind you, but this was anything but a crime of opportunity.

Whoever did this either had guts of steel or no brains at all, with all of the evidence left behind. I also agree that with all that evidence, this case should have been solved by now, IMHO.

[wiseguy182]

That's what has always bugged me about this case. . .

If it was a burglar, then you have to say it was a crime of opportunity. So with that, why would the perpetrator use a garrate (sp?) and write (and re-write) a complicated ransom note that had details only an insider would know? So that's out.

Could be a sex offender. But again, why break in and risk getting caught? Why write (re-write) a complicated ransom note if kidnapping was most likely never part of the plan?

That's why I keep saying if they can solve the note, they will solve the crime. I'm not trying to be overly obvious but the motive for that note will tell you who did it and why.

This was not a crime of opportunity and the killer had to have knowledge of the family. That does not mean it WAS a family member, mind you, but this was anything but a crime of opportunity.

Whoever did this either had guts of steel or no brains at all, with all of the evidence left behind. I also agree that with all that evidence, this case should have been solved by now, IMHO.

As I have stated a couple time before, one of the main theories is that the intruder broke into the house shortly after the Ramsey's left to visit relatives on Christmas Day. This would have given him hours to search the house, find info on John, find the writing pad and markers, etc. When the intruder discovered that no one was in the house, he figured he would have a while since they were most likely at relatives (which is very common during the holiday season) since they probably were not at a store (most are closed)

Alot of people think it's an inside job because the killer used inside things, like the writing pad, the part of Patys's paintbrush to use the garrote, etc. But wouldn't that be crafty on the intruder's part? Why bring something that could be traced back to him when he can find something in the house? And it was a huge house, so there was no shortage of items in there. Also, if Patsy wrote the note and used the garrote, she would have to figure that the Police were eventually going to find that out. Why not burn those things to destroy the evidence? You are correct in that the garrote was oppurtunistic, I don't think the intruder planned on using it, he probably did because it was there. The cause of death was blunt force trauma, probably coming from the baseball bat that was found outside an entrace/exit, could have been the one the intruder used to enter/escape.

As far as why would a sex offender break in and risk getting caught, why do any of them do it? Unfortunately, it does happen. This wouldn't have been the only occurence of it.

[Todd Mueller]

Wiseguy -

I hear what you are saying. But my question would be "Why?"

I've read your thoughts, I understand them, and to a large degree I agree with them. But I just think there is so much more to this than just a psycho burglar and/or sex offender. I agree if someone broke in and saw the family was gone, that might give him/her the feeling of having time. But at the same time, you don't know when the family will return so that always puts the whole "plan" of the intruder in jeopardy. It would be gutsy to say the least.

Who the heck is going to break in, dig for evidence, then find the girl, assault her all while avoiding detection, and then sneak out with the family in the house? Again, doesn't at all seem like a crime of opportunity. I understand how it all could have happened but I think that is a huge stretch. Just my honest opinion.

Now if the perp was a true psycho, then I guess the "why" question is out the window, and the perp may have been (or most likely was) a true psycho just based on what happened to that poor little girl. I do think that using some of the Ramsey's things doesn't point to an inside job in that regard. To me, the only thing that says "inside job" (or "withholding information") is the note. I totally give the Ramseys a pass on the brush and the other evidence at the scene.

I'm not saying that John and Patsy did it, helped do it, or anything like that. I just think the note, in my opinion, implies that there is more to this. This was personal. I think this may have been an act of revenge against John. If you torture and kill someone's little girl, that is worse than killing the person themself. At the same time, the perp made it look like the Ramseys may have done it so it is a double-whammy. Your kid is dead and it makes you look like the guilty party. That speaks of forethought which would not be the M.O. of the random burglar and/or sex offender.

Do I have evidence of that? No, other than what is public. That also is not an indictment against the Ramseys other than I think they were less than forthcoming for a long time during this investigation (especially in the beginning).

I certainly don't rule out that it could have been a psycho who was just messed up in the brain and that's why all of this makes no sense. But even then, I don't think it was simply a random act. If it was "random," I think at the very least the perp probably cased the house well in advance and had a plan going in.

I do applaud you, Wiseguy, for your well thought out responses. It's obvious that you have done a lot of research into this case and that is cool. Just like you, I'd like nothing more than for this to be solved and I don't think the Ramseys did the deed. But the why is what bugs me a lot more than the how.

Peace...

TM

[wiseguy182]

Wiseguy -

I hear what you are saying. But my question would be "Why?"

I've read your thoughts, I understand them, and to a large degree I agree with them. But I just think there is so much more to this than just a psycho burglar and/or sex offender. I agree if someone broke in and saw the family was gone, that might give him/her the feeling of having time. But at the same time, you don't know when the family will return so that always puts the whole "plan" of the intruder in jeopardy. It would be gutsy to say the least.

Who the heck is going to break in, dig for evidence, then find the girl, assault her all while avoiding detection, and then sneak out with the family in the house? Again, doesn't at all seem like a crime of opportunity. I understand how it all could have happened but I think that is a huge stretch. Just my honest opinion.

Now if the perp was a true psycho, then I guess the "why" question is out the window, and the perp may have been (or most likely was) a true psycho just based on what happened to that poor little girl. I do think that using some of the Ramsey's things doesn't point to an inside job in that regard. To me, the only thing that says "inside job" (or "withholding information") is the note. I totally give the Ramseys a pass on the brush and the other evidence at the scene.

I'm not saying that John and Patsy did it, helped do it, or anything like that. I just think the note, in my opinion, implies that there is more to this. This was personal. I think this may have been an act of revenge against John. If you torture and kill someone's little girl, that is worse than killing the person themself. At the same time, the perp made it look like the Ramseys may have done it so it is a double-whammy. Your kid is dead and it makes you look like the guilty party. That speaks of forethought which would not be the M.O. of the random burglar and/or sex offender.

Do I have evidence of that? No, other than what is public. That also is not an indictment against the Ramseys other than I think they were less than forthcoming for a long time during this investigation (especially in the beginning).

I certainly don't rule out that it could have been a psycho who was just messed up in the brain and that's why all of this makes no sense. But even then, I don't think it was simply a random act. If it was "random," I think at the very least the perp probably cased the house well in advance and had a plan going in.

I do applaud you, Wiseguy, for your well thought out responses. It's obvious that you have done a lot of research into this case and that is cool. Just like you, I'd like nothing more than for this to be solved and I don't think the Ramseys did the deed. But the why is what bugs me a lot more than the how.

Peace...

TM

well thank you for you compliments.

As for why?, I honestly don't know. I have no idea what goes through the minds of murderers, etc. Needless to say, they don't act rationally. Do I feel the intruder took a lot of risk? Absolutely. But some of them get a thrill out of risk taking.

I would encourage everyone to visit the links I have provided in the last few pages of this thread. Take a look at all of the other suspects.

I think some of the strongest suspects are the housekeeper and her husband and other people that had worked in the Ramsey home. Some of them had keys, would have known the layout of the home, would have known the occupants of the house, some of their habits, etc. I should also point out that the housekeeper was supposed to have Christmas day off, but ended up working that day.

[user296686@aol.c]

Yes it is certainly an interesting aspect of this case. It was proven that the pen and pad came from the house, and there were even practice notes. So whoever wrote it was in that house for sometime in my opinion. It is just hard to imagine an unknown intruder or stranger just leisurely chilling in the Ramsey house writing ranson notes...before or after the murder..it's just a little too odd.

And like many others, I feel there is something to be said for statement analysis. The whole thing read like an individual attempting to be a little too clever. The foreign faction thing was laughably phony. And the whole 'instructions' bit with the money screamed nagging wife to me.

That ransom NOVEL is one of many things that makes me believe to this day that someone in that house, in that family, killed that little girl. It just doesn't make sense. I believe that it was intended to point the finger as far away from the family as possible, when in fact, in my eyes, it only proved to point the finger directly back at them. I guess we'll never really know for sure.

Pam :wave:

[user296686@aol.c]

Yeah, the note seems entirely Patsy's work. She was the kind of drama queen to come up with something like that. John would have been too sensible. He strikes me as sincere, at least much moreso than Patsy, but very crafty and cagey. No way would he have allowed her to give away so much on a co-authored note. Even if there was noise during or after the murder, he wouldn't have heard it. I trust the housekeeper's story that he took something before bed that would have prevented a cannon going off waking him. The housekeeper's story, if the full version is ever allowed out, is the closest to the truth without someone in that household coming clean.

The finding of the body was definitely fake or set up at some point. Although JonBenét was wearing a white shirt and wrapped in a white blanket, someone who was there said the darkness and angle of where she was in the room would have prevented seeing her from the doorway, yet John acted as if he'd seen her through the doorway. This was also the last room left after the whole house had been searched.

I agree, it would have been nice had the family not been involved at all, but I can't believe it's so.

Could not agree more.

Pam :wave:

[wiseguy182]

That ransom NOVEL is one of many things that makes me believe to this day that someone in that house, in that family, killed that little girl. It just doesn't make sense. I believe that it was intended to point the finger as far away from the family as possible, when in fact, in my eyes, it only proved to point the finger directly back at them. I guess we'll never really know for sure.

Pam :wave:

No, what doesn't make sense is all of the extremely unlikely, practically impossible things that the people who think 'Ramseys did it' have Patsy or someone in the house doing. We have Patsy staying up 36 consecutive hours, we have Patsy becoming the only person in recorded history to use a garrote on her child, we have Patsy doing all of these horrible things to her child on Christmas. THAT doesn't make sense.

[Mastermind]

My two cents on this:

I have always believed that the key to this case is the ransom letter.
The Ransonm letter screams pre-meditation in it. The writer knew what he wanted to say and was careful in saying it.

The fact that it was signed SBTC has been a major clue. Even a brain dead criminal would know not to sign a letter with anything incriminating. It has been my believe that SBTC is a phrase or an orgnization. I don;t think it was made up because the writer deemed it important enough to include the C at then end afterwards.

If someone wanted to grab Jon Benet, there are easier ways to do so than risk breaking into the house to grab her. You easily could have snatched her during her numerouse times when she was at those beauty contests. You follow her enough times, I'm sure you could find a moment when she was alone.

My theory:

I believe that Jon Benet;'s death was revenge by some business partner(s) that may have believe they were screwed by Jon in some way. The fact that the letter specifically taunts Jon and calls him a "FAT CAT" is what makes me think so.

The letter seems to be a personal insult letter against Jon Ramsey and the way he does business. Notice the letter never once mentions Patsy or even alludes to Jon Benet for sexual purposes or as an object of desire. Jon benet is almost treated in the letter as an object or possesion of Jon Ramsey. The purpose of this letter was not to hide a crime or throw the trail off. The purpose of the letter was to add insult to injury with the death of his daughter.

Especially the fact that it was signed "Victory!" Like the writer has already acheived what he wanted to do. Like he had his revenge against Jon Ramsey. If Patsy did it why would she write Victory???? I just don;t see Patsey being that creative enough to write this ransom letter.



i also believe that the B in SBTC stands for bank and that the C stands for corporation.

Southern Banking Trust Company??? this might not be an actual financial institution, but perhaps a nickame or reference to an actual institution.
This is the closest match.. http://www.southernbank.com/

I believe the purpose of this act was not to molest Jon benet but to specifically kill her as revenge against Jon Ramsey.

[wiseguy182]

here is a link. if you scroll down to the section "lights in kitchen", it describes various eyewitness/neighbor accounts that say there was an intruder or intruders creeping about the house so as not to waken anyone else, and that a light on in the house that they had never seen used before. Now why would the Ramseys sneak about in their own house? Also, scroll down to section towards the bottom that says "metal scraping sound", it was believed that this was possibly the baseball bat hitting the concrete.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/What+Neighbors+Reported

[user296686@aol.c]

No, what doesn't make sense is all of the extremely unlikely, practically impossible things that the people who think 'Ramseys did it' have Patsy or someone in the house doing. We have Patsy staying up 36 consecutive hours, we have Patsy becoming the only person in recorded history to use a garrote on her child, we have Patsy doing all of these horrible things to her child on Christmas. THAT doesn't make sense.

Hi wiseguy :wave:

Parents/mothers murder their children. THAT makes no sense. I could never, ever comprehend that. But it happens. Whoever wrote that letter felt very comfortable sitting in that house doing so. THAT makes no sense. The contents of the letter, THAT makes no sense. The paper, pen and paint brush handle coming from the house, THAT makes no sense. Her killing her child makes no sense, but it happens. I personally believe that Burke was responsible, which explains to me the only reason on earth the parents would try to cover it up. Just my opinion, of course. But it's what I believe.

Pam :wave:

[mphs95]

No, what doesn't make sense is all of the extremely unlikely, practically impossible things that the people who think 'Ramseys did it' have Patsy or someone in the house doing. We have Patsy staying up 36 consecutive hours, we have Patsy becoming the only person in recorded history to use a garrote on her child, we have Patsy doing all of these horrible things to her child on Christmas. THAT doesn't make sense.

Well said wiseguy.

[user296686@aol.c]

here is a link. if you scroll down to the section "lights in kitchen", it describes various eyewitness/neighbor accounts that say there was an intruder or intruders creeping about the house so as not to waken anyone else, and that a light on in the house that they had never seen used before. Now why would the Ramseys sneak about in their own house? Also, scroll down to section towards the bottom that says "metal scraping sound", it was believed that this was possibly the baseball bat hitting the concrete.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/What+Neighbors+Reported

Hi wiseguy :wave:

I read the link you provided, but not sure what it does to bolster your theory.
It seems to me to do the exact opposite. As I said, someone felt very much at ease sitting in that house writing that letter. Practice letters as well. It brings me back to the Darlie Routier scenario. Most killers don't go to a house to kill and then casually search the home for letters to write and things to write them with and then look around for something to do the killing with. That is all very indicative of someone who felt very much at ease taking the time to do all that was done.

I also remember reading somewhere that there were no fingerprints on the letter. Patsy claimed to have picked it up off the stairway. If someone else wrote the note and wore gloves to keep their prints off of it, wouldn't it make sense that Patsys prints WOULD be on the letter since she was the one to pick it up off the stairs? I think she over-thought the fingerprint thing and was a little too worried about her prints being found on it instaed of thinking it would only be natural that her prints should have been on it.

I don't know, wiseguy. I mean, I wasn't there so all I can do is make a guess from what I've read and form an opinion. I'm not slamming your research or your opinion, by the way. You very obviously put a lot of time and research into your posts and I appreciate it. It gives people insight they may not have access to themselves. As crystaldawn said to me about another case we've talked about, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Pam :wave:

[yuppielawyer]

I'm trying to understand how any decent person could accuse a 10-year-old boy of murdering his little sister with absolutely no evidence to support it. Honestly, it makes me sick.

I firmly believe that one day, they will get a hit through the DNA database and the murder will finally be solved. The overwhelming weight of the evidence points to an intruder having committed the crime. The police have now concluded that, the DA has concluding that, the only veteran homicide investigator who worked on the case (Lou Smit) concluded that, and a federal judge concluded that. But, who are any of these people who have actually seen all the evidence compared to others who just "know that Patsy/Burke/John" did it.

Also, this ridiculous notion that John is running for governor and that leads to some conspiracy theory that led to the exoneration is absolutely ludicrous and without any basis in fact.

[wiseguy182]

I'm trying to understand how any decent person could accuse a 10-year-old boy of murdering his little sister with absolutely no evidence to support it. Honestly, it makes me sick.

I firmly believe that one day, they will get a hit through the DNA database and the murder will finally be solved. The overwhelming weight of the evidence points to an intruder having committed the crime. The police have now concluded that, the DA has concluding that, the only veteran homicide investigator who worked on the case (Lou Smit) concluded that, and a federal judge concluded that. But, who are any of these people who have actually seen all the evidence compared to others who just "know that Patsy/Burke/John" did it.

Also, this ridiculous notion that John is running for governor and that leads to some conspiracy theory that led to the exoneration is absolutely ludicrous and without any basis in fact.

well said.

to the Ramseys did it crowd:

normally, our comments on this forum don't mean much to the people involved in these cases. But THIS case is different. The accusations against the Ramseys, especially on Patsy, made her life a living hell. After recovering from stage 4 cancer, which is usually terminal, she had to deal with the horrible death of her precious daughter, and then be wrongfully accused and have the investigation focused pretty much entirely on them while the inept, inexperienced Boulder Police ignored (and even stated publicly) that they weren't considering any evidence that an intruder(s) was involved, even though the evidence SCREAMED it. And Patsy went to her grave without knowing who the killer was.

After the investigation was focused exclusively on the Ramseys, they were cleared by the Boulder Police (after some personnel changes). Apologizing would not be enough in this case. The accusations destroyed Patsy. I watched her interviews. She wasn't acting. This was a mother who was destroyed by the brutal death of her daughter and wanted to see the killer brough to justice. Enough BS about her pretending to cry and peeking out through her hands. Did you know that the Boulder Police went as far as to bug JonBenet's grave in attempts to get the Ramseys? how horrible is that? to disturb someone's resting place? Guess how much I like the Boulder Police of 1996?

[user296686@aol.c]

well, at least you managed to keep your disagreements with me civil this time, as compared to your comments in the Darlie Routier thread and other threads.

yeargh. I feel like this is going around in circles here.

It is highly speculated that the intruder was already in the house by the time the Ramseys got home. He would have had plenty of time to familiarize himself with the layout of the house. Also, some of the suspects are friends/relatives and also people that worked in the Ramsey house, and also would have been familiar with the layout.

The ransom note I agree is bogus. But that hardly makes Patsy the writer. Probably a local perp that wanted to thwart the investigation by making police think it was a "foreign faction"

as far as the paintbrush being used and other items in the house, Do you think Patsy is stupid enough to use items in the house that she knows can be traced back to her and not dispose of them?

Did the fact that the Boulder Police, who focused PRIMARILY on the Ramseys, and ignored every other piece of evidence that came their way, eliminated Burke as a suspect not raise a red flag for you? And Steve Thomas even admitted that they weren't considering any other piece of evidence besides ones that alleged Ramseys did it. And who would you rather have as Detective, Lou Smit who had 31 years of experience, or Steve Thomas who had zero experience? I know which one I'd like to have.

Hi wiseguy :wave:

Sorry you are not a big enough person to keep opinions as just that... opinions. If I remember correctly, it was the Randolp Dial/Bobbi Parker thread that you and I butted heads on. And if you care to go back to the end of that thread, I apologized to you for my reaction at the thought that I may have offended you by what I said. And I also made note of the fact that you very obviously put a lot of time of effort into your posts and research and I apologized for making light of that. Oh well, that's fine. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to say it. If you have been apologized to and you are not a big enough person to accept the apology, that is on you. I, on the other hand, have apologized and that is all that I can do.

I will close in saying that, no matter what you say, I still believe that SOMEONE in that family commited the Ramsey murder and I believe even more strongly that Darlie Routier is a murderer as far as her case goes. That is only my opinion. We are all intitled to one and that's mine. Say what you will, who ever wrote that "ransom" LETTER was very comfortable sitting in there writing and re-writing it and taking their time doing what had to be done and collecting the things to do it all with. "No one has ever used a garotte, etc... and on Christmas day, etc..." How many murders that you know of that mirror the JonBent case? In ANY other way? How many kidnappings are you aware of that handled things this Ransom Novel writer did?

Pam

[user296686@aol.c]

we didn't butt heads on the Randolph Dial/Bobbi Parker thread. You posted a quote of one of my posts with a barfing icon and I stayed out of it. Just like I stayed out of your very confrontational posts on the Darlie Routier thread. Don't try to turn this around on me. I don't mean to sound like a child, but you started it.

The Ramseys is a different case, though. It's one I've researched very well. I feel that the accusations against the Ramseys destroyed them, so if people are going to continue with their accusations, even after Patsy's death and their being cleared as suspects, I'm going to take the opposing side.

Frankly, there's no motive. none. Bedwetting, are ya kidding me? When the Ramseys have a net worth of 6 million, they're not going to flip out over something as absurd as bedwetting. just doesn't happen. They had too much money to worry about things like that. And both JonBenet and Burke had bedwetting problems, so it's not like it was unexpected. But what really irritates me are the people that think Burke was involved. God, what absurd theory is next? JonBenet committing suicide? I can only imagine how that post would go...

"JonBenet hated the pageants. She was really a tomboy that liked to go fishing on the weekends with Pa. She was tired of all of the pressure to be a beauty queen, and wanted out. She waited until everyone was asleep, and headed downstairs (stopping off at the kitchen for that pineapple of course) she fashioned a garrote, and used that, as well as hitting herself and sexually assaulting herself. Patsy woke up and discovered what had happened. She thought 'my daughter committed suicide, what will this do to my reputation. what will the neighbors think?', so she staged the scene to make it look like an intruder. She wrote the ransom note and left it in a place where she was sure to find it in the morning."

Seriously, this is just SO sad. The Boulder Police, knowing that a fair amount of these type of cases are done by a relative, got it in their heads that the Ramseys had to have been involved, and only considered evidence that would make the Ramseys look guilty, ignoring the tons and tons of evidence and leads that screamed intruder.

Hi wiseguy :wave:

It is not a FAIR amount of crimes of this sort commited against children being a family member or someone close to to the family. More times that not.... WAY more times than not, things like this come from a family member or someone very close to the family. Not always, but usually. Does that mean that every murdered child is killed by a family member? Of course not. But acts of violence like these are not USUALLY done by a stranger. And where is all this evidence you were talking about that leads away from the family? TONS of it, you say. And them being so rich is a reason that they are NOT guilty???? PLEASE.Their wealth is what kept them out of the hole they should be in now. I won't even comment on the "suicide scenario" which is just too ridiculous to even comment on.

I will be the first one to agree with you in respect to the fact that the Boulder Police dept. botched this investigation. The crime scene was not secured properly and people were allowed to roam in and out of that house at random and the list goes on. And by the way, where exactly did you read about how "cooperative" the Ramseys were with the police? Was that before or after they hired a criminal defense attorney AND a publicist?

NONE of us were there. NONE of us know for sure what happened in that house.

And as far as the barfing comment being made on one of your posts.... look back. It WAS the Randolph Dial post. One that you put a lot of time and effort into, and I apologized for it. And as I said, I apolologized and that is all I can do. You said "I hate to sound like a child, but you started it..." which, in fact, made you sound like a child. A child is exactly what you sound like when someone makes the effort to apologize to you for a mistake they've made and you are too childish to acccept the apology. I've done all I can do. It is still my very strong opinion that no one would come into a house and do all that was done and take all the time that was taken to do it. Not a stranger, anyway. Someone was very, very comfortable in that house. That is my opinion, and that is what this board is for. Just beause we don't agree doesn't make my response to you "confrontational". I have researched the Darlie Routier case for YEARS and I have very lucid, well thought out opinions of what happened. And it is just that, my opinion.

Crystaldawn has made it very clear that these boards are for expressing opinions, not personal attacks. I made an apology to her (on a different post) and she graciously accepted it. You have chosen to do the opposite, which is your right. So from here on out, if I have something to say, I will say it. Know in advance it is not meant to be confrontational, it just means that you and I have different opinions.

Pam :wave:

[user296686@aol.c]

Hi wiseguy :wave:

"...was main suspect in neighborhood robberies preceding JonBenet's death. all were similar in that little or nothing was taken, it seemed that he/they were doing it for the thrill. robberies abruptly stopped after JonBenet's death.

Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

Pam :wave:

[user296686@aol.c]

Hi everybody :wave: 'Originally quoted from wiseguy:

"Did you know that the Boulder Police went as far as to bug JonBenet's grave in attempts to get the Ramseys? how horrible is that? to disturb someone's resting place? Guess how much I like the Boulder Police of 1996?"

Obviously, you do not understand that this is common practice of police departments, at the very LEAST, nationwide. No one is out there digging up the little girls grave or anything. They are simply recording devices, bugs, whatever term you choose to refer to them as. A lot of times, a killer will go to a gravesite and apologize to or give a confession to the murdered person at the graveside. It happens. A lot.

Pam :wave:

[user296686@aol.c]

Hi wiseguy :wave:

Just for the record, it WAS the Randolph Dial/Bobbi Parker thread that was "Barfed" on. Post number 7, under the tread you started, titled:
a plethora of new info on Bobbi Parker and Randolph Dial

Pam :wave:

[bbaver]

Recently read "Prerfect Murdur, Perfect Town" and have read dozens of other pieces regarding this murder. There are so many deaths that bring up many quistions, i.e. Cindy James, but I don't think this is one of them. The evidence is overwhelming.....Patsy and John know exactly what happened. Unfortunately, the police made a mess of the crime scenes, and we will never see John Ramsey charged. But John Ramsey should fry. If there is a "hell" John Ramsey will burn in it.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

If there is a "hell" John Ramsey will burn in it.

To me his crime is not only assisting in covering up a murder (bad enough, but understandable to protect his wife) but in implicating innocent people, some of whom really suffered and will probably continue to do so.

[Mastermind]

Michael Helgoth

-had a history of violent behavior
-owned rare Hi-Tec boot, a print of such a boot was found at crime scene.
-owned stun guns
-was infatuated with young girls, collected barbie dolls, was found to have a young girl in his bed while he was naked on one occasion.
-boasted that he and a partner were going to make 50 or 60 thousand each. 60 thousand times 2 equals 120,000, very close to the 118,000 ransom.
-committed suicide the day after Alex Hunter press conference, where he said "soon, there will be no one on the list except you."
-told someone that he wondered what it would be like to crack a human skull
-it is now believed that there was more than one intruder (intruders brought too many items for one to carry: rope, stun gun, cord, duct tape)
-was main suspect in neighborhood robberies preceding JonBenet's death. all were similar in that little or nothing was taken, it seemed that he/they were doing it for the thrill. robberies abruptly stopped after JonBenet's death.

A lot of the Michael Jelgoth case was based on a documentary by a very unreliable source. The documetary has been dimissed by law enforcement and is full of holes.
owned rare Hi-Tec boot, a print of such a boot was found at crime scene.
Essentially everyone in the Boulder area had that type of shoe including possibly Mr. Ramsey. The boot print also may have been old. In any regards it is not evidence due to the massive amount of people that have that type of boot.
owned stun guns
There has been no proof that a Stun Gun was used on Jon Benet. Jon Benet's body lacks a particualar mark that a stun gun leaves other then those dots.

suicide the day after Alex Hunter press conference, where he said "soon, there will be no one on the list except you."
According to witnesses Helgoth had broken up with a girl around the exact time and repeatedly said that he was distraught over that.

it is now believed that there was more than one intruder (intruders brought too many items for one to carry: rope, stun gun, cord, duct tape)

It is hard for me to imagine that two large men could enter the house through the window, do all the activties that occured in that house and not wake anyone, including Burke.

What was the point of bringing the rope and stun gun, if not to kidnap Jon Benet? That would mean that the kidnapping note is real.

There willing to bring all those items, yet they didn;t bring the ransom note or the garrote or the blunt object?

was main suspect in neighborhood robberies preceding JonBenet's death. all were similar in that little or nothing was taken, it seemed that he/they were doing it for the thrill. robberies abruptly stopped after JonBenet's death.

why after doing all these robbeies succesfully without getting caught, would robbers suddenly decide that while breaking into a popular person like John Ramsey, they kill his daughter. bash her head in, garrote her, and leave the body in the house and leave in their own handwriting the war and peace of ransom notes and sign it with the initials of a hat(this has been disproved) that you own.

were people molested in those other robberies? Was there kidnapping involved in those robberies?

again, Michael Helgoth's involvement as a POA has more to do with the one-sided documentary on the case that was made. Mark Helgoth is another Mark Karr, he leads nowhere.


The first question that needs to be answered in this case by anyone wanting to solve it is this:

Is the ransom note real or fake?

Once you answer that question, you can proceed with the case and come to this fact:

The writer of the ransom note took the chance of leaving 3 pages worth of evidence of his own handwriting. The writer felt the risk of getting caught was outweighed by the necessity to write this 3 page letter at the crime scene

[yuppielawyer]

Recently read "Prerfect Murdur, Perfect Town" and have read dozens of other pieces regarding this murder. There are so many deaths that bring up many quistions, i.e. Cindy James, but I don't think this is one of them. The evidence is overwhelming.....Patsy and John know exactly what happened. Unfortunately, the police made a mess of the crime scenes, and we will never see John Ramsey charged. But John Ramsey should fry. If there is a "hell" John Ramsey will burn in it.
Seriously. Wow. You not only feel confident enough to declare someone who has been cleared by the authorities to be guilty, but to condemn him to hell. I think the Bible has a lot to say about people like that.

The overwhelming evidence points to an intruder--everything from the DNA on the inside of her underwear and the outside of the waistband of her tights to the boot print and the stun gun mark. As I said before, the experienced homicide investigator, the DA, the federal judge--they all stated that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to an intruder. But, who are all these people who have access to the actual evidence, compared to people who have read about it on the internet.

I really don't think you can overstate the significance of the more recent DNA findings. Many people, including Dr. Lee, had largely discounted the DNA found on the inside of her underwear because it was so small that it could have come from someone who handled the underwear during the manufacturing process. But when the touch DNA found on the waistbands of her tights, where the assailant would have grabbed to pull them down, matched the DNA insider her underwear, that gave much greater weight to that foreign DNA in her underwear. They have DNA samples from everybody who interacted with this girl, and that DNA is male, and doesn't belong to anyone who had any reason to be handling her underwear and the waistband of her tights. It belongs to the killer. That's all there is to it.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I truly believe that one day, the person who killed JonBenet will be caught for something else, and his DNA will finally go into the system, and they will get a hit. I know that, until that happens, many people will continue to insist that one or both of her parents kill her, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My only hope is that all the lies and innuendos that have been spread about her parents don't poison the eventual jury to the point that the man who killed her walks free. That would be the ultimate injustice.

[slasherman]

Here is some info on someone that could have done it.

Michael Helgoth

-had a history of violent behavior
-owned rare Hi-Tec boot, a print of such a boot was found at crime scene.
-owned stun guns
-was infatuated with young girls, collected barbie dolls, was found to have a young girl in his bed while he was naked on one occasion.
-boasted that he and a partner were going to make 50 or 60 thousand each. 60 thousand times 2 equals 120,000, very close to the 118,000 ransom.
-committed suicide the day after Alex Hunter press conference, where he said "soon, there will be no one on the list except you."
-told someone that he wondered what it would be like to crack a human skull


The killer who did this would never commit suicide unless he was caught and had to face the consequences. I am now pretty sure that the killer lived in the neighbourhood. He is a white male between 22 and 45 (at that time) and was inspired by the BTK killer. The main reason for doing it was for sexual pleasure but it was also an envy towards the Ramsey's because of their wealth. He lived in a radius of 400 meters from the Ramsey house. He can still be living there but have probably moved. He has no criminal record.

[Mastermind]

I really don't think you can overstate the significance of the more recent DNA findings. Many people, including Dr. Lee, had largely discounted the DNA found on the inside of her underwear because it was so small that it could have come from someone who handled the underwear during the manufacturing process. But when the touch DNA found on the waistbands of her tights, where the assailant would have grabbed to pull them down, matched the DNA insider her underwear, that gave much greater weight to that foreign DNA in her underwear. They have DNA samples from everybody who interacted with this girl, and that DNA is male, and doesn't belong to anyone who had any reason to be handling her underwear and the waistband of her tights. It belongs to the killer. That's all there is to it.

There are two problems with the DNA.

1. From what i understand the DNA is degraded. Which means it could be as simple as a factory worker who made the panties sneezed or wiped his nose.

2. There has been no conclusive evidence that Jon Benet was sexual assaulted at the time of the murder. No semen has been found.


Again, people forget the most important piece of evidence in this case...

...the Ransom note, the ransome not, THE RANSOM NOTE!

Follow the logic chain

1. Is the letter genuine or not?
2. why would someone feel that writing this note was so important to risk writing it in the house, leaving handwriting evidence, and delay the most important activity an intruder needs to do.......LEAVE THE CRIME SCENE!!!!
Why would he even care to leave the pen back in the holder.
3. The language, lenth, memo-like nature of the note all point to the writer being female. a male writer would have used harsh language, and would never

The writer of the ransom note is a woman who is most likely used to writing long detailed memo-like notes.

The killer who did this would never commit suicide unless he was caught and had to face the consequences. I am now pretty sure that the killer lived in the neighbourhood. He is a white male between 22 and 45 (at that time) and was inspired by the BTK killer. The main reason for doing it was for sexual pleasure but it was also an envy towards the Ramsey's because of their wealth. He lived in a radius of 400 meters from the Ramsey house. He can still be living there but have probably moved. He has no criminal record.

But there was not evidence of any sexual act at the crime scene. Only the fact that she was garroted, which in an of itself is not necessarily a sexual act.

Again, why would he write the ransome note on the scene.

First he's a serial killer wannabe, pluse he's a sexual deviant. AND NOW he wants vengeance on the Ramseys.

Why only kill Jon Benet? This guy could have killed the whole family and Jon himself if he wanted to?

The problem I have with all these intruder theories, is that nobody can seem to point to a specific motive. They all like Michael Helgoth seem to multi-purpose killers who want to kill for revenge, psychosis, AND sexual desire.


Again.
1. The abduction happened INSIDE the house
2. The body was found INSIDE the house
3. The garrote was made by materials INSIDE the house
4. The ransome note was written INSIDE the house.
5. The killer would have to know the layout of the INSIDE of the house.

INSIDE, INSIDE, INSIDE

1. If it was a pedophile, he would have had plenty of time to have taken Jon Benet out of the house into a van in order to fufill any multitude of sick fantasies. Yet in this case, all he gets to do is strangle her for a few seconds with the assumption that that's how he gets his kicks?

a pedophile would not be brazen to break into a house, when he could easily pose as a photographer and grab her at any of the numerous times that Jon Benet would be vulnerable while on the Beauty Pageant circuit. If you think about it, it would be relatively easy for a pedophile to snatch Jon Benet in the same fashion as it was easy to grab Nyleen Kay Marshall.

2. Kidnappers would have brought the ransom not with them and the note would be short an sweet and done in cut and paste style or it would be done over the phone. There would also be no reason to leave the note, once she was dead. They would just leave or bring the body with them , then leave the ransom note. What good does the note do you if the body is right there in the basement? How long would they think it would take to find JonBenet's body?

3. The only scenario where an intruder makes sense is where it was for vengeance against Jon Ramsey specifically. Someone who specifically knew Jon from Atlanta days and knew. Frankly, Ms. Pugh makes a far better suspect than Michael Helgoth. The problem there is that it's almost implausible that John Ramsey wouldn;t know who this person was. Unless it was a family member or a mistress. Then he;d have reason to

So in my mind there are only two possibilities here:

1. One of the family memebers (Patsy most likely)
2. A woman with a serious grudge against John Ramsey. (Kathleen Pugh, for example)

My instincts and the nature of the case point me to the former.

[TracyLynnS]

This is another one of those cases where extreme incompetence on the part of the officials involved has mucked up the case so badly that the truth will probably never be known.

Personally, I never believed that John was molesting his daughter. My first thought when I heard about the details of the case was that it was a busy and stressful time of year, and much more stressful and hectic for a perfectionist like Patsy than it would be for the rest of us.

After a late and tiring night, JonBenet wet her bed, which was not unusual for her, but after enduring a hectic few weeks of the christmas season, this was the time that Patsy snapped.

People want to use JonBenet's betwetting as proof of sexual abuse, but it's a very common symptom of milk allergy and other severe allergies. The milk allergy, especilly, will cause the bladder to almost act in a spasm-like way and eliminate. My son had this problem until he was about 10 years old. I've talked in depth about it with his urologist. The urologist had even seen cases of men who had bedwetting into young adulthood (past age 20, which really worried me that my son would suffer the same problem), and this unfortunate medical condition is unrelated to sexual abuse.

The rest of what happened the night JonBenet was killed was a cover up to keep Patsy out of jail. The incompetent officials inadvertently helped out the killer, but karma got her in the end.

To me, nothing else makes sense. Pedophiles don't write long rambling fake ransom notes with materials found in the house. Killers, kidnappers, and robbers don't dawdle around in the house for a hugely extended period of time with two adults known to be on the premises. All of those kinds of criminals get in, get what they're after, grab it, and get out.

And for the sake of argument, let's just say that a sex pervert wanted to dawdle in the house. He wanted to play pretend for a day, like it was his house and JonBenet was his personal sex toy. If that was the case, he would have killed the parents and the boy to get them out of the way so he could act out his insane fantasy.

I just don't think it's a sex killing. I think the public jumped the gun when they saw pictures of JonBenet tarted up by her mother and strutting around performing on stage, and people just assumed that her dad was sexually abusing her.

[slasherman]

2. There has been no conclusive evidence that Jon Benet was sexual assaulted at the time of the murder. No semen has been found.

I pretty sure they have evidence that she was sexually molested. I even thought they found semen but I'm not sure or maybe the police has not released information about this yet.



Again, people forget the most important piece of evidence in this case...

...the Ransom note, the ransome not, THE RANSOM NOTE!

Follow the logic chain

1. Is the letter genuine or not?
2. why would someone feel that writing this note was so important to risk writing it in the house, leaving handwriting evidence, and delay the most important activity an intruder needs to do.......LEAVE THE CRIME SCENE!!!!
Why would he even care to leave the pen back in the holder.
3. The language, lenth, memo-like nature of the note all point to the writer being female. a male writer would have used harsh language, and would never

The writer of the ransom note is a woman who is most likely used to writing long detailed memo-like notes.

I don't agree, the ransom note is not the most important piece of evidence. It's only important cause it was written by the killer not as evidence to solve the case(no fingerprints/DNA). If the killer had wrote a new letter and send it to the police or a newspaper or something like that it had been important. Just to see if it's the same hand writing and the same kind of mindset.
It's three important things you can read out of the note:
The killers state of mind. (sex, kill, torture)
The location of the killer. (living in the neighborhood)
A hate for the Ramsey's. (envy)


Why only kill Jon Benet? This guy could have killed the whole family and Jon himself if he wanted to?
That's a good question. When I say he was inspired by the BTK the only thing I mean is that he read about him and was inspired how to do the criminal act. No more than that. Remember BTK also wrote and bragged about his killing. Only different is that he send it to newspapers later.
But why only Jon Benet ? Cause he is a pedophile and maybe his plan was to take her with him. Either way his main target was Jon Benet. My theory is that it is a sick twist between sexual desire (Jon Benet) and envy towards the Ramsey's (Ransom note).


The problem I have with all these intruder theories, is that nobody can seem to point to a specific motive. They all like Michael Helgoth seem to multi-purpose killers who want to kill for revenge, psychosis, AND sexual desire.
Again; sexual desire against Jon Benet and envy towards the Ramsey's.


Again.
1. The abduction happened INSIDE the house
2. The body was found INSIDE the house
3. The garrote was made by materials INSIDE the house
4. The ransome note was written INSIDE the house.
5. The killer would have to know the layout of the INSIDE of the house.

INSIDE, INSIDE, INSIDE

1. If it was a pedophile, he would have had plenty of time to have taken Jon Benet out of the house into a van in order to fufill any multitude of sick fantasies. Yet in this case, all he gets to do is strangle her for a few seconds with the assumption that that's how he gets his kicks?

a pedophile would not be brazen to break into a house, when he could easily pose as a photographer and grab her at any of the numerous times that Jon Benet would be vulnerable while on the Beauty Pageant circuit. If you think about it, it would be relatively easy for a pedophile to snatch Jon Benet in the same fashion as it was easy to grab Nyleen Kay Marshall.

2. Kidnappers would have brought the ransom not with them and the note would be short an sweet and done in cut and paste style or it would be done over the phone. There would also be no reason to leave the note, once she was dead. They would just leave or bring the body with them , then leave the ransom note. What good does the note do you if the body is right there in the basement? How long would they think it would take to find JonBenet's body?
INSIDE emphasis my living in the neighborhood theory. Remember that case where a man living in the neighborhood raped and killed a 10 year old girl inside her own house while her parents was sleeping in the next room. The killer was caught by DNA evidence and was living just a couple of houses from the crime scene. The police first suspected the father of the girl but he was cleared by DNA. Imagine if the killer had written a ransom note in that case. And hide the girl somewhere in the house.


3. The only scenario where an intruder makes sense is where it was for vengeance against Jon Ramsey specifically. Someone who specifically knew Jon from Atlanta days and knew. Frankly, Ms. Pugh makes a far better suspect than Michael Helgoth. The problem there is that it's almost implausible that John Ramsey wouldn;t know who this person was. Unless it was a family member or a mistress. Then he;d have reason to

I really don't think the Ramsey's knew the killer. I think it was a guy living in the neighborhood who thought he knew them more than they knew him.


So in my mind there are only two possibilities here:

1. One of the family memebers (Patsy most likely)
2. A woman with a serious grudge against John Ramsey. (Kathleen Pugh, for example)

My instincts and the nature of the case point me to the former.
I disagree :rolleyes:

[TracyLynnS]

"""INSIDE emphasis my living in the neighborhood theory. Remember that case where a man living in the neighborhood raped and killed a 10 year old girl inside her own house while her parents was sleeping in the next room. The killer was caught by DNA evidence and was living just a couple of houses from the crime scene. The police first suspected the father of the girl but he was cleared by DNA. Imagine if the killer had written a ransom note in that case. And hide the girl somewhere in the house."""

I remember that case. I think the victim's name was Heather Coffin. I know the last name was Coffin, for sure. Her dad was a suspect for a while, too.

There was another case out west where the intruder raped and killed the little girl in her own room while the family slept in the house. I forgot her name, maybe Stephanie? She was about 12.

The cops came up with some convoluted theory that her 14 year old brother and his friend were acting out some satanic video game or something. They interrogated her brother, had him put in juvi forever, separated from the family, etc. What a nightmare.

It turned out some deluded drifter with a hate on for his ex girlfriend who had been going house to house in the area was the real killer.

So killing the victim inside the house while the family is home is not without precedent.

[Mastermind]

I pretty sure they have evidence that she was sexually molested. I even thought they found semen but I'm not sure or maybe the police has not released information about this yet.

There was no semen found in JonBenet's body or anywhere else. There are some examiner who believe her vagina showed some evidence of sexual molestation, but it leaned more toward prior molestation. There is NO conclusive evidence that JonBenet was sexually assualted at the time of the attack.

I don't agree, the ransom note is not the most important piece of evidence. It's only important cause it was written by the killer not as evidence to solve the case(no fingerprints/DNA). If the killer had wrote a new letter and send it to the police or a newspaper or something like that it had been important. Just to see if it's the same hand writing and the same kind of mindset.

You missed the point of the argument. The letter was written in the house. The practice note was left in the house. The marker used to write it, was placed in the exact holder it was supposed to be. If the ransom letter was real it would have been written a head of time, and would have been as important as

Writing a letter to the police to brag about a crime in the safety of your own home at your leisure is not the same as writing a letter in a house you just broke into after you killed someone and deciding to write 3 pages worth of utter nonsense.


Compare the Ransom note to the Jack the Ripper letters or Zodiacs letters. The ransom letter does not really have any venom to it other than the "Fat Cat" line,. The ransom not is consistent in that it continually mentions that it is a ransom note.

I disagree

That's a good question. When I say he was inspired by the BTK the only thing I mean is that he read about him and was inspired how to do the criminal act. No more than that. Remember BTK also wrote and bragged about his killing. Only different is that he send it to newspapers later.
But why only Jon Benet ? Cause he is a pedophile and maybe his plan was to take her with him. Either way his main target was Jon Benet. My theory is that it is a sick twist between sexual desire (Jon Benet) and envy towards the Ramsey's (Ransom note).

He's an aspiring serial killer, enemy of John Ramsey, master burgular AND a peodophile to boot?


Explanation, please.

Again; sexual desire against Jon Benet and envy towards the Ramsey's.

No conclusive evidence that Jon Benet was sexually assaulted. Garroting is not inclusively a sexual act. Mobsters garrott people all the time and not for sexual reasons.

If this was so important to the him, why didn't the bring the garrot with him? What if the Ramseys didn;t have any material to do so? How would he know that they have a paintbrush?

If he had such envy toward john Ramsey. Why not kidnap the child for real or take her body with him? He could have raped Jon benet and gotten.

A sentence for kidnapping and sexual assault is no more than for premeditated murder.

INSIDE emphasis my living in the neighborhood theory. Remember that case where a man living in the neighborhood raped and killed a 10 year old girl inside her own house while her parents was sleeping in the next room. The killer was caught by DNA evidence and was living just a couple of houses from the crime scene. The police first suspected the father of the girl but he was cleared by DNA. Imagine if the killer had written a ransom note in that case. And hide the girl somewhere in the house.

Shoving her in the basement is not exactly hiding the body. He had time to write the ransom note. he had time to carry the body through the same way he came.

In that case the body was not found INSIDE the house correct? It was found OUTSIDE of it, like in the Dowaliby case, no?

A family member would

BN

Imagine if the killer had written a ransom note in that case. And hide the girl somewhere in the house.

But he didn;t write a ransom note, which is the key to this case. There is no reason to write a 3 page ransom note at the murder scene, unless it was ABSOLUTELY necessary for this to appear as a kidnapping.

If there was no ransom note in the case, i would lean more toward an intruder, but the presence of the note (not the content, necessarily) is the big smoking gun in this case. Nobody would write the note unless it was absolutely necessary.

I really don't think the Ramsey's knew the killer. I think it was a guy living in the neighborhood who thought he knew them more than they knew him.

But you say he knows the layout of the house. Wouldn;t that mean, he;s been inside the house at least more than once? If so then they did no there killer.I guess he could be a meter reader or plumber maybe... Remember, he the killer would have to know about the passage to the basement.


So he hid his anger from the Ramseys for that long and decided that murdering Jon Benet would be his first expression of rage to the Ramsey's?

At least with Michael Helgoth and Kathleen Pugh, there was some evidence of prior confrontations with the Ramseys.

Originally Posted by Mastermind
So in my mind there are only two possibilities here:

1. One of the family memebers (Patsy most likely)
2. A woman with a serious grudge against John Ramsey. (Kathleen Pugh, for example)

My instincts and the nature of the case point me to the former.

I disagree

Elaborate please, why do you disagree? I'm not sure what is intended by the eye rolling. I hope this conversation has not a confrontational tone? I have nothing against your idea personally, and I hope you don;t as well, I just simply want to solve this mystery.:)

Question?
Why do you think the ransom note writer is a man? I

[Mastermind]

So killing the victim inside the house while the family is home is not without precedent.

Was the body found inside the house as well?

Was the murder weapon(or one of the weapons) come from the house?

I'm just asking. I don't remember the case.

[TracyLynnS]

Was the body found inside the house as well?

Was the murder weapon(or one of the weapons) come from the house?

I'm just asking. I don't remember the case.

Mastermind, in both girl's cases that I commented on above, I believe they were both found murdered in their beds.

Both homes were significantly more modest than the the Ramsey's home. Ten year old Heather Coffin was raped in her own bed, and I believed died by manual strangulation. The perp was a middle aged neighbor.

The 12 year old girl, Stephanie(?), was raped, I think, or at least sexually assaulted in some way, in her room, and was stabbed to death. (again, I'm fuzzy on the exact details in her case.) She was found murdered in her own room. I think she was stabbed (not sure) and the cops focused in on her brother's friend who had a small knife collection. No evidence was ever found on his knives, and I don't know if the murder weapon was found at the scene. The friend's knife collection was stored at his own home, and I believe, had been passed down to him as collectors items from his grandpa.

IMO, these types of cases are not the norm. You have cases like Polly Klass where the perp enters the home, does not wake the sleeping mom, kidnaps the child (in front of her friends who are awake!) and rapes and kills her.

Other examples are Joseph Duncan, who slaughtered a whole family in Idaho in order to abduct the two youngest children to rape and kill. One of the children barely survived.

Albert Fish, from the early 1900s walked right into a family's home (who were strangers to him), persuaded the parents that his granddaughter was having a birthday party and he would like to invite their young daughter to attend. He took her straight from her parents home, in broad daylight, with their blessing, and they didn't even know where she was being taken. She was dismembered and never found, IIRC.

In the chicago area (?) about 1960, a man entered the room of a six year old girl, kidnapped her while the family slept, and her body parts were found in storm drains throughout the city.

We all know about Jessica Lunsford who was abducted right out of her home by John Couey, and buried alive in his FL backyard.

Well, that's all I can think of for now, but generally, if these types are bold enough to go into the house to kidnap the kid, they don't linger. They grab the kid and go.

In the two cases where I mentioned that the killer remained in the house to rape and kill, the first one was drunk out of his mind, and the second one was mentally unstable. (Moreso than most child rapist/killers.)

[TracyLynnS]

Here's some info on how they coerced a false confession from Stephanie Crowe's brother. She's the 12 year old girl I mentioned.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

Here's a webpage on Heather Coffin.

http://www.crimeshots.com/HeatherCoffin.html

[slasherman]

There was no semen found in JonBenet's body or anywhere else. There are some examiner who believe her vagina showed some evidence of sexual molestation, but it leaned more toward prior molestation. There is NO conclusive evidence that JonBenet was sexually assualted at the time of the attack.

Remember police does not always release all their evidence. My personal meaning based on the evidence are that the killing had sexual overtones. It could be that he panicked when Jon Benet screamed that his intention was not to kill her in the cellar but to take her with him. Maybe he even did things to her after she was dead. Police would never release explicit content to the general public. But if you know for certain there was no semen found I will not argue with that. But when police say they have DNA from some unknown male I trust them on that.


You missed the point of the argument. The letter was written in the house. The practice note was left in the house. The marker used to write it, was placed in the exact holder it was supposed to be. If the ransom letter was real it would have been written a head of time, and would have been as important as

Writing a letter to the police to brag about a crime in the safety of your own home at your leisure is not the same as writing a letter in a house you just broke into after you killed someone and deciding to write 3 pages worth of utter nonsense.

Compare the Ransom note to the Jack the Ripper letters or Zodiacs letters. The ransom letter does not really have any venom to it other than the "Fat Cat" line,. The ransom not is consistent in that it continually mentions that it is a ransom note.
I think you miss the point. The letter was written BEFORE the killing when he was alone in the house for maybe several hours. The killer did not know exactly what was going to happen cause it had not happen yet. That's the different. It's like if BTK had written a note before he was going on one of his killing raid. But he did not.
BTK have said many times that he did not know what was gonna happen or who he was going to kill. He just planned a place and a certain person he wanted to have sexual experience with. So even if he planned it he was taken by surprise many times when other person's arrived or was there.
By the way many times BTK was in a house for hours BEFORE the victim arrived. BTK also used things from the house and had things with him. You don't have to be Einstein to understand that almost all houses has certain things in them like a pen and paper and millions of other things.
One time BTK said he was so bored while waiting on the victim to arrive that he just left.


He's an aspiring serial killer, enemy of John Ramsey, master burgular AND a peodophile to boot?
Explanation, please.

No he is not a serial killer. The reason I mention BTK is the killer's state of mind. I don't think he has killed before or after the Jon Benet case.
Pedophile = yes
Master burglar = probably not, he knew the house was empty
Enemy of Ramsey = just envy
He went into the cellar window cause he knew the Ramsey would return. And if he had broken a window or tried to break up a door or something The Ramsey would have noticed that. He also took a chance that it was no alarm in the cellar windows.


No conclusive evidence that Jon Benet was sexually assaulted. Garroting is not inclusively a sexual act. Mobsters garrott people all the time and not for sexual reasons.

If this was so important to the him, why didn't the bring the garrot with him? What if the Ramseys didn;t have any material to do so? How would he know that they have a paintbrush?

As to making the Garroting. That's a question only the killer know. My guess is that he did not plan to make that. Maybe he have one at home and decided to make one from what he found in the cellar. The point is he did not need one to kill Jon Benet. He could have killed her with his hands if he wanted too. But he WANTED to make and use a Garroting.


If he had such envy toward john Ramsey. Why not kidnap the child for real or take her body with him? He could have raped Jon benet and gotten.

A sentence for kidnapping and sexual assault is no more than for premeditated murder.

Like I said it's a combination of sexual lust and envy. Two very power full feelings. Instead of asking "why not" I think is more constructive to concentrate around what actually happened.


Shoving her in the basement is not exactly hiding the body. He had time to write the ransom note. he had time to carry the body through the same way he came.

In that case the body was not found INSIDE the house correct? It was found OUTSIDE of it, like in the Dowaliby case, no?

A family member would

BN

Actually this is one of the strongest argument that the Ramsey's could not have done it. If they had killed Jon Benet they would have tried to hide her better than that. These were not dumb people. All other missing children cases that I can think of where the parents are involved they have tried to hide the body. Not inside the house in a room but long away from the house or at least in a hole in the backyard.
So you think to kill your child and hide her in a room in the cellar and call the police is a plausible theory ? :confused:
Actually I think this case had taken a complete different turn if the parents have found Jon Benet before they called the police. This was the killers lucky move in a way.
As for the other case I mention, she was found INSIDE the house in her bed, even harder to pull of than in a cellar.


But he didn;t write a ransom note, which is the key to this case. There is no reason to write a 3 page ransom note at the murder scene, unless it was ABSOLUTELY necessary for this to appear as a kidnapping.

If there was no ransom note in the case, i would lean more toward an intruder, but the presence of the note (not the content, necessarily) is the big smoking gun in this case. Nobody would write the note unless it was absolutely necessary.

But you say he knows the layout of the house. Wouldn;t that mean, he;s been inside the house at least more than once? If so then they did no there killer.I guess he could be a meter reader or plumber maybe... Remember, he the killer would have to know about the passage to the basement.

So he hid his anger from the Ramseys for that long and decided that murdering Jon Benet would be his first expression of rage to the Ramsey's?

The reason is boredom. Waiting on the Ramsey's to arrive home. I don't think that was planned just something he decided to do while waiting. I would not call the BTK letters to the newspapers ABSOLUTELY necessary either. It is just something they decide to do. Nothing more or less.
In the Ramsey case I don't think the killer planned to make the parents look guilty by writing the letter. He was lucky that police thought so. I think he did it just because he was bored and wanted to do something that thrilled him. And of course make a statement of what he was going to do.
I don't think he had a strong anger against the Ramsey's. I think his fascination for Jon Benet is the core to this case. He wanted her one way or another. That is what sparked the envy towards the Ramsey's.



Elaborate please, why do you disagree? I'm not sure what is intended by the eye rolling. I hope this conversation has not a confrontational tone? I have nothing against your idea personally, and I hope you don;t as well, I just simply want to solve this mystery.:)

No no hard feelings at all. I also want to solve this mystery. I think my disagreement was pretty clear from what I had written.


Question?
Why do you think the ransom note writer is a man? I

It's not based on the letter itself. It's based on all the elements together.


Here's some info on how they coerced a false confession from Stephanie Crowe's brother. She's the 12 year old girl I mentioned.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

Here's a webpage on Heather Coffin.

http://www.crimeshots.com/HeatherCoffin.html
Thank you for posting that. If I was the investigator in the Jon Benet case I would have demanded that all the detectives had a good knowledge about these two cases. Especially the Heather Coffin case which I think is a key in how to solve the Jon Benet case.

[Mastermind]

I think you miss the point. The letter was written BEFORE the killing when he was alone in the house for maybe several hours. The killer did not know exactly what was going to happen cause it had not happen yet. That's the different. Like BTK had written a note before he was going on one of his killing raid.

Again, your tone please. Be respectful. I'm showing you respect.

That would insuniate that the intruder had no plan of action, but if he brought a stun gun, tape, bludegeon instrument with him, he had some plan before entering the house on what he was going to do which could only be to kidnap or hold Jon benet. What you would have to be saying is that while just trolling around the house waiting for the Ramsey's to return, he decides it would be a great idea to sit around and write 3 pages of a Ransom note that it would is pretty friendly by "Zodiac' standards.

If he brought the tape, bludgeon, "stun gun", etc. it means he had a degree of preperation on his part.

I also have to imagine he also has to make sure that the Ramseys don;t notice anything missing in the house. His purpose in the house would be to keep silent and make sure nobody notices him there. Writing a ransom note risks way too much

There is also the believe that if it is too intruders

As to making the Garroting. That's a question only the killer know. My guess is that he did not plan to make that. Maybe he have one at home and decided to make one from what he found in the cellar. The point is he did not need one to kill Jon Benet. He could have killed her with his hands if he wanted too. But he WANTED to make and use a Garroting.

He bashed her in the head and then decided he needed to garrote her. Or he garroted her and then bashed her in the head.

For some reason he felt that garotting her was absolutely necessary and may have done so post mortem.

This is also another important part of the case that hasn;t been answered yet, whether she was garrotted first or bludegone first. If he bashed her in the head, why would he feel the need to garrote her. Having bashed her in the head seems like good enough vengeance to me at that point. Why risk even more time.

If it is an intruder, He brought an object to bludgeon. So he had some concept of using that device.

This killer has Jonbenet all to himself. If he wants to strangle her with his hands he would do it, if he wants to cut her up into pieces he could. he would only garrot her if that was absolutely necessary to do or if he intended that at the beginning.

No he is not a serial killer. The reason I mention BTK is the killer's state of mind. I don't think he has killed before or after the Jon Benet case.
Pedophile = yes
Master burglar = probably not, he knew the house was empty
Enemy of Ramsey = just envy
He went into the cellar window cause he knew the Ramsey would return. And if he had broken a window or tried to break up a door or something The Ramsey would have noticed that. He also took a chance that it was no alarm in the cellar windows.

A lot of people have envy, it takes rage though to kill the little girl of someone. You have to be really

Aside from the "Fat Cat" line there really isn;t a lot of personal venom in the ransom note. I mean if your going to write 3 pages of a useless ransom note why not really use harsh languange and taunting like Zodiac did and really stick it

If this is personl FU to the Ramseys

The letter is way to calm and devoid of hatred for an on the spot poison pen letter to Jon Ramsey.

if he knew the Ramseys would return that would mean he knew the Ramsey's well. It would also mean he was watching the house from a car or van. To make sure

If he;s one of the neigbors he would have to have entered the house at nightfall , because he would risk the chance of being recognized as well as the risk of his wife and family wondering about his whereabouts being gone for several hours. Then returning at night with duct tape, stun gun, etc. I have to imagine he lived alone. Or his family has been tightly keeping a secret.

To me this is another thing, if he;s in the house for several hours, it means someone's whereabouts for that time has not been accounted for well into the night. If he lives alone...that would narrow done the list of suspects in the neighborhood. Wasn't that what the Police were looking at to begin with in the early stages of the investigation? Contrary to popular believe the police were looking at other suspects than the Ramseys. The biggest criteria that that length of time that a person had to be accounted for.


No no hard feelings at all. I also want to solve this mystery. I think my disagreement was pretty clear from what I had written.

It wasn;t so much what you wrote as to what you symbolized. (:rolleyes: )

[Mastermind]

I think you miss the point. The letter was written BEFORE the killing when he was alone in the house for maybe several hours. The killer did not know exactly what was going to happen cause it had not happen yet. That's the different. Like BTK had written a note before he was going on one of his killing raid.

BTK carried the note with him, he did not write it in his car or while waiting at the crime scene. He came prepared with the note to write with his own implements and and to write at his own leisure. He came prepared with the note and knew what he wanted to write.

If he was inspired by BTK I think it wouldbe a prerequiste to carry the note along with the stun gun, duct tape.

I also think he would want to make sure he knew what he wanted to say, rather than try to think up some bizzae ransom note on the spot that wander on and on.

BTK sent poems, puzzles and taunting letters. He did not send a 3 page step by step, droning explanation that Jon benet is kidnapped and this is what you have to do to get her back. Which includes a very friendly, motherly "make sure your rested". :)

If this guy wanted to taunt Jon Ramsey with a note, he would have taken great care with it and made sure he had access to books or literature that he could reference (as did Raeder and Zodiac). He could of done a nice littel poem or a vicious hate letter to him that I think would have satisfied his jollies along with killing his daughter.




As to making the Garroting. That's a question only the killer know. My guess is that he did not plan to make that. Maybe he have one at home and decided to make one from what he found in the cellar. The point is he did not need one to kill Jon Benet. He could have killed her with his hands if he wanted too. But he WANTED to make and use a Garroting.

He bashed her in the head and then decided he needed to garrote her. Or he garroted her and then bashed her in the head.

For some reason he felt that garotting her was absolutely necessary and may have done so post mortem.

This is also another important part of the case that hasn;t been answered yet, whether she was garrotted first or bludegone first. If he bashed her in the head, why would he feel the need to garrote her. Having bashed her in the head seems like good enough vengeance to me at that point. Why risk even more time.

If it is an intruder, He brought an object to bludgeon. So he had some concept of using that device.

This killer has Jonbenet all to himself. If he wants to strangle her with his hands he would do it, if he wants to cut her up into pieces he could. he would only garrot her if that was absolutely necessary to do or if he intended that at the beginning.

No he is not a serial killer. The reason I mention BTK is the killer's state of mind. I don't think he has killed before or after the Jon Benet case.
Pedophile = yes
Master burglar = probably not, he knew the house was empty
Enemy of Ramsey = just envy
He went into the cellar window cause he knew the Ramsey would return. And if he had broken a window or tried to break up a door or something The Ramsey would have noticed that. He also took a chance that it was no alarm in the cellar windows.

A lot of people have envy, it takes rage though to kill the little girl of someone. You have to be really

Aside from the "Fat Cat" line there really isn;t a lot of personal venom in the ransom note. I mean if your going to write 3 pages of a useless ransom note why not really use harsh languange and taunting like Zodiac did and really stick it John Ramsey.



The letter is way to calm and devoid of hatred for an on the spot poison pen letter to Jon Ramsey.

if he knew the Ramseys would return that would mean he knew the Ramsey's well. It would also mean he was watching the house from a car or van.

If he;s one of the neigbors he would have to have entered the house at nightfall , because he would risk the chance of being recognized as well as the risk of his wife and family wondering about his whereabouts being gone for several hours. Then returning at night with duct tape, stun gun, etc. I have to imagine he lived alone. Or his family has been tightly keeping a secret.

To me this is another thing, if he;s in the house for several hours, it means someone's whereabouts for that time has not been accounted for well into the night. If he lives alone...that would narrow done the list of suspects in the neighborhood. Wasn't that what the Police were looking at to begin with in the early stages of the investigation? Contrary to popular believe the police were looking at other suspects than the Ramseys. The biggest criteria that that length of time that a person had to be accounted for.


No no hard feelings at all. I also want to solve this mystery. I think my disagreement was pretty clear from what I had written.

It wasn;t so much what you wrote as to what you symbolized. (:rolleyes: )

[TracyLynnS]

Regarding the cops keeping back some info so as to not compromise the case, I'm almost positive that JonBenet's coroners report has been released.

A couple years ago, I read it online. There's a site dedicated to solving her murder. It's Rose something or other, I need to look it up again.

There was no semen on or in the body. They noted something called "vaginal congestion" or something. Us amateur sleuthers with no medical training were looking up what that meant in online medical dictionaries. I can't remember what it was, now.

IIRC, there wasn't difinitive evidence of prior sex abuse, no vaginal bruising or tearing. I think there was speculation that the vaginal congestion could have been caused by excessive wiping after urination. And JonBenet had a medical history that her doctor knew about regarding something like this that was not sex related.

I need to go see if I can find that site....

Okay here it is: http://www.acandyrose.com/

Scroll down the first page and click on the autopsy link for scans of the actual autopsty transcript.

[Mastermind]

There was no semen on or in the body. They noted something called "vaginal congestion" or something. Us amateur sleuthers with no medical training were looking up what that meant in online medical dictionaries. I can't remember what it was, now.

IIRC, there wasn't difinitive evidence of prior sex abuse, no vaginal bruising or tearing. I think there was speculation that the vaginal congestion could have been caused by excessive wiping after urination. And JonBenet had a medical history that her doctor knew about regarding something like this that was not sex related.

Which leads to the question as to why would the killers DNA be on the inside of her panties if she wasn;t sexually molested? Did he just grope her while garroting her? Probably not since it would have been signs of that on her vagina, Did he just take her panties of and put them back on?

1. There is a strong possibility that Jon Benet was not wearing her own panties at the time of death. There have been stories that Jon Benet would trade panties with other girls she played with (this isn;t as uncommon as it sounds). in fact Jon Benets panties were oversized. According to Patsy, she claims that she would buy oversized panties for Jon Benet.

2. A human hand still has to make underwear. A factory worker could have sneezed, cut there hand, blew their nose, spit in the panties (or worse...:( ) Such DNA would be degraded which is the similar state in which the DNA on the inside of her panties is in. Jon Benets DNA is not in the same state as the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was.

3. It;s a long shot, but that DNA could simply be that of the coroner or assistant who touched the panties upon examnination. I do remember this being the case in a couple of murder cases recently.

[TracyLynnS]

Which leads to the question as to why would the killers DNA be on the inside of her panties if she wasn;t sexually molested? Did he just grope her while garroting her? Probably not since it would have been signs of that on her vagina, Did he just take her panties of and put them back on?

1. There is a strong possibility that Jon Benet was not wearing her own panties at the time of death. There have been stories that Jon Benet would trade panties with other girls she played with (this isn;t as uncommon as it sounds). in fact Jon Benets panties were oversized. According to Patsy, she claims that she would buy oversized panties for Jon Benet.

2. A human hand still has to make underwear. A factory worker could have sneezed, cut there hand, blew their nose, spit in the panties (or worse...:( ) Such DNA would be degraded which is the similar state in which the DNA on the inside of her panties is in. Jon Benets DNA is not in the same state as the DNA in the OJ Simpson case was.

3. It;s a long shot, but that DNA could simply be that of the coroner or assistant who touched the panties upon examnination. I do remember this being the case in a couple of murder cases recently.

I don't really follow this case too closely because I pretty much made up my mind near the beginning. But when was the DNA found on her clothing? Was it near the time of death, or was it years later? If it was years later, I suspect evidence tampering on the part of the cops who botched the whole thing from the beginning.

The coroner's report states that JonBenet was wearing "long underwear" not tights.

Also her hymen was intact with a very tiny abrasion. All of her genitalia had very tiny abrasions, marks, and a pinkish fluid. I personally think this is bloody discharge or blood mixed with urine (she had wet through her panties and long underwear and the body was found in this condition with an empty bladder).

I think the pinkish fluid came from the fact that she wet the bed and Patsy went nuts by smacking, slapping, beating, or forcefully wiping Jonbenets crotch area in an outburst of rage. The defects noted at autopsty are much more consistent with such an act, rather than a forced molestation, imo.

But of course, I sure ain't no doctor, and I'm just giving my opinions on what I think happened. I know this is one of those controversial cases that really get people worked up, because we all know that he murderer could have easily been caught.

Each of us has an idea of who we think that murderer is, we want to see him/her prosecuted, and that can cause disagreements. One thing I think we all can agree on is that the investigation was botched, evidence was horribly compromised, and most of the blame for why the case has dragged on this long without resolution belongs completely on the officials.

I think there was a point where this case was solvable. But now, it will probably take one of those once in a lifetime longshot leads, or even a miracle.

[Mastermind]

I think there was a point where this case was solvable. But now, it will probably take one of those once in a lifetime longshot leads, or even a miracle.


Two biggest mistakes the made

1. They let the crime scene become compromised. Not once, but TWICE!!!. Inexcusable. :mad:

2. The cops did not interrogatethe Ramsey family memeber separately without lawyers close or near to the investigation.

They could have cleared the family members or caught them in a lie, right then. You have to wonder how Patsy and John would have reacted being put in "the box" . If Patsy was lying she would have been caught righ there an then.

Heck Burke proabably couldhave giving a mountain of evidence on his own.

[TracyLynnS]

They let the crime scene become compromised. Not once, but TWICE!!!. Inexcusable.

A couple cases botched like this come to mind. In the Dowaliby case, the cops who were sorta standing guard at the house actually stood by and watched family and friends clean the house, destroying potential evidence. The cops even watched as friends of the Dowalibys swept up the broken glass from the window that was the point of entry, and throw the broken glass in the trash.

Another one was Charlotte Pollis. Guilty ole Paul Pollis had his family over cleaning the house top to bottom. With two toddlers in the house, you'd think there'd be a mess somewhere, but even the cops said that the house was unnaturally clean. More destroyed evidence, when that house should have been treated as a crime scene, since it was the last place Charlotte was known to be alive, and it was determined that she left in her night clothes without a jacket, her purse, nothing.

Then we have Eric Tamyasu, whose murder scene was compromised by his "friend" and the sheriff himself, who burned their only real piece of evidence, which was the bed that Eric was murdered in.

Geez, you'd think that not letting outsiders tamper with a crime scene would be included in the "police training 101 class".

[slasherman]

But you say he knows the layout of the house. Wouldn;t that mean, he;s been inside the house at least more than once? If so then they did no there killer.I guess he could be a meter reader or plumber maybe... Remember, he the killer would have to know about the passage to the basement.


I never said he knew the the inside of the house. But you don't need much time even if the house was pretty big. You just have to walk through the house.

[wiseguy182]

I have given my many reasons why I think an intruder did it as opposed to the Ramseys in this thread, so I won't repeat them. they are there if anyone cares to go back and read them.

the "Ramseys did it" crowd was never convincing to me, and one of the reasons for that is that they have done too much flip-flopping. Though they seemed to have, for the most part, settled on the "Patsy wigs out over JonBenet's bedwetting theory" that was not initially the case. First they thought it was John. Then they thought it was Patsy, but weren't quite sure of the motive. Then thought it was Patsy and John together. They they thought it was Burke. Then after all of that wavering and flip-flopping, they finally settled on the Patsy/bedwetting theory

But as if the far-fetched theory of someone in the house being responsible wasn't bad enough, they would also have you believe that whoever did it (which varies depending upon who you believe) was also responsible for getting the other 2 people in the house that are still alive to 'not spill their guts' and continue on living with a murderer. Now we're heading into really far-fetched territory here.

And despite the overwhelming evidence that SCREAMS intruder, the "Ramseys did it" crowd always goes back to that one thing that they believe proves the Ramseys guilt: the ransom letter. Whenever something that seems to implicate the Ramseys turns out to be false, or is found to have come from a source like the National Enquirer, they always go back to what they believe is their failsafe: the ransom letter. They clutch onto that for dear life.

But the problem with that is this, and I think this is a significant discovery: the ransom letter is filled with a bunch of crap, but there are parts of it that are significant like this: the phrase "I advise you to be well rested." This would indicate the letter was written the DAY BEFORE the actual murder. If not, then why would John, who just slept all night and is presumably going to the bank as soon as it opens, need additional rest? I think the intruder had itended for someone to find it on Christmas night or in the middle of the night, but it wasn't found until the next morning, and by that time, the suggestion for rest is obsolete.

[Apostapler]

You're never going to convince me that the Ramseys killed their daughter. I just hope that they are vindicated at some point. It's sad that Patsy died with half the world hating her.

[Mastermind]

But the problem with that is this, and I think this is a significant discovery: the ransom letter is filled with a bunch of crap, but there are parts of it that are significant like this: the phrase "I advise you to be well rested." This would indicate the letter was written the DAY BEFORE the actual murder.

Why would he bring the pen back and place it in the holder and why would he bring the incomplete rough copy with him? If he wrote it the day before he wouldn't have cared about the incomplete copy or about using the ramsey's pen or even bringing it.

Why wouldn't he use an envelope?

Why would he feel the need to use the Ramseys own pen and paper? He already has his handwriting as evidence on the paperw, why not use his own pen and paperwork. Rather

If he stole the paper that would insinuate that he broke in possible days before the incident. did he steel a pad or just 4 sheets of paper and a marker. The Ramseys might not notice the paper missing, but they would potentially notice the marker missing from the holder. That alone could make the ramseys suspect the house was broken into.



"I advise you to be well rested." That phrase has been used as an indicator that the writer is a woman. I can't think of a single

The letter is garbage, but it also is important in that it continuosly points and tries to describe that events as being a kidnapping for profit by some organization.

And that was the notes purpose...to make the murder seem like a for profit kidnapping. It wasn't a taunt, joke or real ransom note.

Knowing that the Jon Benet is dead and that her body could be found before the ransom note was or within seconds of them finding the note...there is no benefit to staging by an intruder.

Only the Ramseys would benefit from staging.

BTW

I am actually more open on this issue than most of the people on this board.

As i said.

I believe JonBenet was either killed by a member of the Ramsey family or by an intruder (most likely female) who had a grudge against John Ramsey.

If I had to nominate a suspect it would be Linda Hoffman-Pugh who had
1. A key to the Ramsey house
2. Had asked for a loan from John Ramsey and was turned down.
3. Knew Jon Benet well
4. Changed her story several times and openly lied.
5. Knew they were leaving town.
6. The only alibis they had was her husband, who may have been an alcoholic and never slept in the same bed.
7. She could have stayed in the house as long as she wanted without arousing any suspicion.
8. Even the Ramseys themselves mentioned her as a suspect in their own book.
9. Knew exactly when the Ramseys would be back.
10. Knew the dog was gone.
11. Would know exactly that the Ramseys had
12. Could have stole stationary at any time.

Why is she not a hot suspect? because her DNA didn;t match. DNA that very well may be the DNA of an underwear factory worker.

The problem i have with so many people when discussing this case, is that they all seem hellbent on taking an inflexible position on this case.

They take it personally. Either they can;t believe the Ramseys got away with it or they are appalled that people think that they could do that to their daughter.

Politics, inflexibility and emotional attachment have wrecked this case and prevented people from finding out the real answers in this case.

Again, i lean toward the Ramseys but I am open to the intruder theory.

But if it is an intruder IMHO, it is most likely a friendly intruder with the purpose of revenge. And in all likelihood this intruder is probably a female. Or it is a team of two, male and female.

A woman in all likelihood wrote the ransom note.

[Mastermind]

IMHO,

The three most important factors in this case

1. The Ransom note

2. The fact that she was both bludgeoned and garrotted. It has not yet been determined which was done first.

3. The fact that there has been no evidence of sexual assault

The DNA could be the 4th vital piece of evidence...but what i fear is that the real killer (not necessarily Patsy) will be cleared on the basis of degraded DNA from an underwear factory worker. That is why the DNA evidence must be treated carefully. That is why I don;t think any suspect should be cleared on the DNA alone. Of course if there is a match, that changes everything.

[TracyLynnS]

2. The fact that she was both bludgeoned and garrotted. It has not yet been determined which was done first.

If she was bludgeoned first, she was not dead when the garrotte was applied. In the autopsy report, she has the petechial hemmorhaging that is consistent with strangled victims still being alive, having their blood flowing during the strangulation.

Again, this is jmo, I have no medical training.

This is making me wonder, if Patsy had a fit, and beat JonBenet over the bedwetting and only hit her in the head until she was unconscious, why finish the job by strangling her to death?

Did they think she was brain dead from the blow to the head? Did they mistakenly think they had actually killed her, and panicked, and then really killed her, when she could have been revived.

I don't know how serious the bludgeoning was. Do you? Was it a blow that would be inconsistent with life? Would it have killed her eventually?

If Patsy got mad at JonBenet over the bedwetting, I don't think she would strangle her to death over it. I think her reaction would be more to batter the child around and either purposefully or accidentally bang her head against something.

Lots and lots of strange questions about this case.

[Mastermind]

If she was bludgeoned first, she was not dead when the garrotte was applied. In the autopsy report, she has the petechial hemmorhaging that is consistent with strangled victims still being alive, having their blood flowing during the strangulation.

It makes the most sense that she was bludgeoned first, garrotted second. Especially since if it was an intruder he didn;t bring the garrotte because he never intended to use it. The garrotte had to be an improvised measure.

Which opens up the question as to why he didn't just bash her in the head to kill her?

Heck for that matter why didn;t he just use a knife to kill Jon Benet. (POSSIBLE ANSWER: because the intruder couldn;t afford to have blood on his clothes or appear to be bloodied...when going back to his home)

If he was trying to stage a sexual assualt, why write the letter claiming she was kidnapped, why not have the letter be a pedophile letter (This goes for both Ramseys DID IT and intruder theories as well)

One idea that comes to me is that the Ramseys would be less knowledgeable in criminal matters and would probably do so something like that as overkill in the staging. I mean they could have just bashed her head in and just wrote the kidnapping letter. They could have left it at that.

It would also make sense that Patsy would have less of a stomach to write a pedophile letter than a docile ransom note.

[yuppielawyer]

You are ignoring something I posted earlier regarding the the more recent DNA testing. It was previously thought that the unknown male DNA found in her underwear was such a small amount that it could have merely come from the manufacturing process. But, the newer DNA from the waistband of her tights/long underwear, where the killer would have pulled them down matched the DNA inside her underwear. The underwear and the tights were not made by the same manufacturer. That means that the DNA inside the underwear did not come from the manufacturing process, but rather from the same person that pulled those tights down. That is why the new DNA tests were so significant that they finally led the DA to clear the Ramseys. The new tests were significant and gave greater significance to the old tests. People keep ignoring that and hanging on to the canard that the DNA in the underwear could have come from the manufacturer. No, it could not have. It came from the same person who pulled down her tights--the killer.

You also keep arguing about the ransom note, and dawdling around the house. The Ramseys were gone for a long time that day. Lou Smit and the other law enforcement officers who believe strongly that an intruder killed JonBenet have always speculated that the intruder was in the house for some time, waiting for the Ramseys to return home. That person had forever to write the ransom note before the Ramseys even got there. So, believing in the intruder theory does not require a belief that the killer killed JonBenet and then hung around the house forever to write the note. Also, while some items used in the murder were from the house, some indisputably were not. The stun gun being chief among them, but not the only one. And despite someone's (can't remember who) earlier post that it was not conclusively proven it was a stun gun, every expert pathologist I have seen review the photos of the burn/injury on JonBenet has concluded it was almost certainly from a stun gun. Initially, the police had some expert who said he could not say that it was, but when he saw better, close-up photos, even he changed his opinion.

Her parents are innocent. There is not one ounce of doubt in my mind. And the vicious lies and innuendos that continue to be spread about them are a travesty.

[Mastermind]

The underwear and the tights were not made by the same manufacturer. That means that the DNA inside the underwear did not come from the manufacturing process, but rather from the same person that pulled those tights down.

Why would he pull the underwear down if he didn;t molest her?

That person had forever to write the ransom note before the Ramseys even got there. So, believing in the intruder theory does not require a belief that the killer killed JonBenet and then hung around the house forever to write the note.

But that would also mean that the killer was unaccounted for a long length of time. before the murder and after it.

This means this person would have to be alone.

Wouldn;t it also mean that he broke in during daylight? If he was someone from the neighborhood. he runs a huge risk of being spotted.

Why would he feel the need to stage this as a kidnapping?

The stun gun being chief among them, but not the only one. And despite someone's (can't remember who) earlier post that it was not conclusively proven it was a stun gun, every expert pathologist I have seen review the photos of the burn/injury on JonBenet has concluded it was almost certainly from a stun gun. Initially, the police had some expert who said he could not say that it was, but when he saw better, close-up photos, even he changed his opinion.

If he brought a stun gun, and tape that would mean that he had intentions to kidnap her. Why wouldn't he use the stun gun, instead of bashing her in the head.

Heck why not kidnap her for real?he's got her unconsious, tied up without anyone knowing. He could easily escape the same way he got in. He;s got a ransom note. At worse, he could rape and kill her any time he wanted to later and still make get vengeance on Jon Ramsey. Or he could make himself a payday.

and if he;s this prepared why not write a much more sinister and vicous letter in the comfort of his own

If he was going to molest her rather than kidnap her he would haved brought the garrote and done a lot more than just pull down her panties.

Your also assuming that he didn;t wear gloves as well. Which I find hard to believe considering that garotting can hurt bare hands as much. Also odd considering that he's about to commit breaking and entering.

He brings a stun gun, tape, bludgeon instument, but decides not to bring the ransom note, garrote, or gloves? :confused:

If this is an intruder, he's about to commit 4 acts of crime here.
1. breaking and entering
2. murder
3. sexual molestation
4. threat and intimidation by letter

This is one versatile criminal. One that I can;t believe hasn;t done at least two of these acts before.

If it;s an intruder. He's had some experience at this. The Jon Benet Ramsey murder was NOt his first act of crime.

Her parents are innocent. There is not one ounce of doubt in my mind. And the vicious lies and innuendos that continue to be spread about them are a travesty.

You did read that i was open to the intruder theory, even though i lean more toward the Ramsey Family.

Your statement kind of reflects the reason why this case hasn;t been solved,.

Too much emotional involvement. Too many people who either think the Ramseys were poor innocent people or ruthless murderers who got away.

Too much politics from both sides!!!!!!:mad:

[slasherman]

Why would he pull the underwear down if he didn;t molest her?

BTK did not rape a single victim. He was turn on by the fear of the victims. He did masturbate on some of his victims. Maybe the Jon Benet killer is impotent and get turn on by fear and violence. Either way you cant deny that the act had sexual overtones.


But that would also mean that the killer was unaccounted for a long length of time. before the murder and after it.

This means this person would have to be alone.

This is most likely but not necessarily. To bring up BTK once again :) he had a family. He was gone many times for hours. Everyone can lie about this.


Wouldn;t it also mean that he broke in during daylight? If he was someone from the neighborhood. he runs a huge risk of being spotted.

Yes everybody that breaks into a house especially during daylight take chances. But it is much more safe to break in a empty house than if a family is home.


Why would he feel the need to stage this as a kidnapping?

I have already tried to answer this. It was a combination of boredom, personal thrill and a need for a statement. But again, it was written before he killed Jon Benet so he was not sure what was going to happen.
If he really wanted it to look like a kidnapping he would have hide her much better than he did.


If he brought a stun gun, and tape that would mean that he had intentions to kidnap her. Why wouldn't he use the stun gun, instead of bashing her in the head.

Heck why not kidnap her for real?he's got her unconsious, tied up without anyone knowing. He could easily escape the same way he got in. He;s got a ransom note. At worse, he could rape and kill her any time he wanted to later and still make get vengeance on Jon Ramsey. Or he could make himself a payday.

He did use the stun gun. But he ALSO bashed her in the head.
Maybe his intention was never to kidnap Jon Benet but exactly do what he did. Get her down the cellar with help of a stun gun and torture and kill her there. It worked pretty good for his part.
BTK, again :), took a 12 year old child down in the cellar and tortured and sexually molested her there. He did not have to but he CHOOSE to.


and if he;s this prepared why not write a much more sinister and vicous letter in the comfort of his own

If he was going to molest her rather than kidnap her he would haved brought the garrote and done a lot more than just pull down her panties.


I thought it was pretty sinister especially when you know it was written before it happened. First fake a ransom note where you threatened to kill a child, then kill and torture the child before they have any chance to respond. Whats not sinister ?
And why would he have to bring a garrote ? A killer can also act on impulses even if an act is planned. Like I said he did not need the garrote at all but he choose to make one. He would have killed and torture Jon Benet either way.

[Mastermind]

I thought it was pretty sinister especially when you know it was written before it happened. First fake a ransom note where you threatened to kill a child, then kill and torture the child before they have any chance to respond. Whats not sinister ?
And why would he have to bring a garrote ? A killer can also act on impulses even if an act is planned. Like I said he did not need the garrote at all but he choose to make one. He would have killed and torture Jon Benet either way.

Somehow saying to the guy that you hate so much to be "well rested" doesn;t really seem the ultimate act of evil.

Neither does saying we respect your business.

Compare this letter to Zodiac letters, the Rachel Runnion letter and I think you'll see what i mean by this letter not being sinister.


He may have had all the time in the world to write a ransom letter, he does not however have all the time in the world to bring her in the basement and create the garrotte. Remember the Ramseys are in the house and he;s done quite a lot (not the leats of which was use a stun gun or bludgeon that could definitely created noise). He has to tend to the most important thing at some point which is to pack up his bag of goodies and escape.

The quicker thing to do would be to strangle her with his bare hands than waste time creating the garrote.

Also keep in mind that if he used a stun gun it had to have been in this order
1. Stun gun used first
2. Garrotte her second
3. Bludgeon her third.

All that points to the garroting as being the most important thing and the focus of the action.

Wasn;t that the purpose of bringing both the tape and the stun gun in the first place?


If he wrote the Ransom note it would have to be during the daylight or near a lightsource near his hiding place. (Which would have meant a light would be on in the house for outside observer to see). Or he had a flashlight with him which could have served as the bludgeon device.

If i';m correct the pages of the ransom not were found fresh as if they were torn off the page at the time they were dropped. They were not creased or folded, bloodied or smudged. (Nor did they have fingerprints). You would have to assume that he carried the pad with him in his hiding space along with the marker (which is a risk since the Ramseys could have noticed this). Now I have to assume he put the ransom note first on the stairs AND put the pen back(in the dark no less) before killing Jon Benet, since considering all the things he has to do, he could easily have forgotten the ransom note and the pen. I mean just imaging if he left the note and pen in his hidning space.

He sure brought a lot of stuff with him
1. tape
2. bludgeon device
3. stun gun
4. Knife and/or scissors to cut the tape.
5. Maybe even the notepad for the ransom note.

Not only does he have to bring Jon Benet into the basement he has to carry this junk with him too... AND carry some of this stuff with him. I have to imagine he had a bag or toolbelt with him. Only the stun gun could have been carried in a pant or coat pocket.


I have already tried to answer this. It was a combination of boredom, personal thrill and a need for a statement. But again, it was written before he killed Jon Benet so he was not sure what was going to happen.
If he really wanted it to look like a kidnapping he would have hide her much better than he did.

If hebrought a stun gun, tape and a bludgeon device and a bag to carry all that in. I think he would have had a pretty good idea what he was going to do in that house. He even chose the right day when the dog would not be there. He

I also have to imaginge he had an idea that it would be a long while if he planned to stay in the house.

I doubt he was bored. He could have been discovered at any minute and was about to committ what is probably his first murder for which he could be hanged. He had several hours to think about the rammifications of what he was about to do. I imagine he was probably sweating bullets and his hand was shaking too much to even write 3 sentences much less a three page ransom note. which creates another thing for him to worry about since he has to remember to leave this note before killing Jon Benet.


Of course if he was used to mudering people and breaking into houses, he probably is smart enough to know that just keeping quite and silent rather than risk writing a potentially damaging piece of evidence against you. What if the Ramseys noticed the pen missing and the pad? If hes that daring he could have read a book or watched TV while he waited neither would be any less revealing.

Yes everybody that breaks into a house especially during daylight take chances. But it is much more safe to break in a empty house than if a family is home.

But if he;s someone close to the Ramseys and a neighbor, he;s much more likely to be recognized walking over to the Ramseys house on the night that Jon Benet got killed. He also had to have had his car nearby the residence. Did he walk all the way from the house back to his home. Essentially a guy with a toolbelt or bag was walking late in the morning back to his house. I can;t imagine their are too many people walking at that hour in boulder.

He did use the stun gun. But he ALSO bashed her in the head.
Maybe his intention was never to kidnap Jon Benet but exactly do what he did. Get her down the cellar with help of a stun gun and torture and kill her there. It worked pretty good for his part.
BTK, again , took a 12 year old child down in the cellar and tortured and sexually molested her there. He did not have to but he CHOOSE to.

There is not evidence Jon Benet was sexually molested. (it's even questionable whether there even was a stun gun, as well)

Again as i said before, your going to have to clarify whether this guy is a pedophile, person out for vengeance or psychopath.

I serously doubt this guy suffers from all three.

It worked pretty good for his part.

This is most likely but not necessarily. To bring up BTK once again he had a family. He was gone many times for hours. Everyone can lie about this.

You do realize in every example you've brought is based on BTK? You've given no other examples such as the Dowaliby case, Caylee Anthony, or Lindberg kidnapping all of which are far more comparable to this case.

BTK killed over a large area that encompased multiple counties. BTKs family probably would never hear of the murders much less know when they happended. It;s doubtful they would even follow the case.

Jon Benet Ramseys case was the talk of the town in Boulder. Everyone knew the case. Her murder was the 9-11 of Boulder County, CO. Everyone knew where they were that day in Boulder. Everyone knew the date and the time. If someone was missing during this time, it would be noticed.


The Dowaliby case is a perfect comparison to this one. And in that case the body was found outside of the house. THAT case is most likely an intruder murder.



Everyone can lie about this.[/

Ironically you do bring up a good point. This case is ultimate going to be solved By some relative, friend or co-worker noticing somebeody was doing something bizarre on the same date that Jon Benet was killed.

That;s how Unabomber was caught. His family ratted him out.
:p

Whether the Ramseys killed her or some intruder...the reason he hasn;t been caught is that nobody has come forward to tell the truth.

This case will not be solved till somebody does.

75% of the case on UM could be solved if people would just speak up about what they know. :(

[Mastermind]

what's truly interesting about the Jon Benet Ramsey case is that if you think about:

If her body was found outside the house (like in a ditch)...for all intents and purposes it would be considered botched kidnapping for ransom. And nearly everyone would have accepted that (cops, news, media). It would be eerily similiar to the Lindberg Kidnapping.

The Ramseys probably wouldn;t be considered suspects. The kidnapping note would have been considered real with no questions to it's authenticity.

That;s all it would take. Just the simple placement of the body.

[wiseguy182]

Mastermind,

you keep stating over and over that there was no evidence of a sexual assault and use of a stun gun.

well here you go: here is the evidence

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20Body

this states that BOTH parties agreed that there was sexual assault, and that, since there was bleeding in the vaginal area, that it occured while she was alive. It also states that her hymen was torn and material consistent with shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found.

and while, the use of a stun gun cannot be 100% proved, the marks on her body are consistent with stun gun marks. That link does not mention this, but the marks are consistent with a particular type of stun gun known as an Air Taser.

[Mastermind]

this states that BOTH parties agreed that there was sexual assault, and that, since there was bleeding in the vaginal area, that it occured while she was alive. It also states that her hymen was torn and material consistent with shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found.

The site you gave me was a wikipedia site.

No offense, but Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Do you have the original site with the report, or is that in the Wiki website.

In any regards, this argument could go on forever. It's best I discuss on a site specific to the Jon Benet case. This thread could go on to 200 pages and accomplish nothing. Too many other UM cases deserve attention.

I also feel this thread could evolve to a fight eventually.

[slasherman]

Ironically you do bring up a good point. This case is ultimate going to be solved By some relative, friend or co-worker noticing somebeody was doing something bizarre on the same date that Jon Benet was killed.

That;s how Unabomber was caught. His family ratted him out.
:p

Whether the Ramseys killed her or some intruder...the reason he hasn;t been caught is that nobody has come forward to tell the truth.

This case will not be solved till somebody does.

75% of the case on UM could be solved if people would just speak up about what they know. :(
To round this up for now. You could be right that some relative find something or remember something that can crack the case. My feeling is that this is not going to happened. The only way in my view to crack this case is to DNA test every white male between 22 and 45 that lived in a radius of 400 meters of the Ramsey house at that time. Lots of hard work but it could be done. If someone has died since then you could take the DNA of relatives.

[Mastermind]

To round this up for now. You could be right that some relative find something or remember something that can crack the case. My feeling is that this is not going to happened. The only way in my view to crack this case is to DNA test every white male between 22 and 45 that lived in a radius of 400 meters of the Ramsey house at that time. Lots of hard work but it could be done. If someone has died since then you could take the DNA of relatives.

Keep in mind that people move as well. I would imagine a killer of Jon Benet would too be more than anxious to leave the area at first chance he had.

Wouldn;t you need warrants to DNA test every white male unless they agree to do so?

Would a judge really issue police officers a wide spread mandate to get DNA?

Her killer could also be in prison as well.

If it was more than one

It's also a very risky line to get DNA from relatives of a dead suspect, since there can be no conviction to begin with. The family would have to agree with this, and why would they?

Even if you could just get a massive spread of DNA samples, the cost would be astrononical. Not to mention time being taken up to do these tests would take away from more pressing murder cases. I haven;t even mentioned that doing a mass testing would increase the margin for error.

I assume you need to find a suspect first, then get probable cause , then get the judge then do the test on that one individual. No?

Clearing someone through DNA is not the same as affirming someone through DNA. If he;s cleared he still may be the killer, and someone else molestered her (an accomplice for example). Thats why most investigators use a second factor (fingerprints, writing, alibi) to clear a subject.

No, this case will be solved by someone ratting somebody out.

Either John Ramsey, Burke, an accomplice, a relative/associate of the intruder or the suspect himself.

Contrary to CSI lore, more cases get solved in the box than they do in the lab.

In a strange way, i think Burke Ramsey may hold a lot of the key to this case. Regardless of whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder. Nobody has yet to interrogate him alone without a lawyer.

[wiseguy182]

here is a link to a site where it says that the autopsy report says that JonBenet was the apparent victim of a violent forceful sexual attack minutes before her death.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

In a strange way, i think Burke Ramsey may hold a lot of the key to this case. Regardless of whether it was the Ramseys or an intruder. Nobody has yet to interrogate him alone without a lawyer.

Obviously. He was not only there that night, he lived with his parents for years thereafter. He would have seen or heard things indicating guilt or innocence that no one else not involved was privy to. Someone definitely needs to get Burke drunk and spilling his guts. Short of that, the housekeeper's theories are probably the best we have.

[Tighthead]

Obviously. He was not only there that night, he lived with his parents for years thereafter. He would have seen or heard things indicating guilt or innocence that no one else not involved was privy to. Someone definitely needs to get Burke drunk and spilling his guts. Short of that, the housekeeper's theories are probably the best we have.

What was the housekeeper's theory? I agree it would be an interesting source.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

What was the housekeeper's theory? I agree it would be an interesting source.

Basically that Patsy did it by herself, as John went to sleep after taking medicine that made him oblivious and just left Patsy to deal. She had good details to back it up.

[Mastermind]

housekeeper's theories are probably the best we have.

Agreed!.

Linda Hoffman-Pugh (i think that's her name) was the Ramseys Housekeeper
1. She had a key to the house, so she could have entered anytime she wanted. She also ran no risk of being spotted since she there would be legitimate reasons why she would be there. If the Ramseys spotted her when they came back they would assume she was there to pick up things or do some work.

2. She was very familliar with the house and Jon Benet. would know the dog was away and would know about the basement.

3. She had asked the Ramseys for a loan days before the incident. Allegedly she was angry at the rebuff.

4. $118,000 would be a large amount of money for her.

5. Her husband was an alcoholic, which could explain the reason why the kidnapping was botched.

6. The only alibi she had was from her husband, who never slept in the same bed and was drunk.

7. She was caught in three lies when the police interrogated her. She had changed her stories regarding the Ramseys several times.

8. Husband was a handyman, who also had knew the house as well. Would also have access to duct tape and be experience to break into the house. Creation of the garrote woudl be in line with a person used to creating things with his hands.

9. Would have had access to the stationary at anytime as well as the marker. Could have written the ransom note, weeks in advance if she wanted.

10. Alllegedly had said to Patsy Ramsey why "she wasn;t afraid that Jon Benet might be kidnapped?

11. would know the phrases the Ramseys liked to use in the ransom letter. she also fits one of the profiles of the ransom letter writter.

She has been cleared via the DNA evidence and apparently so was her husband.

But, It is worth mentioning that it is possible that another male assisted Linda in the action.

She and her husband were not that close, it's possible there is someone else associated with Linda that went in on this action with her.

Heck she could have simply give the keys to this guy and had him do the deed.

[Mastermind]

A very intesting point in this case, is that according to the Ramseys, they did not turn on their alarm that night.

Anyone verify that?

If that's true, how the heck would the intruder know this. Unless he had the code.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

3. She had asked the Ramseys for a loan days before the incident. Allegedly she was angry at the rebuff.

That's not what I said...or what I heard. What I heard was that Linda had a violent argument with her sister and needed money right away. Patsy had a check already made out and waiting for her, so Linda would have no reason for the kidnap except possibly extorting more money, and no reason whatsoever for torture or murder--was in fact quite shaken up by it. Patsy just grabbed at Linda's desperation for money as an excuse to turn suspicions away from herself. Linda had a lot of good details about how things were used, such as Burke's knife which had been hidden, and a blanket from an out-of-the-way clothes dryer, to stage the scene which could only have been accessed by someone in the house--and even Burke didn't know the location of the knife.

[yuppielawyer]

A couple things to point out. Even if there were no physical evidence of sexual assault, that would mean absolutely nothing about whether JonBenet were molested by her killer. Most child molestation leaves NO physical evidence whatsoever. I know this because, as a defense attorney, every damn medical expert I have ever asked in a child molestation case to explain why there is no physical evidence to support any molestation says that in the vast majority of molestation cases, there is no physical evidence of it. So, honestly, the notion that the lack of physical evidence of a sexual assault means that no sexual assault occurred simply has no basis in fact. It needs to be dropped.

As for the alarm and why it wasn't set, my understanding (and this was backed up by many people who knew the Ramseys) is that the Ramseys rarely, if ever, set their alarm. In fact, I'm not sure if it was ever even activated. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it basically came with the house, but they never used it.

Someone earlier accused me of being too emotionally involved or invested in the Ramseys' innocence and that my firm belief that they were innocent was "the reason that this case hasn't been solved." Excuse me, but that's ridiculous. My firm belief in the Ramseys' innocence is based on a thorough examination of the evidence in the case, including the male DNA inside her underwear and on the waistband of her tights, that overwhelmingly points to an intruder being responsible. Honestly, if this case had happened in a community with more experienced homicide investigators, I'm fairly confident the parents would have been cleared even sooner. As has been pointed out numerous times, the only experienced homicide investigator who worked on the case, Lou Smit, believed that the overwhelming evidence pointed to an intruder. And that was before the most recent DNA testing.

[wiseguy182]

I think one of the main reasons so many people thought that the parents were involved was that the media foucs on the OJ had started to dwindle down somewhat, and they needed a new case to mass expose, and this happened to come along at that time. And since the identity of the intruder wasn't immediatley known, people thought the Ramseys did it. Well that, and the absurd notion that the Ramseys evaded authorities. I've already talked about in this thread about the GREAT lengths the Ramseys went to to cooperate with the authorities, it's somewhere in this thread.

It should be noted that most of the people that think the Ramseys are innocent have come to that conclusion based on a thorough examination of the facts, evidence, etc, whereas most people that think the Ramseys did it do so based of speculations, theories, and things that have turned out to be exaggerations or outright lies.

And I really wish people would leave Burke Ramsey alone. not only was he quickly cleared as a supsect, but one detective, after hours upon hours of questioning him, determined that he knew "(expletive) zilch" about anything that went on that night. And that is coming from the Boulder Police, who were hellbent on the theory that someone in the house was involved, which is really saying something.

[yuppielawyer]

And I really wish people would leave Burke Ramsey alone. not only was he quickly cleared as a supsect, but one detective, after hours upon hours of questioning him, determined that he knew "(expletive) zilch" about anything that went on that night. And that is coming from the Boulder Police, who were hellbent on the theory that someone in the house was involved, which is really saying something.
I recognize there are a lot of disagreements on this case, but on this issue, I don't think any decent human being could disagree. Burke Ramsey was a child whose little sister was brutally murdered. He did not kill her, and does not know who did. He should be left alone. Period.