JonBenet Ramsey Update

[rjpalmer]

While I lean toward the ramseys

Do you remember this guy? He was a 26-year-old electrician that lived nearby and was supposedly in a dispute with the Ramseys. He is the "MJ Druitt" suspect in the case:


"Another man, Michael Helgoth, was also a prime suspect. He was a Colorado native who died shortly after the murder. But his death left more questions than answers.

"It appeared to be a suicide. And what about the stun gun discovered next to his body? Investigators believe a stun gun had been used on JonBenet.

"Prosecutor DeMuth told me this about Helgoth: "I remember that he had footwear that was consistent with the footprint evidence, he had a stun gun, he had reportedly made statements to a friend, very similar to the types of statements that we're hearing about today in the press with the arrest of John Karr." [Karr was the weirdo who confessed]

"Even more strange, a baseball cap with the letters s-b-t-c was found near Helgoth's body. Those are the same letters found in the ransom note at the Ramsey home. DeMuth says he believes Helgoth's DNA was tested and didn't match up."

--CNN, Randi Kaye, 2006.

[Abby Normal]

While I lean toward the ramseys, more than likely patsy, i dont rule out an unknown intruder. My other thought is that it had something to do with their disgruntled maid-she was recently fired, had been asking the ramseys for money and apparently had made a strange remark about JB beeing so pretty they should be afraid she might be kidnapped. also a maid might know about the 118k bonus.

but I lean to the ramseys-the rarity of a child being murdered in their own home by an intruder, with the parents being there -almost unheard of, Patsy not being able to be ruled out as writer of the ransome note, which was also written in the home on their paper, their guilty behavior after the crime,the ransome/bonus amount being the same and a biggee for me-what parent dosnt tear up every inch of their home looking for their child in that situation??? They were hoping the police or someone else would discover the body-to distance themselves from the crime-guilty behavior 101. also, when john finally discovered her dosnt rip off the garrot?!? cmon.
I think the police and detectives initial instincts were probably correct.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your reply.

I forgot to mention the overwhelming evidence that the ransom note was written by the victim's mother.

And I have never thought that she killed the girl.

In fact, I have never been convinced that the death was a murder.

Whenever someone asks, who do you think did it? my response is: who did what?

Someone caused the fracture to the girl's head, someone strangled her, and someone wrote the ransom note.

In my opinion, a different member of the family committed each act.

care to elaborate?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another question is: would a stranger have known of a location in the basement in which to hide the body that was so difficult to find that the police could not even find the body?

And why would the kidnapper hide the body rather than kidnap it?

It is inconceivable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

On the other hand, if the whole thing was an inside job, there is no such puzzle: members of the Ramsey family had to use their own pen and paper, could hardly dispose of the body without risking being spotted, and could not possibly have made the kidnappers' phone call.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The ransom note was 370 words long and we know it was written on paper from the Ramsey's home. I think we can conclude it was a murder which was meant to look like a kidnapping rather than vice versa, otherwise I would imagine the kidnapper/s would have brought the extortion letter with them.
So if it is a murder, intentionally or not IE maybe Jon Benet screamed as she was being assaulted. Would the perpetrator of such an act hang around and write a 370 page ransom demand ? And that is assuming they found the note pad and pen straight away. Plus knowing at least one other person must be in the house to watch little Jon Benet.
I am not well researched on all the other aspects of the case but this fact alone [ although not impossible ], casts doubt in my mind about the intruder theory.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The idea that a kidnapper would leave his abductee at the scene of the crime is, of course, far-fetched and nonsensical, but none of the above is necessarily insurmountable if the intruder was someone known to the family and hadn't initially planned on murdering the girl, but then covered his/her tracks by making a bungling attempt at a ransom note to make the crime look like a kidnapping. Of course, the same can be said--and has been said--of the family. However, the idea that a child botherer would enter the house and commit his vile acts then & there is also difficult to imagine, which is why most people were insistent it was an "inside" job.

If properly reported, the most damning issue with the ransom note is that it asked for a specific amount--I think it was $118,000--which was supposedly the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus that year. I don't recall if he ever confirmed this.

That wouldn't necessarily mean an 'inside job' but it would certainly mean it was someone he knew, worked in proximity to, or had access to his bank account. I suppose the defense lawyer would argue that the intruder was committing a crime of revenge--not only killing and defiling the Ramseys' daughter but also framing them for the crime. A crime whose intent was a total destruction of the family.

I would love to see the guilty party exposed and arrested; mainly for the sake of justice, but also to see which of the dogmatic pundits were correct, and which weren't. It could be another Constance Kent case, where the suspicions of the police were justified many years later--or maybe not.

Thanks for your reply.

I forgot to mention the overwhelming evidence that the ransom note was written by the victim's mother.

And I have never thought that she killed the girl.

In fact, I have never been convinced that the death was a murder.

Whenever someone asks, who do you think did it? my response is: who did what?

Someone caused the fracture to the girl's head, someone strangled her, and someone wrote the ransom note.

In my opinion, a different member of the family committed each act.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is the wrong conclusion as it is a clear-cut case of an inside job.

I have noticed on discussions on YouTube that supporters of the intruder theory studiously avoid discussing the ransom note.

I suggest the reason is that it is the key to the case.

It is not believable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

I’m not going to get involved in this debate but I couldn’t help noticing that here is yet another case that has baffled everyone and yet you claim that it’s ‘clear cut.’ I’m only surprised that the police’s various cold case teams have neglected to seek your opinion.

[rjpalmer]

I think it is the wrong conclusion as it is a clear-cut case of an inside job.

I have noticed on discussions on YouTube that supporters of the intruder theory studiously avoid discussing the ransom note.

I suggest the reason is that it is the key to the case.

It is not believable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

The idea that a kidnapper would leave his abductee at the scene of the crime is, of course, far-fetched and nonsensical, but none of the above is necessarily insurmountable if the intruder was someone known to the family and hadn't initially planned on murdering the girl, but then covered his/her tracks by making a bungling attempt at a ransom note to make the crime look like a kidnapping. Of course, the same can be said--and has been said--of the family. However, the idea that a child botherer would enter the house and commit his vile acts then & there is also difficult to imagine, which is why most people were insistent it was an "inside" job.

If properly reported, the most damning issue with the ransom note is that it asked for a specific amount--I think it was $118,000--which was supposedly the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus that year. I don't recall if he ever confirmed this.

That wouldn't necessarily mean an 'inside job' but it would certainly mean it was someone he knew, worked in proximity to, or had access to his bank account. I suppose the defense lawyer would argue that the intruder was committing a crime of revenge--not only killing and defiling the Ramseys' daughter but also framing them for the crime. A crime whose intent was a total destruction of the family.

I would love to see the guilty party exposed and arrested; mainly for the sake of justice, but also to see which of the dogmatic pundits were correct, and which weren't. It could be another Constance Kent case, where the suspicions of the police were justified many years later--or maybe not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think it is the wrong conclusion as it is a clear-cut case of an inside job.

I have noticed on discussions on YouTube that supporters of the intruder theory studiously avoid discussing the ransom note.

I suggest the reason is that it is the key to the case.

It is not believable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

[Pcdunn]

Yes; I remember hearing on the Colorado news recently that Boulder police were officially clearing the Ramsey family of all suspicion in their daughter's death.
This was treated as a very big announcement out here.
Apparently the FBI were finally allowed to use more modern DNA test methods to come to this conclusion.

[rjpalmer]

The DNA evidence Roy is referring to is so miniscule that it could not at all be said to belong to her murderer. There are a 1000 ways it could have been transferred to her clothes and such a small amount actually points away from it having come from her murderer and towards the conclusion that it's presence there is mundane in nature.

You have to disclude the DNA and look at the more reliable evidence in the case, such as the circumstances of the crime itself, the crime scene, the note, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This might revive an old debate. It's now being claimed that DNA found under the girl's fingernails and in her underwear didn't match any of the family members, nor the housekeeper, etc.

One could still argue it was unrelated contamination, perhaps, but it is also being claimed that this info was deliberately suppressed. I guess I'll wait for the book before I pass judgment.

DNA in JonBenet Ramsey case did not match parents, friends (nypost.com)

[mariab]

So sorry, Caz! I think I've posted the same thing in an older Ramsey thread...
Sincere apologies,

[caz]

This is totally weird. I could have SWORN I read all this the other day yet the post is dated early this morning.

I feel like I'm entering the Twiglet Zone.

Anyone fancy a twiglet with their pint?

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Cappucina wrote:
If you look back on who was consistently kept on a very "short leash", however, after the murder that would be Patsy. Her husband did most of the talking, and he was ALWAYS with her when she was talking to the media or the police, until the time they subpoenaed her alone, and that is when she "blew up" at the police and threw tantrums when she did not like what they were asking her...
Very astute observation, Cappucina.
As for Burke as a suspect, one year before her murder he had striken JonBenet with a golf club hard enough for Patsie to take her to a cosmetic surgeon. (Well, that's Patsy and her over the top dramatics as usual.) And John Ramsey was majorly preoccupied with his golf clubs on the day when the body was discovered. Allegedly (according to more than one witnesses) Patsie's sister came over and collected the golf clubs among other items, and off they went to Atlanta. (Did John Ramsey plan to fit a little game of golf between the funeral and the CNN interview?)
According to the circumstantial evidence EVERYONE in that family (but the stepbrother/stepsister) could be considered as a suspect, albeit with different motives. Mother: Munchausen's by proxy/fit of rage. Father: “light“ sexual abuse and suffocation games gone too far (as in “sophisticated“ incestual abuse – just imagine how sick is that!). Neglected brother: sibling rivalry or prepubescent sexual abuse. Who knows what the hell was going on inside that house, but it can't get creepier... (Just thinking about it, I'm so thankful I grew up in an economically modest household!)
And a dumb question: Does anyone know anything definite about that woman from California, Nancy something or other, who came forward to accuse Fleet White, Fleet White's father, John Ramsey, and her own grandmother of participating in alleged pedophile abuse of herself during her childhood? I assume that it turned out that this witness was a fake? She was watched over by her therapist (named Mary Bienkowski) and by an attorney named Lee Hill, who later represented John Ramsey during a lawsuit by some photographer. Real weirdness here...

Tom Wescott wrote:
What I think is creepy is to see John Ramsey dating Polly Klaas' mother. Weird.
It was not Poly Klaas's mother, it was the mother of the coed who disappeared in Aruba, Natalie Holloway or something. Seing them together is a bit creepy, but not surprising under the circumstances. It could mean that he didn't kill his daughter after all, or that he didn't INTEND to kill her. But who can say for sure?

[Roy Corduroy]

Jon Benet was wearing those clothes to a party that night. A party with several other children and people. For "touch" DNA, all that would have had to have happen is someone either a child or an adult grabbed Jonbenet about the waist, either to play or to lift her up and give her a hug. Their DNA is scrapped off on her long johns, she hugs back, then later, she goes to the bathroom removes her long johns and transfers it to her underwear.

While I find the DNA evidence interesting and it puts up a point to ponder, what happens years down the road if that DNA is identified as being from someone at the party? Are they automatically guilty of following her and murdering her?

Hi Ally,

No they are not automatically guilty of anything. In fact, if an innocent match were found, it could put the intruder theory to rest once and for all.

Roy