JonBenet Ramsey Update

[Irelandsown37]

I thought the idea of a forum was so that everyone can post their points of view/opinions without fear of being ostracized by others.

Let's face it... there are two differing camps on this horrific crime - the pro-intruder camp & the pro-Ramsey camp.

[Jonathan H]

To be 'pro-intruder' is to be 'pro-Ramsey'.

To Ally,

As usual you are projecting your contrarian/juvenile methods onto me, as I see you do to many others. I provided the counter-argument right at the start of this thread -- which nobody attempted to dispute or to debate or to debunk -- and then I did not want to subsequently add/repeat what Roy had put so well, and what I had already written.

The problem is that a) nobody reads them, and b) nobody wants to read them. Certain people want crime mysteries to be unsolved and as bizarre as possible.

Now to everybody else,

There is an Australian case which I think is relevant here in examining the unsolved Ramsey murder.

In Aug 1980, a young mother of two, named Lindy Chamberlain, had her baby snatched, and almost certainly killed, by a dingo [wild dog] whilst vacationing at a famous tourist spot in the Australian outback.

The remains of the poor child were never found.

Within two years Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby girl [her pastor husband was also convicted as an accessory after the fact] and she went to prison for life -- again pregnant, so her new baby was removed from her immediately after birth in the prison hospital.

I am sorry to say that the reaction of many Austrlians was jubiliation at the conviction. Lindy was a national pariah.

I was in a pub [bar] when the verdict was announced and the explosion of ecstatic cheering, from males and females, was as shameful and sickening a sight as I have ever witnessed.

Right from the moment the tragedy burst upon the nation, the Chamberlains were maligned as sinister, religious fruitcakes [they were Seventh Day Adventists] who came across as cold and callous [to make a 'Spin Doctor' pass out, Lindy used a mummified dingo paw to peel an orange on TV -- to show how dangerous these cuddly canines really were] and whatever their claims of innocence, or that of their fellow campers, forensic evidence does not lie.

Right ...?

In their family car was found not only human blood, but specifically fetal blood. The child's surviving garments had apparently been cut by scissors, not by an animal's fangs.

In fact everything the jury was told, who came under considerable social pressure to find the couple guilty, was wrong.

Dingo's teeth, in fact, are just like razors and the incriminating baby's blood in the car turned out to be, I kid you not, sound deadener, an artificial substance.

The prosecution also made great hay of Lindy's claim that her child, Azaria, was wearing a matinee jacket -- when none was found. Therefore, she was a liar who had -- for no known motive -- cut her child's throat!

In 1987, a British tourist died near the area, Ayer's Rock, where the baby was taken. Near his body was found, to much of the nation's drop-jaw shock, the very matinee jacket. Soon after, Lindy Chamberlain was released from prison [a pretty good movie was made of this travesty of justice starring, of all people, Meryl Streep] before even being found to have no case to answer.

It is quite simply one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's history. Most people you meet today would agree, yet there are those hold-outs, based on prejudice and not evidence, who still grumble that the 'bitch' got away with it!

A Royal Commission established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lindy Chamberlain had been the victim of a grotesque 'legal' witch-hunt and convicted on the shoddiest of shoddy forensics.

What is more, experienced Aboriginal trackers had testified, from day one, that they could clearly see the dingo tracks, dragging an object, and leading away from the family tent into the hinterland -- but then what would 'they' know?

The Chamberlain case is a compelling warning and should make us realise that caution can be a virtue; about both what we think we 'know' concerning contemporaneous murder mysteries and about throwing around heinous accusations against [still] living people in a public forum.

[Ally]

What a crock. Your excuse for not discussing the Ramsey case is you don't want to repeat anything then you trot out the Chamberlain case which is trotted out by every "intruder done it" theorist as some sort of proof that anyone who thinks the Ramseys were involved are brain dead and the victims of mass hysteria.

I am guessing you know absolutely nothing about the Ramsey case, which is why you are completely incapable of discussing it rationally or in sticking to the facts of it.

[Irelandsown37]

To be 'pro-intruder' is to be 'pro-Ramsey'.

To Ally,

As usual you are projecting your contrarian/juvenile methods onto me, as I see you do to many others. I provided the counter-argument right at the start of this thread -- which nobody attempted to dispute or to debate or to debunk -- and then I did not want to subsequently add/repeat what Roy had put so well, and what I had already written.

The problem is that a) nobody reads them, and b) nobody wants to read them. Certain people want crime mysteries to be unsolved and as bizarre as possible.

Now to everybody else,

There is an Australian case which I think is relevant here in examining the unsolved Ramsey murder.

In Aug 1980, a young mother of two, named Lindy Chamberlain, had her baby snatched, and almost certainly killed, by a dingo [wild dog] whilst vacationing at a famous tourist spot in the Australian outback.

The remains of the poor child were never found.

Within two years Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby girl [her pastor husband was also convicted as an accessory after the fact] and she went to prison for life -- again pregnant, so her new baby was removed from her immediately after birth in the prison hospital.

I am sorry to say that the reaction of many Austrlians was jubiliation at the conviction. Lindy was a national pariah.

I was in a pub [bar] when the verdict was announced and the explosion of ecstatic cheering, from males and females, was as shameful and sickening a sight as I have ever witnessed.

Right from the moment the tragedy burst upon the nation, the Chamberlains were maligned as sinister, religious fruitcakes [they were Seventh Day Adventists] who came across as cold and callous [to make a 'Spin Doctor' pass out, Lindy used a mummified dingo paw to peel an orange on TV -- to show how dangerous these cuddly canines really were] and whatever their claims of innocence, or that of their fellow campers, forensic evidence does not lie.

Right ...?

In their family car was found not only human blood, but specifically fetal blood. The child's surviving garments had apparently been cut by scissors, not by an animal's fangs.

In fact everything the jury was told, who came under considerable social pressure to find the couple guilty, was wrong.

Dingo's teeth, in fact, are just like razors and the incriminating baby's blood in the car turned out to be, I kid you not, sound deadener, an artificial substance.

The prosecution also made great hay of Lindy's claim that her child, Azaria, was wearing a matinee jacket -- when none was found. Therefore, she was a liar who had -- for no known motive -- cut her child's throat!

In 1987, a British tourist died near the area, Ayer's Rock, where the baby was taken. Near his body was found, to much of the nation's drop-jaw shock, the very matinee jacket. Soon after, Lindy Chamberlain was released from prison [a pretty good movie was made of this travesty of justice starring, of all people, Meryl Streep] before even being found to have no case to answer.

It is quite simply one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's history. Most people you meet today would agree, yet there are those hold-outs, based on prejudice and not evidence, who still grumble that the 'bitch' got away with it!

A Royal Commission established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lindy Chamberlain had been the victim of a grotesque 'legal' witch-hunt and convicted on the shoddiest of shoddy forensics.

What is more, experienced Aboriginal trackers had testified, from day one, that they could clearly see the dingo tracks, dragging an object, and leading away from the family tent into the hinterland -- but then what would 'they' know?

The Chamberlain case is a compelling warning and should make us realise that caution can be a virtue; about both what we think we 'know' concerning contemporaneous murder mysteries and about throwing around heinous accusations against [still] living people in a public forum.

Surely even you know what I meant, but I will spell it out anyway...
pro-Ramsey - as in they did it.
pro-intruder - I'll leave you to figure this part out.

[cappuccina]

In the Ramsey case, Patsy was the dingo; that's the problem...

[The Good Michael]

It seems to me that Burke was the dingo and the only way to ensure that there'd be at least one child in the family that could grow up and lead a normal life, was for the mother dingo to write a really bad ransom note.

Cheers,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Michael,

As I mentioned before, I personally consider that a possibility, but a less than likely one. My reasons for this are that the blows to JonBenet's head were made with more force than a slight boy of 10 would be likely to muster. Also, he went back in school relatively quickly, and I wonder if his parents would have allowed this if Burke possessed much or any knowledge of the murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[cappuccina]

I agree with you Tom; Burke was small and slender for his age, and not a "jock".

Severl forensic experts agreed that the force of the blows as well as planned coverup of the crime were very "adult" in nature....(intensity of the blows and the type of coverup staged, etc.).

Burke went back to school almost imediately; there is no way this would have happend if he had committed this crime.

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 wsa 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...

[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

[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?

[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]

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

[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)

[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.

[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.