JonBenet Ramsey Update

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey Tom,
I would love to hear your thoughts on the case as you seem to be knowledgeable about it and I don't know a great deal about it.
Thanks,
Jordan

Hi Jordan, good to hear from you. You're correct in that I do know a lot about the case, unfortunately it's probably more than Roy or Jonathan would want to hear, so I think I'm going to lay low on this one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Well, I cannot make a comparison;

there are still people, who believe in the intruder-story of Jeff McDonald (The Fatal Vision case!)

All the best
Jukka

[Ally]

The problem I have with this is that there are so many logical contradictions involved in an intruder theory.

If there was an intruder, and he planned to kidnap her, as evidenced by him sitting in the Ramsey home for several hours, drafting a couple of ransom notes, why didn't he just take her and go out the front door with her? Why take her back down into the basement, where there was no exit, (not while having to push/shove a child through a window above your head) when he could have just walked out a door on the main level?

If the intruder didn't ever plan to kidnap her, just drag her to the basement and assault her there, why did he spend all that time drafting a kidnap note?

It just makes no sense at all. And while I completely understand that human behavior often defies sense, either way, the intruder, for being supposedly rational enough to stake out and wait cool-bloodedly in a home for hours, while the parents are away, while the parents come home prepare for bed, drafting and revising ransom notes, to then just completely go unhinged? Doesn't make sense.

[sdreid]

Perhaps it was an intruder but the Ramseys were stupid if they thought they could refuse to take an FBI polygraph and that people wouldn't think otherwise.

The problem with the intruder theory is that none of it really makes any sense unlike the a Ramsey did it theory.

[kensei]

With some dread, the JonBenet case makes me wonder if in all but a few glaringly obvious cases, we can never be 100% certain about the conclusion of a murder investigation.

[Jonathan H]

Right on cue ...

Prepare to be white-anted, Roy.

[Irelandsown37]

Hi Irelands' Own and welcome to the discussion group.

If those items were rebutted or other evidence developed it did not lead to a murder indictment after the grand jury met in in 1999.



There was unidentified DNA on the underparts the police already had. This is new DNA, found on another piece of clothing she was also wearing at the time, the longjohns, which is long thermal underwear.

Quoting the press release by the District Attorney's office:

"The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."

From the press release (click here)

Again, welcome,

Roy

Thank-you, Roy, for the welcome and for the DNA clarification. I have only read one book on this case thus far, but admit to being fascinated by it. I do find one thing very strange in this case... Apparently Patsy found JonBenet's bedroom door closed that morning - I find it curious someone would take the time to close her door while trying to carry a sleeping/stun-gunned child in their arms. The intruder may have gone back to her room and closed the door after, but how much time would they be willing to spend walking around undetected by sleeping parents?

You also mentioned there was evidence the intruder came through a window and walked through the room where JonBenet was found... after looking at crime scene pictures I thought that little windowless wine cellar room was in a remote corner of the basement and fairly hidden from the alleged window with the suitcase under it. Please correct me if this is not accurate.

Thanks again for the welcome.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Irelands' Own and welcome to the discussion group.

If those items were rebutted or other evidence developed it did not lead to a murder indictment after the grand jury met in in 1999.

The mystery DNA in JonBenet's underpants could have gotten there at any time, not just on the night of the murder.

There was unidentified DNA on the underparts the police already had. This is new DNA, found on another piece of clothing she was also wearing at the time, the longjohns, which is long thermal underwear.

Quoting the press release by the District Attorney's office:

"The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confidant that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful."

From the press release (click here)

Again, welcome,

Roy

[Irelandsown37]

I agree with Judge Carnes because she looked at the evidence.

Carnes' order also lists a series of largely uncontested facts that suggest an intruder entered the Ramsey home and murdered JonBenét. Among them:

• At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenét disappeared. The alarm was off and windows were accessible from the ground level, including three that opened into the basement.

• Evidence suggested that an intruder climbed through a basement window and walked through the room where JonBenét was found.

• JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

• Black duct tape found on JonBenét's mouth was never found in the Ramsey home, although evidence suggested "it came from a roll of tape that had been used before."

• Nothing in the Ramsey home matched dark animal hairs found on the duct tape and JonBenét's hands.

• Newly made, unidentified shoeprints, including one with a HI-TEC brand mark, were found on the basement floor. None of the Ramseys' shoes matched those prints.

• A palm print on the wine-cellar door where JonBenét's body was found does not match the Ramseys' palm prints and has never been identified.

• A baseball bat found outside the house with fibers consistent with fibers found on the carpet in the basement where JonBenét's body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

• Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét's body, the paintbrush used as a garrote, the duct tape and the ligature around her neck did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

• Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her underwear does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been identified yet.

• A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist. The Ramseys swore they had never owned or operated a stun gun and none was found in their home.

And this was before the touch DNA test in 2008.

The Ramseys are eliminated as suspects by the physical evidence.

ps Jonathan our posts crossed. Yes I agree with you.

Roy

Interesting that Detective Trujillo's book provides a rebuttal for every point you listed here, except for the baseball bat which wasn't mentioned.

The police found a hardware store receipt dated shortly before the murder. While it wasn't itemized it did show two items bought - their investigation showed the store carried the exact same rope and duct tape, and when bought together, came to the exact amount of the receipt in Patsy's purse.

Everyone says John couldn't have made those knots, but didn't he serve in the military/air force?

The mystery DNA in JonBenet's underpants could have gotten there at any time, not just on the night of the murder.

There is a website who's mebers are all female lawyers/judges... womeninlaw.com or something like it. I remember reading a particular blog where they were all applauding Mary Lacy resigning as the DA - apparently she wasn't too bright.

[tji]

Hi all

I think it will be a long time before we get the answers we need - if ever.

For me I seem to come to a conclusion that there was an intruder,:-

Who would use a stun gun on their own daughter/sister, they wouldn't need to.

The unknown DNA found in JonBenets underwear

A little girl from JonBenets dance class was sexually abused in her home in similar circumstances, her mother woke up and scared off the intruder.

Burke was interviewed for 6 hours after the killing - they were happy he told the truth

However you then have to weigh in what her parents said:-

The note was known to be from a notepad in the Ramsey household

While John was eliminated from having write the note Patsy could not be.

Burke was heard in the background of the Police 911 call yet Patsy said she did not wake him till the Police arrived

The mystery of the pineapple - why say she hadn't eaten any when there was proof that she did. You don't lie unless you are guilty of something, especially under them circumsatances.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Johathan!

Using common sense is not a Buff mentality!

Besides; we only know, what we read about this case. Thus we have no right to make any definite conclusions, only ifs and maybes. Whether we think, if the Ramseys did it or not!

All the best
Jukka

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

It's up to you, but my advice is don't waste your time trying to convince those here who are Buffs, because it is never about facts, or multiple interpretations of ambiguous data, let alone common sense.

It's pointless, mate. The Buff mentality is a bastard, psychological hybrid: free-wheeling fantasy fused with the most rigid dogmatism.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Roy!

Sorry, but I can't help acting as a kind of devil's advocate here.

So; I'd like the see the pro-Ramsey-people's list of evidence too, only for a comparison!

All the best
Jukka

[ChainzCooper]

Hey Tom,
I would love to hear your thoughts on the case as you seem to be knowledgeable about it and I don't know a great deal about it.
Thanks,
Jordan

[Tom_Wescott]

LOL. You guys are funny.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott