JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[DirectorDave]

Interesting article on Laura Richards who presents this programme and also did Channel 5's "Jack the Ripper: The First Serial Killer".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3489626/Anti-stalking-charity-boss-told-weren-t-stalked-colleague-faces-claims-overstated-role-Milly-Dowler-case.html

[GUT]

I will be interested in the enhancement of the initial 911 call.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for the link, Director Dave. She sounds more like a behavior analyst with criminal tendencies. Things too hot in the UK, so she is coming over here for a spell? Good grief!

[Ginger]

Yet-- if she died elsewhere and was carried to the basement room for the intruder staging, why was no evidence found anywhere in the house?

That keeps bothering me. She wet her panties at some point, and apparently copiously (they're usually described as "soaked"). That implies a reasonably full bladder. If she didn't wet her bed, then I'm guessing it happened either just after waking, or else when she just couldn't hold it anymore.

In either case, why wasn't a urine stain found anywhere? Did the police not test for one? (I hate to think that's the answer, but from everything I've read about this case...) If they did, then what? Was someone busy with the carpet steamer at three in the morning?* Did she wet herself standing in the bathtub, or sitting on the toilet? Both seem bizarre scenaria, but if it really was a sexually-motivated murder by an intruder, there's a tiny chance. Lastly, if she got to the basement dry, then wet herself there, was there perhaps a floor drain, shower enclosure, etc, there? Even then, I'd expect a detectable stain. Was she taken outside at some point?

And what of the tights? Most people seem to agree that they were much less stained than her panties. It's hard to draw any other conclusion but that they were put on after she'd wet. Why? If an intruder put them on, then he either had to have done it upstairs, or returned to her room to get them (leaving the child uncontrolled while he did so), or have brought them to the basement with him the first time.


* Considering when it happened, I very much doubt if they had the type of modern electric metre that would record wattage vs. time, which is a pity.

[louisa]

The bladder has been known to empty on the point of death, and a huge blow to the skull could have caused the bladder to empty.



PCDunn - thanks for that link.

[Abby Normal]

That keeps bothering me. She wet her panties at some point, and apparently copiously (they're usually described as "soaked"). That implies a reasonably full bladder. If she didn't wet her bed, then I'm guessing it happened either just after waking, or else when she just couldn't hold it anymore.

In either case, why wasn't a urine stain found anywhere? Did the police not test for one? (I hate to think that's the answer, but from everything I've read about this case...) If they did, then what? Was someone busy with the carpet steamer at three in the morning?* Did she wet herself standing in the bathtub, or sitting on the toilet? Both seem bizarre scenaria, but if it really was a sexually-motivated murder by an intruder, there's a tiny chance. Lastly, if she got to the basement dry, then wet herself there, was there perhaps a floor drain, shower enclosure, etc, there? Even then, I'd expect a detectable stain. Was she taken outside at some point?

And what of the tights? Most people seem to agree that they were much less stained than her panties. It's hard to draw any other conclusion but that they were put on after she'd wet. Why? If an intruder put them on, then he either had to have done it upstairs, or returned to her room to get them (leaving the child uncontrolled while he did so), or have brought them to the basement with him the first time.


* Considering when it happened, I very much doubt if they had the type of modern electric metre that would record wattage vs. time, which is a pity.

I believe a blanket from her bed was found in the washing machine by her bedroom. I don't know if it was urine stained or had been washed.
If anyone knows-please chime in.

[Abby Normal]

The bladder has been known to empty on the point of death, and a huge blow to the skull could have caused the bladder to empty.



PCDunn - thanks for that link.

or fear

[sdreid]

My guess is CBS wants the Ramsey's to sue them so they can subject both Burke and John to deposition then put them on the witness stand.

[louisa]

Yes, possibly. I hope that happens.

It's a pity that Patsy isn't still alive. I would have liked to have seen her get what she deserved.

[Wickerman]

An interesting coincidence happened about nine months after the JonBenet murder. A few blocks away a mother was awakened in the night by her young daughters screams, as she passed down the hall a man rushed passed her dressed in black, and out the front door.
The girl had been sexually assaulted in her room while she lay in bed.

The man was never caught, and the Boulder Police dismissed this incident as unrelated to the Ramsey murder.

[Wickerman]

I'm not buying it until I hear more confirmation other dr Phil show! DNA under the fingernails that match the other two DNA samples from her panties and leggings would be overwhelming evidence for the intruder theory and I think it would be much more well known if that was case.

I just had to find this bit on the show.
This Dr. Phil Show is just Phil McGraw interviewing Burke on a set with no audience. As the subject matter of the interview changes we see inserts of statements by officials likely taken from other documentary shows.

One official, an FBI Profiler, Candice DeLong, is making a statement about the contents of the autopsy and the skin found beneath the fingernails.

"One of the most important findings in the autopsy was the DNA found underneath her fingernails. When murder victims are being attacked they generally claw at their offender, and that's what JonBenet did."

[Narrator: (The autopsy report)...shows that tiny amounts of DNA were found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear. And, that DNA did not match John, Patsy, or anyone in the Ramsey family. The police at the time were not convinced that the DNA found at the scene belonged to the killer.]

Other officials stated that the DNA in her underwear was male, and likely from saliva.

Months after the murder (Oct. 1997) the waist band of her leggings was tested by the 'touch-DNA' method, by an independent facility, they found this DNA also did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family, but it did match the previous DNA samples found in this case.

No distinction was made between the three sources of DNA by any of the officials commenting on the subject, only that the DNA evidence (collectively) indicated the presence of an unknown male.

[Wickerman]

I will be interested in the enhancement of the initial 911 call.

I couldn't hear what they claimed to hear, too much background noise, even when enhanced.
There was a lot of guesses being offered by all taking part. No-one can draw a definite conclusion, though some might assert otherwise.

[GUT]

I couldn't hear what they claimed to hear, too much background noise, even when enhanced.
There was a lot of guesses being offered by all taking part. No-one can draw a definite conclusion, though some might assert otherwise.

Thanks mate.

[DirectorDave]

I've just watched the 2-part documentary. I don't have a great interest in true crime and this crime in particular I would avoid as no doubt it comes with pictures of young girls parading in makeup in front of adults that quite frankly makes me want to retch.

Before seeing this program what I knew of the case was a young girl who performed in pageants was found strangled in the basement of their house, an intruder was proposed yet the parents were suspected. I knew years later DNA was found that seemed to exonerate the parents and support the intruder theory.

I think beyond reasonable doubt the death of JeanBenet was caused by someone in the home, the ransom letter part of a cover-up attempt, the torch was what caused the skull fracture and the police and DA failed miserably in their attempt to solve this case.

The deciphering of what was said when the phone was put down is problematic imo. The 911 operator at the time, the sound engineer and Richards/Clemente interpreted hearing different verbatim. Think how easy it is to mishear song lyrics, you can think for years it's one thing but when someone tells you the real lyric you can then and only then hear it. Like seeing faces in random patterns I think the mind "fills in the gaps". The most I think that we can accurately ascertain is a few consonants and count the syllables.

The timing of the letter writing was interesting 20-odd minutes to just copy it down, thinking what to write you could perhaps double it and added to that the "practice letters". The idea that an intruder did this with pen and paper from the home then replaced both the pad and pen? There is nothing "reasonable" about this hypothesis, it quite frankly nuts.

If this was done by someone in the house, given they would have to in someway disguise their handwriting would mean this letter would perhaps take hours to construct...they had the time to do it.

The torch, possibly a gift from John Ramsey's older son, not claimed by the Ramsey's or the police and no fingerprints on the torch or even more importantly the batteries...this is the instrument that cracked the skull and was cleaned afterwards, batteries and all.

When I was a kid, my biggest use of a torch was to read in bed without my parents knowing I was awake, I can also recall using a torch to sneak downstairs for a midnight feast. I think a torch is of more use to a child than an adult and I don't remember a torch just lying about without reason, it would be in a cupboard or hidden under my bed.

Would a parent use a torch to check on a child, perhaps to avoid putting on a light, perhaps to check for bed-wetting? I think it's a possibility.

The two marks on the body were not left by a taser the suggestion that it was the train track has merit, but there must surely be other possible explanations.

I don't think they have proved Burke's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and I don't believe they have in anyway proven Pasty could not have struck the fatal blow...they have imo proved that the parents were involved in the cover-up and at least one wrote the ransom note. They have not proved Burke definitely did it, or even probably did it but I think they have revealed that Burke might have did it.

I think this little girl deserves justice, I think with the correct focus and personnel this case can still be solved and any cloud of suspicion that hangs over innocent people in this case lifted.

[GUT]

G'day Dave

But if you haven't followed the case and they slanted the documentary that way, you reached the conclusion one would expect.

A bit like someone who has never looked at JtR in any detail, they read one suspect book, or view one suspect video and are convinced it is right, because that's what is being sold.