JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

Hi wick.
I would be remiss if I didn't say I agree with you that the police bungled the case. They did big time, especially in the beginning.

And I also agree with you about the sexual assault. The evidence points to it, staged or not. But IMHO leaning more towards an outside intruder. I do think in all liklihood she was assaulted with The paintbrush handle to the genital area. Hence the unknown DNA on panties and leggings, blood spots and possible inflammation to the area caused by it.

Thanks Abby, some D.N.A. issues do concern me:
- First the claim D.N.A. was found beneath her fingernails, though her fingernails were cut (Autopsy report, bottom of pg.9), and sent to the Boulder Police, I have not seen where these samples were sent away for testing and the subsequent report.

- Second, the autopsy report mentioned petechial hemorrhage on her neck just above the ligature mark, though not described as fingernail marks, yet the photograph does show half-moon marks consistent with fingernail scratching - I would have thought the Pathologist would have made the suggestion "consistent with....".
If JonBenet did scratch her neck, and if D.N.A. was found beneath her fingernails - the obvious conclusion would be that it was her D.N.A. - yet the published account of this test says the D.N.A. found did not match anyone in the family, which, if it was her own D.N.A., then it would. Where is the original report?

- Third, throughout the whole crime scene there is no trace of 'outsider' fingerprints in the house, not on the pen, flashlight, duct tape, paintbrush handle, window frame/glass/sill, suitcase, etc.

Did he/they wear gloves?
Which then raises the subsequent issue of the 'touch DNA' discovered a decade later on the waist band of her leggings.
How come trace D.N.A. is found there, yet not anywhere else? Which raises the question did he remove his gloves and leave skin cells on either side of the waist band when he removed her leggings?

Or, is it simply a case that D.N.A. testing has become much more sensitive today and can be retrieved from the smallest cells, which was not possible in 1997? If so, then perhaps the killer touched his own skin with the gloved hand, wiped his brow, or rolled his sleeves up, thereby getting his own skin cells on the fingers of the gloves which transferred to the waist band?

There are a number of niggling details not clearly explained by any theory as yet.

[louisa]

Am I missing something here?

I have to say that it's a strange kind of sexual assault - for a lust filled pervert, now alone with his desired prey - to take a thin artist's paintbrush and insert it into the child's vagina. What king of thrill would somebody get from that?

This is why I say it was staged, a 'token' genital interferring-with, if you like, by somebody who wanted people to think it was a sexually motivated murder.


Changing the subject slightly.....

The more I think about Burke the more it seems likely that he did, in fact, kill JonBenet.

Just supposing.......just supposing he was horribly jealous of his little sister. She was getting the lion's share of the attention, all the praise while he was being overlooked. Would it have affected him? A feeling of not being loved as much as his sister, maybe? Perhaps he truly hated her but kept it inside.

Little boys can be aggressive, more so than girls. Could it be that Christmas night Burke decided to play a game that got rid of JonBenet forever? Perhaps unintentionally at first.

I believe that it was Burke who took the pineapple from the fridge, after the parents had gone to bed. He and JonBenet both ate some.

Then somehow during one of their games (maybe with one of Burke's new Christmas toys) JonBenet got her skull crushed. Accidentally.

And here's the part I hadn't considered before, but it seems a possibility.....

Burke then took the cord and pulled it tight around her neck. At this time he was trying to make sure she wouldn't wake up - ever! She would never be a nuisance to him again. The cord wasn't tight enough so he decided to use a stick, as he may have seen in war magazines. He would have made a couple of attempts before he saw that she was no longer breathing.

I believe a 10 year old boy could do this.

[Wickerman]

Am I missing something here?

I have to say that it's a strange kind of sexual assault - for a lust filled pervert, now alone with his desired prey - to take a thin artist's paintbrush and insert it into the child's vagina. What king of thrill would somebody get from that?

Are you serious???
Hundreds of cases include blunt objects rammed into the vagina.
May I remind you this is a Jack the Ripper site, ....have you forgotten how Emma Smith met her death at the hands of some youths..?

"......where they beat, raped, and viciously jabbed a blunt object into her vagina, tearing the perineum."

Changing the subject slightly.....

The more I think about Burke the more it seems likely that he did, in fact, kill JonBenet.

Just supposing.......just supposing he was horribly jealous of his little sister. She was getting the lion's share of the attention, all the praise while he was being overlooked. Would it have affected him? A feeling of not being loved as much as his sister, maybe? Perhaps he truly hated her but kept it inside.

Little boys can be aggressive, more so than girls. Could it be that Christmas night Burke decided to play a game that got rid of JonBenet forever? Perhaps unintentionally at first.

I believe that it was Burke who took the pineapple from the fridge, after the parents had gone to bed. He and JonBenet both ate some.

Then somehow during one of their games (maybe with one of Burke's new Christmas toys) JonBenet got her skull crushed. Accidentally.

Pretty close to my suspicions, which I held for most of these 20 years, but I also admit I never took more than a passing interest in the case - I held the conclusion as so obvious I couldn't be bothered to read up on it - my mistake.

And here's the part I hadn't considered before, but it seems a possibility.....

Burke then took the cord and pulled it tight around her neck. At this time he was trying to make sure she wouldn't wake up - ever! She would never be a nuisance to him again. The cord wasn't tight enough so he decided to use a stick, as he may have seen in war magazines. He would have made a couple of attempts before he saw that she was no longer breathing.

I believe a 10 year old boy could do this.

Have you heard of anyone suggesting a 9 year old could make such an intricate device, and carry out this crime, while at the same time leave 'foreign' DNA on her body?

There is also the issue of the voices overheard after Patsy thought she hung up the phone, the recording was said to be enhanced. I wasn't aware the enhancement was not by a legitimate lab.
Other sources have pointed out that legitimate audio Labs have enhanced the tape and found nothing but background noise, they emphasize no voices were detectable on the tape.
As Abby reminded us, we should all play Beatles records backwards and compare what 'voices' we 'believe' we can hear

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Abby, some D.N.A. issues do concern me:
- First the claim D.N.A. was found beneath her fingernails, though her fingernails were cut (Autopsy report, bottom of pg.9), and sent to the Boulder Police, I have not seen where these samples were sent away for testing and the subsequent report.

- Second, the autopsy report mentioned petechial hemorrhage on her neck just above the ligature mark, though not described as fingernail marks, yet the photograph does show half-moon marks consistent with fingernail scratching - I would have thought the Pathologist would have made the suggestion "consistent with....".
If JonBenet did scratch her neck, and if D.N.A. was found beneath her fingernails - the obvious conclusion would be that it was her D.N.A. - yet the published account of this test says the D.N.A. found did not match anyone in the family, which, if it was her own D.N.A., then it would. Where is the original report?

- Third, throughout the whole crime scene there is no trace of 'outsider' fingerprints in the house, not on the pen, flashlight, duct tape, paintbrush handle, window frame/glass/sill, suitcase, etc.

Did he/they wear gloves?
Which then raises the subsequent issue of the 'touch DNA' discovered a decade later on the waist band of her leggings.
How come trace D.N.A. is found there, yet not anywhere else? Which raises the question did he remove his gloves and leave skin cells on either side of the waist band when he removed her leggings?

Or, is it simply a case that D.N.A. testing has become much more sensitive today and can be retrieved from the smallest cells, which was not possible in 1997? If so, then perhaps the killer touched his own skin with the gloved hand, wiped his brow, or rolled his sleeves up, thereby getting his own skin cells on the fingers of the gloves which transferred to the waist band?

There are a number of niggling details not clearly explained by any theory as yet.

Hi wick
I think if it was an intruder he wore latex gloves hence no trace of fingerprints and if the touch DNA on Jon benet was his it simply came from a different part of his body and or got transferred onto his gloves as you say.

I've never been to impressed by the claims of DNA under the nails, nor the claims of her scratching herself on the neck to pull on the garrot.It's all too nebulous.

[Abby Normal]

Are you serious???
Hundreds of cases include blunt objects rammed into the vagina.
May I remind you this is a Jack the Ripper site, ....have you forgotten how Emma Smith met her death at the hands of some youths..?

"......where they beat, raped, and viciously jabbed a blunt object into her vagina, tearing the perineum."




Pretty close to my suspicions, which I held for most of these 20 years, but I also admit I never took more than a passing interest in the case - I held the conclusion as so obvious I couldn't be bothered to read up on it - my mistake.



Have you heard of anyone suggesting a 9 year old could make such an intricate device, and carry out this crime, while at the same time leave 'foreign' DNA on her body?

There is also the issue of the voices overheard after Patsy thought she hung up the phone, the recording was said to be enhanced. I wasn't aware the enhancement was not by a legitimate lab.
Other sources have pointed out that legitimate audio Labs have enhanced the tape and found nothing but background noise, they emphasize no voices were detectable on the tape.
As Abby reminded us, we should all play Beatles records backwards and compare what 'voices' we 'believe' we can hear

But that being said as I mentioned before, the 911 operator said she thought she heard pasty say in a cold monotone voice after she thought she hung up something along the lines of OK we've called police now what. She said her drastic change of tone of voice from frantic to calm struck her as very odd and that she thought patsy was faking the original panic.

[louisa]

Hundreds of cases include blunt objects rammed into the vagina.

Yes, but an artist's painbrush is a thin and fine item. It wasn't 'rammed' but inserted. There is a big difference.

Have you heard of anyone suggesting a 9 year old could make such an intricate device, and carry out this crime, while at the same time leave 'foreign' DNA on her body?

This garrott was NOT an intricate device but a piece of cord and a broken end of an artist's paintbrush.

Just because nobody has ever heard of a 9 year old doing this before does not mean Burke Ramsey was incapable of it.

Try taking those blinkers off.

There is also the issue of the voices overheard after Patsy thought she hung up the phone, the recording was said to be enhanced. I wasn't aware the enhancement was not by a legitimate lab.
Other sources have pointed out that legitimate audio Labs have enhanced the tape and found nothing but background noise, they emphasize no voices were detectable on the tape.

The FBI analysed the recording and can probably hear the background sounds A LOT more clearly than we can hear it on our computer speakers. I think that the FBI may have given the tape to NASA to see if they could make it clearer (I could be wrong on this point). I seem to recollect them doing so.

When you state "Other sources" can you, in future, give us the names of these other sources?

[DirectorDave]

Clemente and Richards do a Real Crime Profile podcast...there are a number on the JBR case, I'm listening to the OJ Simpson ones at the moment which are quite good.

https://art19.com/shows/real-crime-profile

[louisa]

Dave - thanks for that. I'll be having a look at that later.


Getting back to Patsy's call to 911, in preliminary examinations detectives thought they could hear some words being spoken between the time Patsy said "Hurry, hurry, hurry" and time time the call was terminated.

The FBI and the US Secret Service could not lift much from the background noise on the tape. As a final effort several months later the police sent the tape to the electronic wizards at the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles and asked them to try and decipher the sounds behind the noise.

Patsy apparently had trouble hanging up the telephone and before it rested in the cradle she was heard to moan "Help me, Jesus, help me Jesus". Her husband was heard to bark "We're not talking to you" and in the background was a young sounding voice "What did you find?" It was Burke.

The Ramseys would repeatedly tell police that their son did not wake up at any point throughout the night of the crime.

[Pcdunn]

The JBR Murder will be dramatized in a Lifetime Channel TV movie called "Who Killed JonBenet?", to air in November. I wonder which solution they will choose?

http://elitedaily.com/entertainment/lifetime-jonbenet-ramsey-movie/1622098/

And this is a pretty good listing of all recent television programs about the case.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/a-jonbenet-ramsey-tv-primer-whats-the-difference-between-the-many-shows-devoted-to-the-famous-cold-case-140002025.html

[Wickerman]

But that being said as I mentioned before, the 911 operator said she thought she heard pasty say in a cold monotone voice after she thought she hung up something along the lines of OK we've called police now what. She said her drastic change of tone of voice from frantic to calm struck her as very odd and that she thought patsy was faking the original panic.

Yes I saw that piece, the operator did say there was a change in Patsy's voice, I didn't hear one, she sounded like any frantic mother to me, to the end. And, like I pointed out earlier, Patsy is more a follower than a leader, when frantic she turned to John and said, "Ok, we've called the police, now what?", she didn't know what to do.
At least, that is what the operator told people, but in the documentary I saw, they played the enhanced tape and no-one on the team of analysts could hear those words, neither did I.

The muffled noises being passed off as voices are just that, muffled noises.
As for Burke, he was in his bed according to both him and his parents. The minute he came down he was bundled off to family friends - this was in the presence of police. So no time for coaching by the parents, if he knew anything the Ramsey's took a great risk placing him in the hands of family friends, he could have spilled the beans, if he had any to spill.

This "background voices" nonsense is very much like those ridiculous Paranormal stories on TV where "investigators"? claim to hear voices in the dark, yet no-one else really hears anything.

[Abby Normal]

Yes I saw that piece, the operator did say there was a change in Patsy's voice, I didn't hear one, she sounded like any frantic mother to me, to the end. And, like I pointed out earlier, Patsy is more a follower than a leader, when frantic she turned to John and said, "Ok, we've called the police, now what?", she didn't know what to do.
At least, that is what the operator told people, but in the documentary I saw, they played the enhanced tape and no-one on the team of analysts could hear those words, neither did I.

The muffled noises being passed off as voices are just that, muffled noises.
As for Burke, he was in his bed according to both him and his parents. The minute he came down he was bundled off to family friends - this was in the presence of police. So no time for coaching by the parents, if he knew anything the Ramsey's took a great risk placing him in the hands of family friends, he could have spilled the beans, if he had any to spill.

This "background voices" nonsense is very much like those ridiculous Paranormal stories on TV where "investigators"? claim to hear voices in the dark, yet no-one else really hears anything.

I totally agree with the enhancement nonsense as I've mentioned before. However, I can't discount what the 911 operator said. She makes no doubt that she heard patsy tone change and that she thought she was faking.

[Ginger]

Yes, but an artist's painbrush is a thin and fine item.

Artists' paintbrushes cover a wide range of tools, some of which have sturdy handles indeed. Next time you're near an art store, go in and look them over. You might be surprised.

[Abby Normal]

Artists' paintbrushes cover a wide range of tools, some of which have sturdy handles indeed. Next time you're near an art store, go in and look them over. You might be surprised.

Yes that paintbrush was rather thick, and enough to wrap a cord around. Which by the way, the way the garrot was constructed and specifically how the cord was tied and knotted around it, seems rather elaborate to me. I doubt a nine year old could have constructed it.

[louisa]

The muffled noises being passed off as voices are just that, muffled noises.
As for Burke, he was in his bed according to both him and his parents.

The tape was analysed and found to contain the words mentioned in my last post. A child's voice was heard and then John's 'barking' the words "We are not speaking to you!"

Now take off those blinkers and tell me this....why would the Aerospace Corporation make up words that were not said? If words were going to be invented that implicated the Ramsey Family then surely they would have come up with something that sounded more incriminating.

And if you believe everything that John and Patsy said then you are deluded, seriously.

Very early on John and Patsy both changed their stories. Patsy told Officer French (the first officer on the scene) that she had checked on JB before she came downstairs and found the note. Then later she changed this to saying she came downstairs and found the note, then went back up to check on JB.

She would have remembered exactly what she did, the sequence of events, unless they didn't happen.

The pair of them did not comfort eachother while they waited for the 'kidnapper's' phonecall. Patsy was in one room, wailing, and John was in his study going through paperwork and making phone calls - travel arrangements would you believe?

Everyone who worked on the case thought it strange that the loving husband would not be there, right next to his wife, comforting her, as apparently it is the normal thing for couples to cling to eachother in times like that.

But this couple were not normal.

[Abby Normal]

The tape was analysed and found to contain the words mentioned in my last post. A child's voice was heard and then John's 'barking' the words "We are not speaking to you!"

Now take off those blinkers and tell me this....why would the Aerospace Corporation make up words that were not said? If words were going to be invented that implicated the Ramsey Family then surely they would have come up with something that sounded more incriminating.

And if you believe everything that John and Patsy said then you are deluded, seriously.

Very early on John and Patsy both changed their stories. Patsy told Officer French (the first officer on the scene) that she had checked on JB before she came downstairs and found the note. Then later she changed this to saying she came downstairs and found the note, then went back up to check on JB.

She would have remembered exactly what she did, the sequence of events, unless they didn't happen.

The pair of them did not comfort eachother while they waited for the 'kidnapper's' phonecall. Patsy was in one room, wailing, and John was in his study going through paperwork and making phone calls - travel arrangements would you believe?

Everyone who worked on the case thought it strange that the loving husband would not be there, right next to his wife, comforting her, as apparently it is the normal thing for couples to cling to eachother in times like that.

But this couple were not normal.

no they were not. They also didn't seem to be comforting each other in the myriad of interviews Ive seen, nor shedding any tears.Unlike the hundreds of other interviews ive seen of berieved parents.