JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Shelley]

Grand Jury Indictment ~ News Video

2013 last years information, Grand Jury decided that John & Patsy Ramsey knew something regarding a connection with the Killer, It's mentioned that Ramsey's could be accessories to JonBenet's killing

Good Morning America ABC News Video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PctIdIbxIU

Additional info : http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm

Info from the additional info above in link : Hunter and Smit Clash:

In February 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter demanded that detective Lou Smit return evidence that he collected while he worked on the case, including crime scene photographs. Smit refuses "even if I have to go to jail" because he believed the evidence would be destroyed if returned, because it supported the intruder theory. Hunter filed a restraining order and got a court injunction demanding the evidence. Hunter also refused to allow Smit to testify before the grand jury.

Smit Seeks Court Order:

Detective Lou Smit filed a motion asking Judge Roxanne Bailin to allow him to address the grand jury. It is not clear if Judge Bailin granted his motion, but on March 11, 1999, Smit testified before the jury. Later that same month, district attorney Alex Hunter signed an agreement allowing Smit to keep the evidence he had collected in the case, but prohibited Smit from "relaying prior conversations" with Ramsey prosecutors and not interfere with the on-going investigation.

[Shelley]

CNN Larry King Live & Lou Smit

Lou Smit speaks with Larry King live, documented in this link :

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

Some additional info ~ some good statements documented, here : http://www.acandyrose.com/lousmit.htm

[Abby Normal]

Hhmmmm guess I should learn how to research a little more eh?

Also from what I understand the a lot of people believe the Ramsey's were culpable and disagreed with the actions of Mary Lacy in clearing them.



No it isn't outdated, people still believe it is an acceptable explanation. Just because someone has put forward another option you believe, doesn't make the original wrong.
Just because DNA was found it doesn't make it a closed case. They found a few markers of male DNA (not even enough to secure a conviction if they get a match) with no concrete evidence to prove it was placed there at the time of her death. Can we say for certain there was DNA found, yes. Can we say for certain it is the killer's, no.

I would just like to note - again -that no semen was ever found.



Well if you talk slow enough I am sure I can keep up.



I was never trying to persuade you either way, just pointing out the conclusion you come to with the facts you have isn't necessarily correct. If you want to believe them innocent because that is what you believe I have no problem with that but when you spout they are innocent because it was an intruder from the DNA I feel the need to point out the problem with that.



I was answering your query as to whether the Ramsey's could be indicted because of window being broken.
My explanation was that the only reason the window would be used as a indictment charge would be if the broken window was proven to be a cause in the death of Jonbenet. It could be argued that if an intruder entered through the window after John knew it was unsecured and this in turn could be proven to have aided in the murder of Jonbenet then maybe it could then have been used as an argument to indict them. However this can't be the case unless it was proven an intruder was the killer.....which can't be proven.



Fair enough.

Just to conclude -

A possible scenario for an intruder - if you don't believe the Ramsey's were part of it -

A non member of the Ramsey family has a jealous grudge against the Ramsey's and their wealth, so they decide to get some revenge.

They find their way through the gardens to the one broken window (hidden from view).
* They enter through the window,
* They walk through the train room door to the corridor with the stairs.
* They climb the stairs to the first floor
* They enter the kitchen through a door
* They pick up a flashlight form a drawer in the kitchen.
* They find a cup with pens in and take one from the far side of the kitchen.
* They move out from the kitchen into passage with mud room to the left and stairs straight ahead.
* They pick up a pad and compose a 3 page ransom note (not forgetting the draft that was apparently found also.)
* They climb the stairs to the second floor.
* They have an entire floor to search but they manage to find JonBenet's bedroom.
* They take her out of her bed.
* They carry her downstairs.
* They carry her through the kitchen.
* They carry her down into the basement.
* They carry her through passage into the train room.

Somewhere along here things go wrong. We now have a murdered and sexually abused JonBenet in the wine cellar. For this the intruder would have had to carry her though multiple rooms (train room, boiler room and wine cellar) for a murder weapon and going back through these to get a paint brush from Patsy's art box near the broken window. Go back and sexually assault her returning the way they came and leave through the window, without disturbing the cobwebs and dirt.

They managed all this with the aid of limited light, no evidence, no forensics, no noise.

Now you have to ask yourself, why sexually assault/kill her if you want ransom money?
Or if the plan was to kill her then why leave the ransom note?
Or if the plan was to kidnap her and this went wrong and she died, why stage a sexual assault. I don't think anyone who had just accidentally killed a child would be of the mind to do this, I would think they would just want to escape.

OR

You could have a Ramsey resident, who knows the house, knows the child and who she trusts, who forensically is all over the house kill her and try to confuse Police with a ransom note, using all items needed from their house, where they know how to locate them?

Hi tji
Was it ever determined if the duct tape and rope used on JonBenet was from in the house, foreign or was it undetermined?

[tji]

Right, ok, point taken .... I got trolled by tji aka Tracy. I won't bother then asking any more questions, as i recall i think it was perhaps just the one, maybe two, tops! I recall i asked if you had worked for police, or maybe you were a teacher, to which you replied and i remember, that you told me you were just an armchair buff, ok, so perhaps you could just point your armchair somewhere other than me now. So now i get the impression from your post content that maybe you are some kind of a scientist, maybe i'm wrong to have that impression, which i'm not, not a scientist that is. Ok, so i move in a different direction. Also thankyou for your gracious way of allowing me to be excused. Ok. :reading

Awww did you just call me a bad name.......you almost hurt my feelings there

I'll point this out to you you are indeed a Hypocrite you pick and choose what you wish to be correct and incorrect, you are petty with your " No One said it was ~ or No one said it wasn't, or i never said it was and vice versa.

Really?! you are calling me a hypocrite...... unbelievable!

That doesn't make sense, everyone picks and chooses what they believe is correct. Two people can look at information in front of them and come to different conclusions.

So just to get this right, you are now calling me a petty, hypocritical troll.......yup I do believe you have hurt my feelings now

Anyone can write on a blog or website posts like this one with some good information, granted it may not be altogether to the letter, but people get the gist.

I don't believe I said anything against the website or the author, I said it shouldn't be used as factual evidence as you did. Just so you understand here, I was commenting on your use of it as fact, not the content of the blog.
If you are going to argue your case you can't do it using a website that in your own words 'may not be altogether to the letter but people get the gist' and then spit your dummy out when people correct you.

You certainly have no right in saying that something is not valid, without just cause regarding valuable information.

Yeah see I do. You put forward that the DNA found was from semen and then commented this was updated valid valuable information. The fact that there was no semen found means that it was not updated, valuable or valid information, so I guess I do have that right.

That's fine, webpages, blogs, threads with posters making their comments such as yours, need not be taken any notice of, like i no longer wish to listen to you tji aka Tracy, especially in view that you can't understand when a body is washed down, prior to preparation for burial.

For someone who doesn't wish to listen you certainly quote me a lot.
I have never said the body wasn't washed down.

And i am aware, that you have some sort of a problem and have indeed trolled me on this thread.

Hahahahah, I really think you need to read up on the definition of a troll.
In your view you quote my posts and answer them, you comment on things and use my name but when I answer/correct you I am trolling?

tji, I chose to ignore this post in the backpage

So you can choose to ignore my posts but when I do it I am 'picking and choosing' what I reply to?

in another post tji, you actually wrote that JonBenet was wrapped in her blanket with care, i can't find it presently. Absolute rubbish, judging by your posts you seem to be a little acquainted with the JonBenet Ramsey case,

As you feel I am full of rubbish and don't know what I am talking about, I will quote another opinion..... that would be Gregg McCrary FBI profiler.

It is important to note not only where the offender left the body but also how he left it. The offender wrapped JonBen�t's body in a white blanket "papoose style" or, as John Ramsey stated, "...as if somebody were tucking her in..." and her favorite pink nightgown was laid next to the body. Further, Linda Haufman-Pugh, the Ramseys' housekeeper, believed the white blanket and possibly the pink nightgown had been in a washer or dryer that was built into a cabinet. It is difficult to imagine that a stranger would know which nightgown was JonBen�t's favorite and then spend time rummaging through the house in the dead of night looking for it so they could leave it next to the body. The careful wrapping of the body also suggests caring and concern for the victim. Collectively, these behaviors exhibited by the offender suggest a pre-existing relationship with the victim.

yet you can't seem to understand that JonBenet was sexually molested, hit on the head which cause a terrible head injury with some force and a stungun used in not caring, not to mention that she was being slowly strangled to death, yet Somehow you can write utter rubbish about how a blanket was wrapped around a horrific killing of a 6 year old girl, somehow it was done according to you with care

see above.

It is established and has been for some years that the Police do not think now that the Ramsey family, ie the parents, that they had anything to do with the actual killing of JonBenet, yet again that is another thing you have thrown at me in your posts that you insinuate that it still is with the family and even deny that there was an intruder, when the authorities do recognize that there was an intruder into the family home and killed their daughter JonBenet Ramsey.

There you go again, clumping everyone together. A lot of Police still believe the Ramsey's were involved. The Police are like the public, divided in their opinion.

It's ok to change your mind from one post to another, for reasons, but i haven't seen any good reasons from you, also you seem to stick to the same insinuation and haven't in all reality changed your mind with information.

Huh? no I am thinking it is not ok to change your mind from post to post (although it explains a lot about your posts). I don't believe it was an intruder into the house and I stick by that, given the evidence we have.....this is called consistency.

It's not my problem that you don't understand me, at the same time i do not have to understand you tji, you can agree with Abby Normal all you like and quote her informally, but this is not my direction it's yours & hers .

Abby Normal is actually a man. The name I believe is a bow to Frankenstein (I am sure Abby will correct me if I am wrong).

Now you can write what you like tji, just don't reply to me with arguments of something which you fail to understand.

Yes I can. If you are using my name and my posts to put across points then I am going to answer, simple as. I have no problem understanding, maybe it is you with the problem?

In posts of the backpages, you have denied that a stungun was used on JonBenet, you have insinuated that the killing was due to the parents, even though you denied it in another post of yours.

Again with the twisting. I have put forward the fact that new inforamtion points to it not being a stun gun, I don't believe I denied the fact one was used.
On the same note I never denied the parents were involved. You accused me of point blank blaming Patsy at the beginning of the thread, which I had not done at that point. I have not denied that I blame someone in the household in fact I believe I have been consistent in stating that.

It isn't any wonder that i don't wish to listen to you, before now i have already pointed out that i do not understand you and that you do not understand me, however, you don't seem to Understand that! This is why i see you as trolling me. I don't wish to be arguing with you, there are better things, such as valid argumentation as well as contributing on this thread.

I really think you need to look into the aspects of a forum Shelley......you quote someone and say they are wrong they are going to answer you.

Well done Caroline Quinn the armchair blogger at least you are taking a look in the right direction and have an understanding of motivations, which is more than i can say for some!

I am sure she is a very good blogger, and she was willing to admit she had made a mistake, however I wonder if you would think so if she disagreed with your views.

Yes, tji, yours and the Abby Normal poster both agree that the blanket was wrapped with some care, you tji specifically state that it was a caring gesture around JonBenet, the Ramsey's did care for Jonbenet when she was alive and running around & doing Pagents. Glad i found it now, your post tji that is!

It is not a precedent Shelley, a lot of people have killed someone they love and felt remorse, you point this out as though it has never been done before, if anything it is a common factor and betrays a 'stranger' killing in many cases.

Well I am glad you are glad then!

Thing is Shelley you can spout your views as much as you want, but you have to deal with the fall out when your 'facts' are proven to be incorrect. Taking a little hissy fit when this happens isn't helping your case.


tji aka Tracy

[tji]

Hi Abby

Was it ever determined if the duct tape and rope used on JonBenet was from in the house, foreign or was it undetermined?

Finally a decent unbiased question

I do believe that they never found where they came from.

One report stated that a woman remembered Patsy buying tape from local hardware shop but no receipts ever appeared to support this.

Apparently the Ramsey's gave their lawyers bank card receipts etc, whether these got passed to the Police no-one knows.

Rumours are that the police were too slow in requesting video surveillance of that day and it had been taped over, not sure how true this is though.

Again the cord was supposedly found to be sold at local stores (but it was very common and sold nationwide)

You have a few options been put forward -

It was an intruder and they brought them along with them.
It was the Ramseys and they got rid of the evidence before the Police go there.

Now I remember reading that evidence showed what looked like a badger hair on the tape, they found nothing like this in the Ramsey household so this is a bit of a mystery as to it's origin.

So while they could be bought locally I don't think they could actually prove that they were bought locally.

Tracy

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby



Finally a decent unbiased question

I do believe that they never found where they came from.

One report stated that a woman remembered Patsy buying tape from local hardware shop but no receipts ever appeared to support this.

Apparently the Ramsey's gave their lawyers bank card receipts etc, whether these got passed to the Police no-one knows.

Rumours are that the police were too slow in requesting video surveillance of that day and it had been taped over, not sure how true this is though.

Again the cord was supposedly found to be sold at local stores (but it was very common and sold nationwide)

You have a few options been put forward -

It was an intruder and they brought them along with them.
It was the Ramseys and they got rid of the evidence before the Police go there.

Now I remember reading that evidence showed what looked like a badger hair on the tape, they found nothing like this in the Ramsey household so this is a bit of a mystery as to it's origin.

So while they could be bought locally I don't think they could actually prove that they were bought locally.

Tracy

Thanks Tracy
Yes i am a dude and yes the nick name is inspired by young Frankenstein the movie.


The more I think of it the more I lean toward the intruder idea. But still an intruder that knew the Ramsey's very well enough to know johns bonus amount. I think that it started out as a burglary while the Ramsey's were out at the party, perhaps in an attempt to steal said bonus money, but then when they could not find it, it turned into a kidnapping idea. Then got turned into a failed kidnapping and murder when JonBenet started to cry out and fight back probably at the actual point when the tried to get her out of the house. Jon benet probably knew who they were which is why the perpetrator ended up killing her when he realized he wasn't going to be able to get her out of the house and then she would ID him.

This scenario would explain how the killer was able to get so much done in the house and why the note was written in the house and still left there. And of course it's based on the idea that patsy did not write the note.

That all being said I think that it's still possible (50/50)it was a family member. Again the red flags being the note/ransom amount, no obvious signs of an intruder, the body being found in her blanket and the fact that the Ramsey's did not search every inch of the house when they noticed she was missing.
In this scenario I see Burke or John as doing the actual moving and damage to body and murder and patsy covering up with the ransom note.

Both are still so bizarre though it leaves me totally baffled.

[tji]

Hi Abby

Yes i am a dude and yes the nick name is inspired by young Frankenstein the movie.

While I would love to have people believe I am amazingly clever, I think I saw you explain this before.

The more I think of it the more I lean toward the intruder idea. But still an intruder that knew the Ramsey's very well enough to know johns bonus amount. I think that it started out as a burglary while the Ramsey's were out at the party, perhaps in an attempt to steal said bonus money, but then when they could not find it, it turned into a kidnapping idea. Then got turned into a failed kidnapping and murder when JonBenet started to cry out and fight back probably at the actual point when the tried to get her out of the house. Jon benet probably knew who they were which is why the perpetrator ended up killing her when he realized he wasn't going to be able to get her out of the house and then she would ID him.

Definitely one of the better scenario's I have read lately and I would imagine plausible.

Again it is a difficult one because if you believe the DNA was from the killer then all known close friends,relatives and workers were tested I believe and were found no match.
If you believe the DNA was innocently placed there then it is more plausible.

If you believe a family friend, we have to assume the Police got alibi's for them all (I haven't checked this) so how did they get away from an alibi?

This scenario would explain how the killer was able to get so much done in the house and why the note was written in the house and still left there. And of course it's based on the idea that patsy did not write the note.

Well there are people who don't believe she did, so it is a scenario they would find plausible I think.
Also if an intruder spent so long in the house surely they would leave some sort of trail, forensically. Obviously something the Ramsey family didn't need to worry about.

Another puzzle is that apparently the tape was placed over her mouth after death, leading to the supposition again of staging.....again leading to it being someone she knew.

That all being said I think that it's still possible (50/50)it was a family member. Again the red flags being the note/ransom amount, no obvious signs of an intruder, the body being found in her blanket and the fact that the Ramsey's did not search every inch of the house when they noticed she was missing.
In this scenario I see Burke or John as doing the actual moving and damage to body and murder and patsy covering up with the ransom note.

Again another plausible scenario. However I am like yourself. I could see Burke accidentally/purposely hitting Jonbenet over the head, but I couldn't see parents staging a sexual assault on one child to cover for another. I would think it would be more likely an 'accidental fall.'

Another one put forward would be John or Patsy losing their temper with her and hitting out but I am not sure many people would stand by their spouse if this was the case, especially after the staging that was done.

You also have to wonder (if reports are correct) why the Ramsey's weren't standing by the phone form 8am -10am, not even commenting on the fact the kidnapper didn't call. If the body wasn't found until afternoon how did they know she was dead. Not sure how correct the reports on this are I can't get an 'unbiased' report on it, but if they are true then that is a huge red flag I think.

Both are still so bizarre though it leaves me totally baffled.

Me too, there is so much false information doing the rounds. For every against a counter argument appears and vice versa.
Also I believe, as is normal in most cases like this, there will be evidence that the Police haven't allowed the public to know about, just so they can weed out false confessions etc. Something only the murderer would know.
I think if we had the full facts to hand, a lot more would be clearer. Until then and working off what we have I am still of the opinion that someone in the household knew more.

Would the facts be released after 50 year in America or sooner?

Tracy

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby



While I would love to have people believe I am amazingly clever, I think I saw you explain this before.



Definitely one of the better scenario's I have read lately and I would imagine plausible.

Again it is a difficult one because if you believe the DNA was from the killer then all known close friends,relatives and workers were tested I believe and were found no match.
If you believe the DNA was innocently placed there then it is more plausible.

If you believe a family friend, we have to assume the Police got alibi's for them all (I haven't checked this) so how did they get away from an alibi?



Well there are people who don't believe she did, so it is a scenario they would find plausible I think.
Also if an intruder spent so long in the house surely they would leave some sort of trail, forensically. Obviously something the Ramsey family didn't need to worry about.

Another puzzle is that apparently the tape was placed over her mouth after death, leading to the supposition again of staging.....again leading to it being someone she knew.



Again another plausible scenario. However I am like yourself. I could see Burke accidentally/purposely hitting Jonbenet over the head, but I couldn't see parents staging a sexual assault on one child to cover for another. I would think it would be more likely an 'accidental fall.'

Another one put forward would be John or Patsy losing their temper with her and hitting out but I am not sure many people would stand by their spouse if this was the case, especially after the staging that was done.

You also have to wonder (if reports are correct) why the Ramsey's weren't standing by the phone form 8am -10am, not even commenting on the fact the kidnapper didn't call. If the body wasn't found until afternoon how did they know she was dead. Not sure how correct the reports on this are I can't get an 'unbiased' report on it, but if they are true then that is a huge red flag I think.



Me too, there is so much false information doing the rounds. For every against a counter argument appears and vice versa.
Also I believe, as is normal in most cases like this, there will be evidence that the Police haven't allowed the public to know about, just so they can weed out false confessions etc. Something only the murderer would know.
I think if we had the full facts to hand, a lot more would be clearer. Until then and working off what we have I am still of the opinion that someone in the household knew more.

Would the facts be released after 50 year in America or sooner?

Tracy

Hi Tracy
The unknown DNA is moot until there is a match. It's moot because it's not from semen and could be there for totally innocent reasons. Now if it ever comes up as a match for someone, than yes that person should be person of interest and checked out. At this point I only see the unknown DNA a small indicator of possible outsider killer.

If she was killed by a family member, perhaps Burke was sexually abusing her and hit her over the head and the parents covered up. Like you I don't think the parents would stage sexual abuse or cover for one another, unless it was accidental.

I'm trying to envision the specific chain of events for an outsider intruder. He hides in the basement until all are asleep. The note being previously written whilenthey were out, he places it, Goes to jonbents bedroom and scoops her out of bed. The blanket etc are already in the basement room as he found them before and since the plan is now kidnapping her has placed them there for her use after he gets her out. In the basement she awakes fights cries out as he is attempting to get her out so he hits her in the head, knocks her out, uses the duct tape and still can't get her out. Realizing he can't get her out and the whole thing has gone belly up he strangles her so she can't ID him and bolts leaving her there. I'm wondering where any sexual abuse happens here, if there was any, unless it happens after she is knocked out and or bound.

I seen, read a lot about crime scenes where they seem inexplicable, until they catch them and the perpetrators confession and explanation explains it and it all makes perfect sense. Just trying to do this here on a totally bizarre crime scene.

[Shelley]

Hi Tracy

If she was killed by a family member, perhaps Burke was sexually abusing her and hit her over the head and the parents covered up. Like you I don't think the parents would stage sexual abuse or cover for one another, unless it was accidental.

I guess according to you Burke would have worn gloves, and perhaps have worn some sort of a boiler suit to exempt himself of his own dna from the actual crime, whilst the more observant guy who left dna not matching the Ramsey Family members who Police have yet to find the person the dna matches, that this guy was teaching Burke a 9 yr old kid how to lead a life of sadistic & psychopathic crime then? Very young aged 9 yrs of age to learn something like a sadistic killing, maybe he would do this to his schoolmates at a later date, especially when a lot of bullying goes down at the local school, maybe they will eventually catch Burke from these type of lessons and his sexual sadistic abuses, maybe take a look and see if any schoolmates have come forward with this sort of a personality he has, what about grilling him eh, so that he may have had his schoolmates locked up in a basement somewhere, still working with his sadistic psychopathic teacher, these girls would need rescuing, maybe you and your troll friend can catch them and then talk about how * caring * they are with blankets wrapped around them after they have committed a sadistic, intentionally hurtful power game that makes someone suffer, before they cover them with said blanket after horribly & slowly having killed them . According to Boulder that is a singular case regarding the type of killing of JonBenet, in many years experience of police work in that area, Boulder, Colorado, Denver. Boulderites have never had a killing like that before JonBenet Ramsey, or after JonBenet. I see that both you and Tracy make a point of not paying any attention to investigators in links i put in on posts so that you can have ample info regarding the case. The links i did not personally write by the way, so why you and Tracy ignore it is beyond me, yet it takes allsorts i guess coming on these boards, on threads, some are reasonable and others aren't. It is reasonable to take a look at investigators and what they say primarily involved face to face with this case.

Sorry if i find it unbelievable Abby. Take a reality check both you, you and your troll friend Tracy aka tji

[Shelley]

Police on JonBenet case ~ Semen Looks Present

For those that just don't read case information on Boards & threads:

“Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair on the outside of the shirt Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.
In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light to view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.
Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs form the child's body.
Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

This is mentioned in Detective Steve Thomas's book * JonBenet * regarding Semen they found with the dna samples.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight75...ck12291996.htm (http://www.acandyrose.com/s-Flight75...ck12291996.htm)

[tji]

Hi Abby

The unknown DNA is moot until there is a match. It's moot because it's not from semen and could be there for totally innocent reasons. Now if it ever comes up as a match for someone, than yes that person should be person of interest and checked out. At this point I only see the unknown DNA a small indicator of possible outsider killer.

This is what I have been trying to get across for multiple posts now, so yes I agree completely.
It cannot even be guaranteed that the DNA deposits were placed at the time of her death.

I seen, read a lot about crime scenes where they seem inexplicable, until they catch them and the perpetrators confession and explanation explains it and it all makes perfect sense. Just trying to do this here on a totally bizarre crime scene.

Valid point, what is nonsense to some makes perfect sense to others.

Tracy

[tji]

yet it takes allsorts i guess coming on these boards,

Yes it does indeed!!!

Sorry if i find it unbelievable Abby. Take a reality check both you, you and your troll friend Tracy aka tji

Ah I see, is this where you believe we are ganging up on you, think again Shelley. Me and Abby are just discussing the case like adults, you should try it sometime.

[tji]

This is mentioned in Detective Steve Thomas's book * JonBenet * regarding Semen they found with the dna samples.

Oh you got this information form a book, well I guess that tops the actual autopsy report then.

The coroner (Myer) mentions semifluid present, never mentions semen.

If so how about the words from the scientist who actually tested the DNA?
(also included are 1 of the 2 detectives Ollie Gray working pro bono for the Ramseys)

WILLIAMSON: The DNA profile we obtained was not from spermatozoa.

GRACE: That only leaves hair, skin, nails. Do we know what substance it was?

WILLIAMSON: The area that we sampled from, there was no visible staining. We believe it to be touch DNA, most likely skin cells from maybe someone`s hand.

GRACE: Skin cells, OK. Angela, Ms. Williamson, the DNA found inside the 6-year-old`s underwear, the inside crotch of her underwear, mingled with her blood -- was that DNA sperm?

WILLIAMSON: We actually did not do that testing. It is my belief that it was not from sperm, though. However, that testing was done by the Denver PD.

GRACE: Thank you. Back to Nia Bender with 710 KNUS. The DNA found in JonBenet`s underwear, was it sperm? Do we know what it was?

BENDER: We do not know what was in the underwear. They have never really clarified whether there was sperm in the underwear or not.

GRACE: OK, let`s ask Ollie Gray. Ollie, you and John San Agustin say that you have had inside information, that you`ve been able to review the files. Was the DNA in her underwear sperm?

GRAY: As far as I know, it was not sperm.

GRACE: What was it?

GRAY: It was a liquid, and it could have been either from the mouth, or it could have been from an insertion into the vagina area of part of the paintbrush that caused the fluid. As you remember, it was also mixed with blood.



Tracy

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby



This is what I have been trying to get across for multiple posts now, so yes I agree completely.
It cannot even be guaranteed that the DNA deposits were placed at the time of her death.



Valid point, what is nonsense to some makes perfect sense to others.

Tracy

Thanks Tracy
What do you think the chances of it being an outside intruder?
One of the things I find interesting is that apparently the Ramsey's gave the police the names of four people who they thought could have done it.
To me with the ransome and bonus amount, Jon must MUST have known that the killer would have to be close enough to him to know how much he made. I would think that this would narrow down the list considerably, unless there was some way which his bonus amount was available public somehow. Do you know any way which this is possible?

Two of the people on the list were a former nanny and the local Santa. How would they know his bonus amount?

I guess the question is how many people would know his bonus amount and how would they have known it?

[tji]

Hi Abby

Looking at reports over the last few days I am trying to fit together information for the more 'trusted' sources, (although there is still a lot of contradictions)-


She was sexually abused while still alive and she was also strangled while still alive (petechial hemorrhaging indicates this.) This to me would show the sexual abuse was the main focus here.

If we accept that the sexual abuse was the main factor, you wouldn't need a ransom note. This would indicate the death was not planned and in turn the ransom note staged.

The garotte - was it used as a sexual prop? honestly not sure and I do think it would make a difference to the outcome. Sexual asphyxiation is a option but not a definite.
Another point towards it being personal would be the strangulation.

The blow to the head was a forceful enough to cause a severe fraction that alone would have killed her and yet there was very little blood which would indicate she was already dead or dying when the blow happened. This would point to significant rage to me, if not overkill.
They had the means to end her life with the garotte so why the need for such a forceful blow and from behind?

I am trying to find if she had marks from the bindings around her wrists, autopsy doesn't mention any, which seems a little odd.
I would imagine some sort of mark would be present even if her top cushioned the worst. I am thinking along the lines of if she was sexually abused while still alive she would have struggled to against her bindings to some extent.
If no marks we have 2 options that I can see, she was binded after her death, which again would indicate staging or she was drugged.

Best I can find so far is There was a piece of cord loosely tied around JonBenet's right wrist, but there was no indication her wrists had ever actually been bound. This caused some investigators to theorize the cord was placed on her wrist after death.

Tracy