JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

Re the Bedwetting Rage Theory:

"Dry Bed Sheets. Regarding the bed-wetting rage theory, "crime scene photos taken the following morning do not indicate that JonBenet's bed was wet or suggest that the sheets to the bed had been changed. (Defs.' Exs. 56-58 attach. To Defs.' Summ. J. Mot.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 4). "there was no evidence that JonBenet's bed was wet on the night of her murder. (Smit Dep. at 145.)" (Carnes 2003:100). "Urine stains, however, were reported to have been found on JonBenet's underwear and leggings that she was wearing when her body was discovered. (See Coroner's Report at 2.) Thus, at some point after going to bed, but before being murdered, JonBenet urinated in her clothing. The evidence does not indicate whether this occurred in her bedroom, the basement, or during the route between the two rooms." (Carnes 2003:Note 4)."
SOURCE: http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/...tingRageTheory

The authorities cannot rule out the urine in her underwear as a natural response to strangulation, at death the muscles around the bladder relax and urine is released.

[Wickerman]

Are you sure about the DNA under the fingernails?and are you sure it matched the other two samples?

I've heard the fingernail DNA mentioned before but never definitively like the other two samples. It has not been mentioned in any of the latest docus.

Those DNA points were all mentioned by way of a summary in the Dr. Phil Show today, the last installment of his interview with Burke.

Incidentally, those details did not come from Burke.

[Abby Normal]

Those DNA points were all mentioned by way of a summary in the Dr. Phil Show today, the last installment of his interview with Burke.

Incidentally, those details did not come from Burke.

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.



Also, just finished watching the CBS documentary, and it's pretty obvious it was bias from the start toward the killer coming from the family. The conclusion all the six or so experts they had was that Burke did it in a fit of anger that night.
Possible but unlikely IMHO.
They showed another interview with him as a child and of the two I've seen, there is nothing that seems to me suspicious at all.
And besides if he had anything at all to do with it there is NOOOO way his parents would let him talk to ANYBODY.

[Ginger]

And this, to me, is the strangest part of all.....John came upstairs carrying the body of JonBenet, but not close to his body as you would think a grieving parent would do with a beloved child, but holding her stiff body with both of his arms outstretched, to keep her as far away from himself as he could. That's odd behaviour isn't it?

I'm not sure I'd call any behaviour odd in someone who's just found their baby murdered.

[GUT]

I'm not sure I'd call any behaviour odd in someone who's just found their baby murdered.

Agree.

[louisa]

I would certainly call John's behaviour strange, and so did those present when they were interviewed. Even if I found my cat dead I wouldn't hold it's body away from me like it was an unclean piece of meat.

As for the DNA underneath JB's fingernails, and the other DNA Wickerman refers to, I have to say it's the first I've heard about it and I thought I'd read all the books available on the case.

Lou Smit was a biased and unreliable witness and had some crazy theories of his own.

Photographs that Smit took with him when he left the Boulder County District Attorney's Office show marks on JonBenét's back and jaw that he says are burn marks from a stun gun. An autopsy report by Boulder County John Meyer describes the marks as abrasions. That's Smit for you.

It is my belief (and that of others) that the DA did not want to prosecute this case because he thought there was not enough evidence to convict the Ramseys. A trial of this magnitude would have been a costly affair and Boulder resources were unable to run to it. This is stated by ex-detective Steve Thomas, who worked closely on the case and was constantly getting reminded of the budget by his superiors (who incidentally thought the Ramseys were guilty and were getting an easy ride by the DA).

It would have been the first trial in Boulder for decades. Fellons in Boulder always got a plea-bargain. That's how the DA liked things, nice and cheap.


This book tells it all. Steve Thomas knew he would get sued by the Ramseys but went ahead and wrote it anyway. He was frustrated by the way the Ramseys got shielded by their lawyers and the way they continually refused to be interviewed by the police.

My theory is that John knew Patsy would crack under any kind of pressure, and she almost did.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/JonBenet-Inside-Ramsey-Murder-Investigation/dp/1250054796

[Abby Normal]

I would certainly call John's behaviour strange, and so did those present when they were interviewed. Even if I found my cat dead I wouldn't hold it's body away from me like it was an unclean piece of meat.

As for the DNA underneath JB's fingernails, and the other DNA Wickerman refers to, I have to say it's the first I've heard about it and I thought I'd read all the books available on the case.

Lou Smit was a biased and unreliable witness and had some crazy theories of his own.

Photographs that Smit took with him when he left the Boulder County District Attorney's Office show marks on JonBenét's back and jaw that he says are burn marks from a stun gun. An autopsy report by Boulder County John Meyer describes the marks as abrasions. That's Smit for you.

It is my belief (and that of others) that the DA did not want to prosecute this case because he thought there was not enough evidence to convict the Ramseys. A trial of this magnitude would have been a costly affair and Boulder resources were unable to run to it. This is stated by ex-detective Steve Thomas, who worked closely on the case and was constantly getting reminded of the budget by his superiors (who incidentally thought the Ramseys were guilty and were getting an easy ride by the DA).

It would have been the first trial in Boulder for decades. Fellons in Boulder always got a plea-bargain. That's how the DA liked things, nice and cheap.


This book tells it all. Steve Thomas knew he would get sued by the Ramseys but went ahead and wrote it anyway. He was frustrated by the way the Ramseys got shielded by their lawyers and the way they continually refused to be interviewed by the police.

My theory is that John knew Patsy would crack under any kind of pressure, and she almost did.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/JonBenet-In.../dp/1250054796

Hi Louisa

As for the DNA underneath JB's fingernails, and the other DNA Wickerman refers to, I have to say it's the first I've heard about it and I thought I'd read all the books available on the case.

The DNA on the panties and leggings is a well known established fact. the dna under the fingernails, however, is not-ive only heard it in passing and until there is any kind of official confirmation I'm not buying it.

Photographs that Smit took with him when he left the Boulder County District Attorney's Office show marks on JonBenét's back and jaw that he says are burn marks from a stun gun. An autopsy report by Boulder County John Meyer describes the marks as abrasions. That's Smit for you.

I believe Smit is an honest investigator who just came to a different conclusion. Ive seen and read a lot about him and his theory and eventhough he was working for the DA (alex hunter-who was biased and had alterior motives NOT to pursue the Ramseys) came to a reasonable and well argued conclusion that it was an intruder. He even has said that in the beginning he believed the Ramseys were probably responsible but changed his mind once he started seeing all the evidence.

howver, I think he may have gotten the stun gun idea wrong. I applaud him for finding the marks and I thought too that there may have been a stun gun involved.Now I lean towrd not. First of all a stun gun is loud-it crackles and pops and makes a loud noise when applied. Also, a persons natural reaction is to scream when it is applied. The marks also look more like puncture wounds to me and may have been caused by the toy train tracks.

re Johns odd behavior: I do think the way he carried her was odd. But there is a lot more of his behavior that is way more suspicious. One of the first investigators said he greeted her at the door and his behavior she said was odd-he was "cordial" and not a total mess as you would expect. She also said when she saw him bring the body up, realizing he had made the beeline for the room and found her immediately, she had a visceral reaction that the killer/s were in the house.IE he had something to do with it. so much that so thatshe checked to make sure she had her loaded gun on her side.

Then there is the lawyering up on day one and not cooperating with police.

Then there is the big TV interviews and all the other ones Ive seen since then and his demeaner is not like all the other aggrieved parents Ive seen. Like hes reveling in it and enjoying how good he is at proclaiming his innocence.

He also pointed his finger at some of his closest friends, One of which, Fleet white has subsequently changed his mind about the Ramseys innocence.

John Ramsey is a strange dude and I don't rule him out as the killer by any stretch, eventhough most of the attention is focused on Patsy and Burke.

[louisa]

The entire business is strange, which could be why we're fascinated by it.

All of my 'favourite' murder cases have an element of whodunnit about them.

When I say favourite I mean the ones that I'm most interested in.

Yes, I remember reading that the policewoman thought John was the killer, something in his eyes, but she was a bit of a drama queen and I think she went on to write a book.

The Ramseys knew there would be no call from the kidnapper. John went out to get the papers during the time they were supposedly 'waiting'.


Another bit of speculation......

I began to wonder if maybe Burke had committed the head bashing (possibly by accident) after I thought about those interviews with Patsy and John, where they seemed calm, no real tears, and seemed to be happy to support eachother.

Now if Patsy had committed the act out of anger - would John have supported her like that? I'm not too sure but it's possible. He would have known how remorseful Patsy would have been and that it had been an accident and maybe felt desperately sorry for her. (The garotting however was no accident and they may both have played a part in that).

And similarly if John had commited the act, as a lot of people like to believe, I honestly don't think Patsy would have supported him, especially if there was a sexual element involved.

However if Burke had caused the head injury to JB then I think that both parents WOULD cover up for him and show a united front, exactly as they did during those intereviews.


And another little thing.......the crushed skull had to have happened before the garotting. Why? Because there would have been no need to crush her skull if she was already dead, would there? Also the crushing of the skull caused bleeding into the brain. Blood stops pumping once a person is dead so it had to have happened first.

[YomRippur]

In the CBS special, Dr. Lee said even a brand new underwear could have DNAs of the workers who manufacturered that underwear. My question is would such DNAs survive if the underwear has been washed? Undergarments are likely to be washed weekly, so JonBenet's underwear must have been washed many times.

[louisa]

I think the underwear in question was the underwear she was wearing when she was murdered.

[Pcdunn]

I've only watched the last hour on Tuesday of the CBS special, mainly because articles prior to the broadcast said there would be a name revealed.

It was a bit disappointing, because despite it being clear they're analyzing Burke's behavior in interviews, discussing how as a 9-year old he was under the age of 10, which in Colorado is the youngest anyone can be held legally responsible for their acts, and talking a lot about a scenario where JBR annoys her brother and he perhaps hits her or causes an accident by shoving her... They do not actually name him or anyone. The program ended with a caption reading that both John and Burke have denied their involvement in recent interviews, and viewers should "come to their own conclusions."

I don't doubt that is due to legal advice by the network, perhaps also because local news here is that the current D.A. is taking another look at the Grand Jury Indictment. He has also said that the letter a predecessor sent, excusing the Ramseys from all suspicion doesn't really mean anything.

sigh-- so it continues... While I think Burke might have been responsible, I doubt he used the flashlight, as large as it was, it must have been heavy, and the blow powerful. Could he have pushed her against a table or wall? Maybe. Could he have made the marks with a section of train track, gotten no reaction, and instead of waking his parents, returned to bed? Possible. If it's really his voice in the background at the end of the 9-1-1 call, saying "What did you find?" that would seem to support the idea he knows more than he has admitted.
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?

Everything has both pros and cons, and it is difficult to sort things out.

[louisa]

I was going to watch it but couldn't find it anywhere. I think it's on the Crime and Investigation channel but I don't know when.

It's a series I think?

Burke had previously injured JonBenet with a golf club, which required stitches.

I can believe that he could have been jealous of all the attention he sister got, especially from his parents. She was a very pretty little girl.

My theory is that the culprit was either Patsy or Burke and John assisted in the cover up attempt.

It's frustrating that we may never know what really happened that night.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Louisa:

This is the most recent one, which began on Sunday, Sept. 18th:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey/news/1005618/new-docu-series-the-case-of-jonben-t-ramsey-coming-to-cbs-this-fall/

I think "The Case of..." is the series title, and they do different cases, perhaps?

It was another special which aired on the ID Channel.

If you're in the UK, you might not be getting these shows right away.

[Wickerman]

I'm not buying it until I hear more confirmation other dr Phil show!

A more credible source would be preferred, but I had to give it as I saw it.

Also, just finished watching the CBS documentary, and it's pretty obvious it was bias from the start toward the killer coming from the family.

Yes, I had to tape it, so just going through it tonight, it's pretty well scripted to lay blame on the family - not impressed.

The conclusion all the six or so experts they had was that Burke did it in a fit of anger that night.
Possible but unlikely IMHO.
They showed another interview with him as a child and of the two I've seen, there is nothing that seems to me suspicious at all.
And besides if he had anything at all to do with it there is NOOOO way his parents would let him talk to ANYBODY.

That makes two of us.

[GUT]

News here is reporting every hour that the brother done it......