Family Innocent in Jonbenet Ramsey Murder

[Regi]

I'm sure I've seen similar cases where the suspect was finally linked by DNA and there was no record of having committed other sexual assaults in the meantime.

You know, he could be in prison for some other type of crime (not everyone in prison has their DNA on file, do they?) or, he might not even be in the country.

I've already expressed how strange I view the sexual element of this crime. I remember someone characterized it as 'experimental', and suggested that it indicated a young, inexperienced perp. Or, of course, it could also indicate staging.

[Vincennes]

When you think about it the lack of DNA is a mystery in it's self. I have heard just what Regi talked about a speck on the underwear and a hair on, I think, her blanket. How did the perp accomplish that ? Remembering back then DNA was not as developed as it is now. So I would not think it would have been at the top of some everyday type druggie/burglar's mind. Someone had to have hands on her to get her into the basement. They had to touch the cord around her neck and the paint brush handle used as an implement. They also had to touch the ransom note paper and the pen that were left in the house. I guess what I'm wondering is how much of this evidence was mishandled by BPD or even preserved correctly that eliminates the ability now to identify it.

I do think the theory that there were two perps fits the best for me. When the Ramsey's came home, they came up with the kidnap plan in stead of just burglary. One sat down to write the note while one took her in the basement. The note writer was high and "chatty" and did not realize the one who had her in the basement had gone too far and killed her. So, at that point, they left the note as it was, positioned and hid her to buy themselves some running away time.

As to who it was, I am stuck on that maid's family. Her husband was an alcoholic. Christmas was not a good time for them and they had to ask Patti for an advance. Patti, got out her purse without too much hesitation and gave it to her. IMO opinion that generous gesture might have inspired even more envy. Just say she went home, paid what she needed to or gave her husband money with a comment such as, "Well she should have been able, he just got $325,000 (can't remember amount) just in bonus. Any maid just a little bit nosey can get to that type of information. The drunken husband couldn't remember the amount exactly but he came close.

This particular maid went out of her way during the initial investigation to point to Patti as having been acting oddly and went on to file a lawsuit later. That demonstrates a temper to me and ill will.

[Regi]

When you think about it the lack of DNA is a mystery in it's self. I have heard just what Regi talked about a speck on the underwear and a hair on, I think, her blanket. How did the perp accomplish that ? Remembering back then DNA was not as developed as it is now. So I would not think it would have been at the top of some everyday type druggie/burglar's mind. Someone had to have hands on her to get her into the basement. They had to touch the cord around her neck and the paint brush handle used as an implement. They also had to touch the ransom note paper and the pen that were left in the house. I guess what I'm wondering is how much of this evidence was mishandled by BPD or even preserved correctly that eliminates the ability now to identify it.

I've read about a hair on the blanket, but at this point, I'm wondering if it was misidentified as 'pubic' and was determined to have been transferred from an 'innocent' donor or, if it even ever existed.

I assume Douglas was simply misinformed about semen on clothing....I don't know when he was informed of that, but I know it was before he'd analyzed the case.

Btw, I've since read over another interview Douglas gave (sorry, no link...it was when Carr 'confessed') where he said that the police thought the blood spot was a mixture of blood and saliva.

(You know, I'm not fond of that language...that "the police thought". I'd rather hear that's what the analysis suggested....)

When the Ramsey's came home, they came up with the kidnap plan in stead of just burglary.

I keep bringing up John Douglas, but his opinion is that the note was written first and that makes sense when considering an intruder.

Douglas and another profiler, Robert Ressler, have the same impressions about the letter writer as that linguistic scholar who'd written to Patsy Ramsey...essentially that the writer learned what he knew about kidnapping from movies and books.

Douglas thinks it was a kidnapping gone wrong. He also points out evidence on the body which indicates the use of a stun gun. I think it was Detective Smit who first brought that evidence to attention.

Edited October 28, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

I've read about a hair on the blanket, but at this point, I'm wondering if it was misidentified as 'pubic' and was determined to have been transferred from an 'innocent' donor or, if it even ever existed.

I assume Douglas was simply misinformed about semen on clothing....I don't know when he was informed of that, but I know it was before he'd analyzed the case.

Btw, I've since read over another interview Douglas gave (sorry, no link...it was when Carr 'confessed') where he said that the police thought the blood spot was a mixture of blood and saliva.

(You know, I'm not fond of that language...that "the police thought". I'd rather hear that's what the analysis suggested....)

I keep bringing up John Douglas, but his opinion is that the note was written first and that makes sense when considering an intruder.

Douglas and another profiler, Robert Ressler, have the same impressions about the letter writer as that linguistic scholar who'd written to Patsy Ramsey...essentially that the writer learned what he knew about kidnapping from movies and books.

Douglas thinks it was a kidnapping gone wrong. He also points out evidence on the body which indicates the use of a stun gun. I think it was Detective Smit who first brought that evidence to attention.

That was also my impression of the hair on the blanket. I had also read another that suggested the DNA on the underwear was so small, they felt it could have actually have come from transfer in manufacturing or perhaps, since I believe it was new, it could have come in contact simply with another shopper during its purchase.

That does leave my other questions though, why nothing else ? How on earth could someone at that period in time prepared themselves to leave nothing. There had to be other DNA the BPD simply didn't handle correctly.

You're right though, regarding the stun gun. I hadn't added that into my equation that was going so nicely for me. I thought when Schmidt identified that it looked to me like he had found a definite. Whoever had to come with the purpose of a kidnapping. Now I feel like Roseanna Danna, "Aw nevermind"

Edited October 28, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

Now I feel like Roseanna Danna, "Aw nevermind"

Wasn't that a news lady who went on and on with her commentary about all the violence- except the report she was reading from was actually about violins...

(Hey, I've never known you hesitate to put your thoughts out there and that's what counts!)

Speaking of which...

I've recently come across some brow-raising statements attributed to the maid!

I'm currently looking for John Douglas' book, The Cases That Haunt Us because this case is one of those he analyzes.

[Aaronsmom]

Vincennes, your point about the forensic evidence that is strangely lacking. The perp/s was in the house a long time. He/they had contact with many parts of the house and numerous objects in the house. He/they had extensive, intimate contact with the victim. There should have been forensic evidence--hairs, clothing fibers, fingerprints, bodily fluids--teeming everywhere, overrunning the place. Yet, there was a bizarre absence of outside family having been in the home or having contact with JBR. That's a big problem for the intruder theory, which was a major issue for the doubters of the Ramseys. And it's more than puzzling. But there's the question of what evidence was lost or contaminated by the crime scene being violated and the whole home overrun by a mob of ppl that morning, all because the BPD bungled the entire investigation from the moment the first responder went to the door, which is why I very much doubt there will ever be answers.

[Vincennes]

Wasn't that a news lady who went on and on with her commentary about all the violence- except the report she was reading from was actually about violins...

(Hey, I've never known you hesitate to put your thoughts out there and that's what counts!)

Speaking of which...

I've recently come across some brow-raising statements attributed to the maid!

I'm currently looking for John Douglas' book, The Cases That Haunt Us because this case is one of those he analyzes.

Yes, that's the one from SNL. My favorite was her commentary on BUSTing little children...... which ended with her apology' cuz the article was about bussing.

It was just recently I went back and went over the maid's comments and actions. I found them to be really, really strange for someone who Patti had been good to and who knew they were in such a grieving state. Along with the fact the Ramsey's have been proven not to have been involved, So what she said about Patti most probably wasn't true at all. Why?

IMO there had to be come type of personal involvement / envy of the Ramsey's on the part of the perp. I can't think that the bonus amount of the military comments were just thought up by someone who didn't know them at all... It's also hard to believe anyone went there for the purpose of killing the child right in the house with the R's present. However, even though I'm totally with you, the stun gun proves they were there for a kidnapping purpose, there still could have been two of them with the one in the basement killing her while the other composed the note.

[Vincennes]

Vincennes, your point about the forensic evidence that is strangely lacking. The perp/s was in the house a long time. He/they had contact with many parts of the house and numerous objects in the house. He/they had extensive, intimate contact with the victim. There should have been forensic evidence--hairs, clothing fibers, fingerprints, bodily fluids--teeming everywhere, overrunning the place. Yet, there was a bizarre absence of outside family having been in the home or having contact with JBR. That's a big problem for the intruder theory, which was a major issue for the doubters of the Ramseys. And it's more than puzzling. But there's the question of what evidence was lost or contaminated by the crime scene being violated and the whole home overrun by a mob of ppl that morning, all because the BPD bungled the entire investigation from the moment the first responder went to the door, which is why I very much doubt there will ever be answers.

Not only that, they fought the Det. Schmidt every step of the way when he made so many critical findings. I don't know if anyone here ever reads the "Enquirer" which in this case I did because I was so interested in it. They found later that the DA who was in office at the time was actually feeding negative information to the "Enquirer." Isn't this really a tragedy on top of a tragedy.

[Regi]

Yes, that's the one from SNL. My favorite was her commentary on BUSTing little children...... which ended with her apology' cuz the article was about bussing.

Oh, that's too danged funny!

Btw, the "Never mind" character was Emily Litella. She squinted her eyes and wrinkled her nose as she smiled and apologically said simply... "Never mind."

It was just recently I went back and went over the maid's comments and actions. I found them to be really, really strange for someone who Patti had been good to and who knew they were in such a grieving state. Along with the fact the Ramsey's have been proven not to have been involved, So what she said about Patti most probably wasn't true at all. Why?

I agree. My immediate impression was where did that come from?! And certainly, why?

[Vincennes]

Oh, that's too danged funny!

Btw, the "Never mind" character was Emily Litella. She squinted her eyes and wrinkled her nose as she smiled and apologically said simply... "Never mind."

I agree. My immediate impression was where did that come from?! And certainly, why?

Sorry ! Again, I have to say, "Never mind"

Thanks for your agreeing that you too see something of a conflict. That's what really makes me think, she wasn't grateful to Patti when she gave her that money, she only resented her more. I don't suspect her personal involvement in it. I'm sure even the BPD checked that one out and probably the alcoholic husband too. However, someone said to me once stating gossip was like taking a feather pillow outside and splitting it open in the wind. An evil comment could work the same way. The maid and her husband did not live in the most upscale of neighborhoods. If she made statements around people or her husband did in a bar. Who knows who could have heard it . I would wonder if she could have had older teenagers around her and then look to their friends. I say that from the age determined by the linguistic specialist re. the note. I would then hang her by her thumbs to remember if any of them (e.g., nephew perhaps) had ever dropped her off or picked her up there. Came inside for a moment to wait ??

But the BPD probably won't be hiring me. SNL either...

Edited October 29, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

I finally picked up the book The Cases That Haunt Us, published in 2000, so that I could learn John Douglas' opinions on this case and I had bit of a surprise which explains some of his comments I'd previously found confusing.

Douglas wrote: "Contrary to what has been reported, I was not called upon to do a profile of the killer and have never done so. I never had all of the material I would need for that. I saw it as my role with the attorneys to do an assessment of whether their clients were involved, and with the police to give them the benefit of my experience in analyzing and researching thousands of homicide investigations."

I haven't read the entire chapter, but so far I know that Douglas did offer analysis of the note and of course, the opinion that the Ramsey's were not involved.

(Back later with more facts and details. )

[ronron1alpha]

Omg didn't know I got reply from this post. Dressed how ever bandage & ALL. Sicoo will find it all the same. That was my PO mode for open conversation of putting your teens on the street corner for a car wash funds for school. God rest their souls. Let's make it a better place to live!

[Aaronsmom]

I have always thought it odd that they said it was the Ramsey's fault because they dressed her up or she was a pagent girl. Pedofiles are attracted to children and if the child looks like an adult wouldnt that be a turn off for them ?

I've never thought it had anything to do with the makeup and dresses.

I also think it's a gross leap to blame the Ramseys on the basis of entering JBR in beauty pageants. For one thing, look how many little girls have been and still are in the pageants. How many of these contestants have been targeted by paedophiles? How many crimes like JBR's murder have there been of little girl contestants? I haven't heard of one, have you? That would indicate that a parent putting her child in a beauty pageant competition isn't baitin a pedophile to come after the kid. Secondly, none of us know what the motive of the murder was. There appear to be two very different motives at work: one, a kidnap for ransom, two, a sexual molestation murder by a crazed killer. The murder suggests two very different criminals acting in tandem but at cross purposes, or one criminal with multiple personality disorder. Neither seem like likely scenarios. Yet the crime took place as it did. Whatever, I can't see how PR putting JBR in beauty pageants could invite this type of bizarre crime that fits no one explanation.

[Aaronsmom]

Not only that, they fought the Det. Schmidt every step of the way when he made so many critical findings. I don't know if anyone here ever reads the "Enquirer" which in this case I did because I was so interested in it. They found later that the DA who was in office at the time was actually feeding negative information to the "Enquirer." Isn't this really a tragedy on top of a tragedy.

Yes, I read that somewhere too...that it appears the DA's office was leaking inside info about the investigation to a media source....maybe the Enquirer. Not only is that as unethical as LE can get, but what a gross disservice to the investigation. Someone who worked in Alex Hunter's office may have been selling the info; I know the Enquirer buys info, and pays handsomely, too. I can't think of another reason someone in the DA's office would leak info. Certainly it damaged the case severely. Unless the leaker was trying deliberately to damage the case so it could never be effectively prosecuted.

[Aaronsmom]

It was just recently I went back and went over the maid's comments and actions. I found them to be really, really strange for someone who Patti had been good to and who knew they were in such a grieving state. Along with the fact the Ramsey's have been proven not to have been involved, So what she said about Patti most probably wasn't true at all. Why?

IMO there had to be come type of personal involvement / envy of the Ramsey's on the part of the perp. I can't think that the bonus amount of the military comments were just thought up by someone who didn't know them at all... It's also hard to believe anyone went there for the purpose of killing the child right in the house with the R's present. However, even though I'm totally with you, the stun gun proves they were there for a kidnapping purpose, there still could have been two of them with the one in the basement killing her while the other composed the note.

I don't know if there was more than one perp, though certainly that's possible. But I do agree the crime is more than a straight-out kidnap for ransom or paedophile murder. Whoever is behind this acted out of deep rage/jealousy/hatred against the Ramseys--or one of the Ramseys. John? Seems like it. Patsy? Maybe. That "ransom letter" is way too personal to be a straight demand for money. And really angry and contemptuous. And the crime against JBR? About as brutal, sadistic and rageful as it gets. Who hated one or both of the Ramseys that much?

[Aaronsmom]

It was just recently I went back and went over the maid's comments and actions. I found them to be really, really strange for someone who Patti had been good to and who knew they were in such a grieving state. Along with the fact the Ramsey's have been proven not to have been involved, So what she said about Patti most probably wasn't true at all. Why?

IMO there had to be come type of personal involvement / envy of the Ramsey's on the part of the perp. I can't think that the bonus amount of the military comments were just thought up by someone who didn't know them at all... It's also hard to believe anyone went there for the purpose of killing the child right in the house with the R's present. However, even though I'm totally with you, the stun gun proves they were there for a kidnapping purpose, there still could have been two of them with the one in the basement killing her while the other composed the note.

I don't know if there was more than one perp, though certainly that's possible. But I do agree the crime is more than a straight-out kidnap for ransom or paedophile murder. Whoever is behind this acted out of deep rage/jealousy/hatred against the Ramseys--or one of the Ramseys. John? Seems like it. Patsy? Maybe. That "ransom letter" is way too personal to be a straight demand for money. And really angry and contemptuous. And the crime against JBR? About as brutal, sadistic and rageful as it gets. Who hated one or both of the Ramseys that much?

[Regi]

I do agree the crime is more than a straight-out kidnap for ransom or paedophile murder.

That's how it appears to John Douglas and it's the reason he says we haven't seen a similar case. He wrote "...this was not the work of a serial killer. This is not someone who killed for the fulfillment and satisfaction of exerting manipulation, domination, and control over a victim of opportunity. This was an inexperienced, mission-oriented offender. So there is no particular reason to believe he would repeat the same signature crime over and over."

[Regi]

Based on the evidence Douglas was presented with, he believes "JonBonet's killer was a white male, relatively young, who had a personal grudge against John Ramsey and intended to carry it out by defiling and robbing him of the most valuable thing in the world to him."

(He believes the perp entered the house when the family was out, and- in consideration of the items it's believed and/or determined that the offender brought with him- a stun gun, roll of duct tape, and a spool of cord)... "his intention was to incapacitate JonBenet, abduct her, and molest her. This was a personal-cause crime rather than a criminal enterprise. The ransom consideration was secondary and may not have even occurred to the UNSUB until he was in the house."

..."...maybe he brought a briefer ransom note with him, but when he had the time, he altered his plan and wrote a note on the Ramsey's own paper that was laying out on the counter, getting out more of his anger and resentment."

..."The high risk for the intruder would have been mitigated by the complexity of the physical layout of the house."

It appears (by what Douglas writes) that perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the crime is why the offender garroted JonBenet in the basement.

The autopsy findings suggest that the strangulation was first. "The official cause of death was listed as asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

Douglas spedcualtes that "whether he intended to or not, his tightening of the neck ligature either killed her or nearly did so. When he realized what he had done, he panicked and finished off the job with a blow to the head. Then, instead of removing her from the house, he fled in panic."

He added that that "is only one possibility. Another would be that this actually was an intended kidnapping, planned by one or more teens or young adults who had been inside the house and had seen John's pay stubbs."

Re: the molestation, he wrote "The digital penetration...would have represented the young man's casual experimentation while he had the opportunity. This would not be rare. Again, when he realized he had killed or nearly killed his victim, he would have panicked and fled."

Douglas closes by stating "The fact remains, I'm not sure who killed JonBenet Ramsey, and the fact that her killer has not been found and charged represents a terrible injustice. That injustice will only be compounded if the wrong people are accused. I always said that having a child murdered was the worst possible thing that could happen to a person. I guess I was wrong. having that happen and then being blamed for it is even worse."

Edited January 2, 2014 by regi

[Sig Turner]

That's how it appears to John Douglas and it's the reason he says we haven't seen a similar case. He wrote "...this was not the work of a serial killer. This is not someone who killed for the fulfillment and satisfaction of exerting manipulation, domination, and control over a victim of opportunity. This was an inexperienced, mission-oriented offender. So there is no particular reason to believe he would repeat the same signature crime over and over."

I agree with Douglas' profile of the killer to the extent that the killer was a young, white male, and an inexperienced killer who may likely never kill again. However, I disagree with Douglas' profile in regards to the killer's motivation. This was most likely a burglary gone bad. The killer, and his female accomplice who wrote the ransom note, had thought that the Ramseys had already left to vacation in Michigan. They did not think anyone was home at the time they broke into the Ramsey residence (probably using a house key). They were caught off-guard by JonBenet who came to down the stairs thinking it was Santa Claus whom she heard fumbling about. Instead, she discovered two intruders, at least one of whom she knew by name.

Whoever the killer was, he had some very desperate reason to silence JonBenet. Perhaps, the killer was on parole and could not accept being returned to prison for an extended sentence as a persistent offender, which is what a subsequent burglary conviction may have entailed for him. More likely, the killer had no prior arrest record and feared personal disgrace and some overwhelming upset of his life plans. This upset may have entailed the loss of a scholarship at CU, being expelled from law school, or even being terminated in disgrace from the Boulder Police Department, on top of being incarcerated on a burglary conviction. The most glaring aspect of the murder is the degree of overkill presented. Whoever it was that killed JonBenet was desperate to make absolutely certain that she was dead.

That there is reportedly little physical evidence of intruders having committed this crime is troubling, even though the crime scene was badly trampled underfoot thanks to the incompetency of BPD first responders. JonBenet was certainly not killed by either of her parents, nor by her brother. This much is obviated by the language of the protracted ransom note and the body of the intended hostage being left in the basement (to say nothing of the degree of overkill presented). Therefore, there had to be at least one intruder, and it appears that there was most likely a minimum of two: one male, one female. That there can be so little forensic evidence discovered at the scene either means that there is information about the case that is not being released to the public, or that the crime scene investigators did a thoroughly incompetent job of processing the crime scene. Worse still, there is the possibility that evidence was deliberately destroyed by a member of the BPD who was both involved in the investigation of the murder and involved in the murder itself, either directly or to the extent of covering up for a close relative they knew to be involved.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Sig Turner

[Regi]

I agree with Douglas' profile of the killer to the extent that the killer was a young, white male, and an inexperienced killer who may likely never kill again. However, I disagree with Douglas' profile in regards to the killer's motivation. This was most likely a burglary gone bad. murder

There are two immediate reasons I strongly disagree. 1) the motive for the note is entirely disregarded, and 2) the presence of the note indicates that the perp was in the house before the murder occurred and the language suggests intention.

Edit: There're actually three reasons in that reply!

Edited January 6, 2014 by regi

[docyabut2]

I m almost to the point that JonBenet`s Father may have murder her, you hear of fathers that molest their daughters and try to cover it up. Two points, who fixed her a bowl of pineapple in the middle of the night, and of course the ransom note giving his bonus. Also using his wife`s paint brush in the strangling.

[docyabut2]

I m almost to the point that JonBenet`s Father may have murder her, you hear of fathers that molest their daughters and try to cover it up. Two points, who fixed her a bowl of pineapple in the middle of the night, and of course the ransom note giving his bonus. Also using his wife`s paint brush in the strangling.

To add what parent would called the police to say their child was missing, with out franticly searching the whole house first. The strange DNA could have come from her clothes she had on that night, How many women buy those pretty little clothes off the racks or on tables for the holidays that have been handle so much in the stores, to put on their daughters with ever washing them, even to the pajamas or the under wear she wore that night.

Sorry for going on, but I`m sitting in a snow storm with nothing to do we have a level three, where no one can go out

[Regi]

The pineapple wasn't ingested "in the middle of the night", the painting supplies were within plain view in the basement, and there are several ways the bonus amount could have been known.

The DNA evidence is all foreign. There was a pubic hair on the blanket, DNA from under the fingernails, and DNA outside and inside her underclothing.

[Regi]

To add what parent would called the police to say their child was missing, with out franticly searching the whole house first. The strange DNA could have come from her clothes she had on that night, How many women buy those pretty little clothes off the racks or on tables for the holidays that have been handle so much in the stores, to put on their daughters with ever washing them, even to the pajamas or the under wear she wore that night.

The DNA was male. (I see no reason to speculate further about how foreign male DNA got to where it was found.)

When Patsy found the note, she screamed out to John, who I think went immediately to check JonBenet's room.

Edited January 6, 2014 by regi

[docyabut2]

The DNA evidence is all foreign. There was a pubic hair on the blanket, DNA from under the fingernails, and DNA outside and inside her underclothing.

The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder.

Regi where does it say fingernails and a hair ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey