Family Innocent in Jonbenet Ramsey Murder

[wolfknight]

I still think someone in that family knows the truth. I think all of the Child Beauty Pageants need to be baned. Look at the Honey Boo Boo that child is nothing but a brat.

[Sig Turner]

After reading all the comments so far, one thing is plain to see. There is still a high-charged emotional flow from everyone about this case. JonBenet was a very pretty little girl, and what happened to her was unfortunate, and perhaps we will never know who did it. But she will never be forgotten. And I have never heard of "touch DNA" but what a leap in technological forensics we have had since her murder. Because of the strong emotional flow her murder invokes in people working on this case, perhaps one day we will bring the killer to justice.

I'm pretty charged up after getting banned at so many internet forums that purport to specialize in crime sleuthing, just because I had a theory that the "Ramseys Did It" fanatics could not overcome. It is disgusting to witness the depths to which so many people will descend in order to maintain that John and Patsy Ramsey killed their own daughter. It's like some some perverse religion. Never mind the sanctity of such Western ideals as "freedom of speech and press." These Bolsheviks would sooner burn you at the stake then allow you to posit a defensible argument that someone other than the Ramseys were responsible for the death of JonBenet.

Why is it so important to these lunatics that the Ramseys did it? One forum, which I will only identify as WS banned me several years ago within a week of me posting my theory, and then locked up the entire thread so that further discussion (even in my absence) was not possible. Another forum, which I will identify only as JQ, actually took down their entire JonBenet Ramsey sub-forum after banning me, thus negating any trace or reference to my theory on their entire forum. Thankfully, a message board associated with Turner Broadcasting (no relation) merely banned me but did have the grace to leave my theory open for examination and critique (at least so far).

What the hell is wrong with these people? Would it really be so horrible if John and Patsy Ramsey did NOT kill their own daughter?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Sig Turner

[WoIverine]

The killer was probably someone who regularly attended the fashion shows. Hope the authorities could pull lists of everyone who attended, or videos of crowd sweeps, then try to match up the dna.

[Antilles]

Not a specialist poster on this case but I have never believed the parents or any member of the family killed JB.

[mfrmboy]

I seem to recall that the ransom note was in Patsy's handwriting on their stationary. Am I correct on this?

[JGirl]

i am very glad to hear this after all these years - i never believed they had anything to do with her death.

sadly, i don't think they will ever solve this murder, and mostly because they wasted time and manpower focusing on the parents.

[mfrmboy]

I seem to recall that the ransom note was in Patsy's handwriting on their stationary. Am I correct on this?

I went back and did some research and found that the Ramsey's gave several examples of their handwriting and none matched. It was just media false reporting.

Going back and reading the story it is horrible what they ( the media and the athorities) did to this family.

I read th story at www.crimelibrary.com

Edited November 9, 2012 by mfrmboy

[Sig Turner]

I went back and did some research and found that the Ramsey's gave several examples of their handwriting and none matched. It was just media false reporting.

Going back and reading the story it is horrible what they ( the media and the athorities) did to this family.

I read th story at www.crimelibrary.com

The worst of it is that, to this very day, the majority of posters, moderators, and administrators of these so-called "crime forums" apparently remain steadfastly convinced that the Ramseys did it, despite all evidence to the contrary. They will attack you in droves for suggesting otherwise and then ban you on the slightest pretext if you refuse to back down or go away. It's as if they are killing JonBenet and Patsy Ramsey all over again, and are enjoying themselves in some perverse, sadistic way as they do it. It is a sickening thing to behold.

[Antilles]

I miss Jon Von Erich.

He always discussed crimes intelligently.

Anyway.

I agree with both of the above posts.

This damnation of the Ramseys, especially Patsy, is ludicrous.

There is no firm, concrete, provable in a court of law evidence that either of her parents murdered JBR.

So if you agree that neither of the Ramseys were involved, then who killed the child?

[dekker87]

I miss Jon Von Erich.

He always discussed crimes intelligently.

Anyway.

I agree with both of the above posts.

This damnation of the Ramseys, especially Patsy, is ludicrous.

There is no firm, concrete, provable in a court of law evidence that either of her parents murdered JBR.

So if you agree that neither of the Ramseys were involved, then who killed the child?

The Ramsey's son.

i'm no expert on this but i don't think you need to be....i think the more you know of this case the harder to make sense of it...in a can't see the woods for the trees kind of way....

i think the most logical explanation is that the son killed her, perhaps by accident and the parents...primarily the mother, covered this up.

[Regi]

I have to say, I've always had a serious problem with that ransom letter.

It was indeed a letter, not a note. Very long, which is very weird.

The language is bizarre. There was not even a point to it. Why even write it?

The pen and paper used for the letter came from the home.

The paintbrush used in the commission of the crime came from the home.

I don't think there can be any doubt that whomever the perp was, it was someone familiar.

[Antilles]

But not the mother. I have never understood why that woman was so demonised and accused of killing her own daughter. The only reason I've ever come across is that the girl had wet the bed and Patsy Ramsey became so incensed she killed JonBenet, then made it look like an accident.

Look, we all know how often kids wet the bed. If every parent went berserk because of bed wetting, there would be a lot less children in the world!

There is no solid evidence that Patsy ever harmed any of her kids or hurt JonBenet.

The antipathy towards her I believe stems from the beauty pageant nonsense she shoved JonBenet into. IMO, because of her own thwarted ambitions. She tried to live her life through her daughter.

And I don't understand that and I don't agree with it - I have never watched the Honey Boo-Boo show on TV but unfortunately, I've come across photos of the child and the mother. There is no comparison wealth wise between the 2 families but I can match the desperate need of the mother to relive her life through the child. Or to attain an ambition that she never could herself.

However, this does not make Patsy Ramsey a murderess.

[Regi]

Antilles, we're not talking about 'every parent'.

And there have indeed been cases where children have been killed over those sorts of issues...potty training, and so on.

No, there's no evidence of any abuse prior, but that isn't necessarily impressive because there doesn't have to be.

I'm not pointing the finger. I just think that those are lame arguments.

I've read that John Douglas (former FBI profiler) believes the perp was an intruder, and that the ransom letter was written before the crime...that the intention was to abduct the little girl but something went wrong...plans changed, etc.

If Douglas is right about the letter, then the perp would still have to have been familiar to the home/family to have had access to that paper.

That the letter demanded a very odd amount of ransom money, $118,000 (and experts say that's a relatively small amount considering the Ramsey's financial status) then the perp was someone with the knowledge that the father had received about that same amount in a yearly bonus.

[dekker87]

Antilles, we're not talking about 'every parent'.

And there have indeed been cases where children have been killed over those sorts of issues...potty training, and so on.

No, there's no evidence of any abuse prior, but that isn't necessarily impressive because there doesn't have to be.

I'm not pointing the finger. I just think that those are lame arguments.

I've read that John Douglas (former FBI profiler) believes the perp was an intruder, and that the ransom letter was written before the crime...that the intention was to abduct the little girl but something went wrong...plans changed, etc.

If Douglas is right about the letter, then the perp would still have to have been familiar to the home/family to have had access to that paper.

That the letter demanded a very odd amount of ransom money, $118,000 (and experts say that's a relatively small amount considering the Ramsey's financial status) then the perp was someone with the knowledge that the father had received about that same amount in a yearly bonus.

it's the letter...and the amount of money requested as ransom which imo points more than anything else towards the son.

[Regi]

it's the letter...and the amount of money requested as ransom which imo points more than anything else towards the son.

I don't remember a heck of a lot of detail about this case. I know that there wasn't rape, but there was sexual assault of some kind, which profilers say could indicate an inexperienced, young, or curious perp, or it could indicate staging.

I seem to remember that the family said that JonBonet had fallen asleep by the time the family returned home that night, and that she was carried directly to her bed.

I don't know what the est. time of death was, but there was pineapple in her system, and there was a bowl of pineapple out on a counter and the spoon in the bowl had the son's fingerprints.

Of course, since the family had been out visiting that eve., it's possible that she'd eaten the pineapple elsewhere.

I can't recall what the family said about that.

It wasn't until 2003 that specimen samples (I don't know what they were) collected from a few items of clothing on JonBonet's body were sufficient to obtain a DNA profile, and authorities said the profile didn't match the family.

I assume when they said 'the family', that they were referring to everyone in the home.

[Antilles]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18333413

JonBenet would turn 23 this year if she was still alive.

The burden of proof is a lot lower for a grand jury than for a trial jury.

Abuse leading to a death but the DA won't go forward?

If they believed the Ramseys were guilty, the DA would have gone forward.

It was not the Ramseys. The murderer came from outside the house.

[Regi]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18333413

Abuse leading to a death but the DA won't go forward?

If they believed the Ramseys were guilty, the DA would have gone forward.

Generally speaking, and regardless of a DA's personal belief, if a DA doesn't think there's sufficient evidence, then they're not likely to risk taking a case to trial.

The reason is, there's no statute of limitations for murder, but once there's an acquittal, it's game over.

[docyabut2]

From what I understand the DNA found does not match anyone in the DNA data base, but the only ones in the data base are of those that have done crimes.They don `nt match any of the suspects in the case, that the Ramseys knew.The one that did it is still out there, a unknown petafile.

[dekker87]

I don't remember a heck of a lot of detail about this case. I know that there wasn't rape, but there was sexual assault of some kind, which profilers say could indicate an inexperienced, young, or curious perp, or it could indicate staging.

I seem to remember that the family said that JonBonet had fallen asleep by the time the family returned home that night, and that she was carried directly to her bed.

I don't know what the est. time of death was, but there was pineapple in her system, and there was a bowl of pineapple out on a counter and the spoon in the bowl had the son's fingerprints.

Of course, since the family had been out visiting that eve., it's possible that she'd eaten the pineapple elsewhere.

I can't recall what the family said about that.

It wasn't until 2003 that specimen samples (I don't know what they were) collected from a few items of clothing on JonBonet's body were sufficient to obtain a DNA profile, and authorities said the profile didn't match the family.

I assume when they said 'the family', that they were referring to everyone in the home.

the crime scene wasn't secured properly at the time so in theory this dna could have come from someone unconnected...i think...

[spayneuter]

I have to say, I've always had a serious problem with that ransom letter.

It was indeed a letter, not a note. Very long, which is very weird.

The language is bizarre. There was not even a point to it. Why even write it?

The pen and paper used for the letter came from the home.

The paintbrush used in the commission of the crime came from the home.

I don't think there can be any doubt that whomever the perp was, it was someone familiar.

I agree with you. It was someone very very familiar with the family and their home. The only way I can explain the weird note is that whoever wrote it was either a total nutjob or on drugs or both. I think he only meant to kidnap the child but his lust killed her before he got her out of the house.

I never believed it was John or Patsy. It had nothing to do with pageants, although I don't think pageants are a good thing for any female. Too much emphasis on outward beauty,

[Regi]

the crime scene wasn't secured properly at the time so in theory this dna could have come from someone unconnected...i think...

Secondary transfer is possible, but determining the weight of DNA evidence depends on what the specimens are and where they're collected from.

[Ryinrea]

Secondary transfer is possible, but determining the weight of DNA evidence depends on what the specimens are and where they're collected from.

Yes this is, why we secure the scene first so we do not let new specimens get mixed in with the old. That's crime scene investigation 101 It helps with the weight of DNA evidence at trial. If a person showed up the next day and left somehow his fingerprints and DNA; then, why should we take this in too account? That could also explain; how a thread of John's Shirt got on her underwear, Since washing things like that in the same load would be easier for a family of that size. Ie Secondary Transfer

The weight of evidence against Pasty and John is slim to put it mildly. Although with a Grand Jury you can get a Ham sandwich convicted if you wanted to bring charges against the sandwich.

[Regi]

Yes this is, why we secure the scene first so we do not let new specimens get mixed in with the old. That's crime scene investigation 101 It helps with the weight of DNA evidence at trial. If a person showed up the next day and left somehow his fingerprints and DNA; then, why should we take this in too account? That could also explain; how a thread of John's Shirt got on her underwear, Since washing things like that in the same load would be easier for a family of that size. Ie Secondary Transfer

The weight of evidence against Pasty and John is slim to put it mildly. Although with a Grand Jury you can get a Ham sandwich convicted if you wanted to bring charges against the sandwich.

If you know what the evidence is- threads or other fibers collected... what the specimens are and where they were collected from, then that would be helpful.

I don't know if you were speaking directly to me about John and Patsy Ramsey, but I wasn't referring to secondary transfer from anyone with a known connection the child. I was speaking to unknown DNA...DNA from someone not identified to have had any known association with the child, INCLUDING DNA not associated with those in the chain of custody of the body, regardless of whether or not the scene was secured.

And...

A grand jury doesn't convict...they indict.

Ha-ha! So, they couldn't convict the sandwich, but they could indict it.

Edited March 17, 2013 by regi

[Antilles]

http://www.examiner....nts-to-intruder

2003 US District Judge Julie Carnes: it was clear the investigators were focused on the Ramseys, no-one else, right from the start.

Ya think? Read the article. It's interesting.

[Regi]

That article is aggravating re: the DNA. Is it reasonable to assume that all of the specimens offered one- or were consistent with one- profile?

That's interesting about the animal hair on the Duct tape attributed to beaver.

The bristles of some paintbrushes are made from animal hair and since the wood piece of the tourniquet came from a paintbrush, I'm inclined to think those hairs did too.