Family Innocent in Jonbenet Ramsey Murder

[CuriousLittleOne]

taken directly from the daily mail website, dated 2009

http://www.dailymail...g-answers-.html

When this six-year-old beauty queen was murdered, police were sure her parents were guilty - only to see them cleared. Now, 12 years and 100 suspects later, disturbing doubts remain... and the family face new questions.

As a veteran of the child beauty pageant circuit, the precocious six-year-old had amassed two dozen trophies and titles, including America’s Royal Miss Colorado, State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Sunburst and the National Tiny Miss Beauty.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Saru
Please do not copy entire web pages or articles

[Lorelilly]

MOM and DAD GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY and GUILTY

[docyabut2]

JonBenet’s parents I believe are innocent. People that usually kill their kids, the kids have been abused all a long. There is no evidence that JB was ever abused. Some male was there that night waiting to kidnapp her, but the plan fell through when JB starting struggling. The male DNA found on her body was not of her parents and I hope they catch this guy someday in the crimmal DNA data banks.

[RockShaman]

Wasn't there a daughter before JonBenet? I never did learn how she died. Ima go check to verify.

edit to add: yes, half-sister Elizabeth Pasch Ramsey (daughter of John Ramsey and his first wife), who died in a 1992 car accident at the age of 22 with her boyfriend Matthew Derrington.

Edited August 16, 2013 by RockShaman

[Regi]

I just finished the book, The Other Side of Suffering, by John Ramsey.

While he wrote almost entirely about his personal emotional and spiritual journey (which I think would be of comfort to anyone devastated by the loss of a loved one) he does speak to some of the case evidence.

Re: the ransom note, a linguistic scholar had studied it, and wrote a letter to Patsy Ramsey expressing his belief in her innocence and stating his impression.

His overall impression was that "it appears to have been written by a young adult with an adolescent imagination overheated by true crime literature and Hollywood thrillers."

He'd offered his services to the police, but his offer was rejected.

Re: other evidence, in a July 2008 letter to Ramsey, it was stated that genetic material collected from both sides of the waist area of the long john's rendered a DNA profile of an unidentified male which matched a previously collected blood drop in the crouch of the underwear.

(The blood drop had been collected early on in the investigation and the analysis results- at that time- had excluded family members.)

Apparently, the only other biological evidence collected at this point is that pubic hair which was collected from the blanket covering JonBonet's body. While it's referenced in the book, results of analysis aren't, and it isn't referenced at all in the letter from the police, so I think there must be a reason that a profile wasn't possible.

Edited September 12, 2013 by regi

[FurthurBB]

I just finished the book, The Other Side of Suffering, by John Ramsey.

While he wrote almost entirely about his personal emotional and spiritual journey (which I think would be of comfort to anyone devastated by the loss of a loved one) he does speak to some of the case evidence.

Re: the ransom note, a linguistic scholar had studied it, and wrote a letter to Patsy Ramsey expressing his belief in her innocence and stating his impression.

His overall impression was that "it appears to have been written by a young adult with an adolescent imagination overheated by true crime literature and Hollywood thrillers."

He'd offered his services to the police, but his offer was rejected.

Re: other evidence, in a July 2008 letter to Ramsey, it was stated that genetic material collected from both sides of the waist area of the long john's rendered a DNA profile of an unidentified male which matched a previously collected blood drop in the crouch of the underwear.

(The blood drop had been collected early on in the investigation and the analysis results- at that time- had excluded family members.)

Apparently, the only other biological evidence collected at this point is that pubic hair which was collected from the blanket covering JonBonet's body. While it's referenced in the book, results of analysis aren't, and it isn't referenced at all in the letter from the police, so I think there must be a reason that a profile wasn't possible.

Plus they also found DNA under her fingernails that match the DNA in the underwear. That is pretty consistent. I never heard about the long johns though.

[Antilles]

MOM and DAD GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY and GUILTY

Prove it.

[ronron1alpha]

I see no mention of the garott (sp). That is a weapon for a killer, or a toy sado (sick-). Whatsoever of the two. I never thought John or Patsey did it from the git go. The garott & DNA tell me that the crime was hastily planed, unknown suspect. The perp, didn't have to relive the crime scene. He, male DNA saw ir on TV forever. Hw most likely struck again. Maybe he killed by accident, therefore remorse the ransom notes. After that pedo sicko went on with out killings. He didn't escalate because the intent was not to kill.

[Teuta]

Here's an outside of the box thought: What if it was two young boys? Possibly friends of the brother?

Edited October 23, 2013 by Teuta

[Ryinrea]

Who ever did this has probably continued this for the last 12 years. I wonder how many children are 'missing' in that area.

Their was a break in, sexual assult case in the area before the Rassmany girls murder in the area

[Regi]

Their was a break in, sexual assult case in the area before the Rassmany girls murder in the area

That incident was referenced in Ramsey's book, but I don't recall much about it except that the mother and child were sleeping before they were aware that the perp was in the home....

If I'm not mistaken, it might have been believed that he'd entered the home before they had...

[Aaronsmom]

Regi, that other case, if it's the same one I'm thinking of, I think it was many months AFTER jbr's murder. It involved a girl who had gone to the same ballet school as JBR did. The mother and daughter had been out for the evening (the father wasn't there), came home, went to bed a short time later. The mother heard sounds that woke her. She got up to check out the noises and found a man over her daughter's bed, doing something to her. The perp was surprised by the mother, so he fled the house. Police believe he entered the house while the two were out, laid in wait, then struck when he felt sure the two were asleep. People supporting the Ramseys' innocence seized upon this incident as proof there was a paedophile in Boulder who broke into victims' home while the family was out and would wait until the family was asleep to attack. But in reading over about the other crime, I don't think it helps the Ramseys. What it does IMO is only underscore how completely divergent the two crimes are. A paedophile breaking into a home to assault a child does NOT do anything JBR's killer did. What happened to JBR stands out as a completely bizarre, atypical murder, from the perspective of any motive.

[esenpi]

Is it possible that the murder has been made by more than one suspect, even if they only found 'one' dna sample?

Maybe the plan, at first, was to kidnapp the girl. One of the two killed her. Then, one of them 'staged' a crime scene with more items to complicate the investigation, while the other one, wrote the 'ransom note'. Because in my mind, if I'd killed someone and I had time. I'd make all the evidences disapear and try to send police in a lot of opposing directions. No?

And it is probably someone who knew the family, like in almost all child murder cases. Maybe like a precedent poster said, a friend of the boy, a cousin, or a neighboor. Someone who, knew, or heard about the 118 000USD bonus.

Edited October 26, 2013 by esenpi

[Regi]

What happened to JBR stands out as a completely bizarre, atypical murder, from the perspective of any motive.

Oh, I agree.

What's always thrown me the most is the reason for the ransom letter, but Criminal Profiler John Douglas seems to say that what's important about the letter is that it shows that the perp had a grudge against John Ramsey.

Edited to add: I don't recall if Douglas correlated this crime with that other one.

Edited October 26, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Going back and reading some things now about the Ramsey's maid. I really came up with a suspicion that it might have been a member of her family. I think it is so likely that might have been the source of some knowledge and some envy toward the Ramseys.

I also watch another doc that pointed out that this is always thought about as being quite an "upscale" house and you think about it as being that type of neighborhood. However, there was an alley behind the house that JB road her bicycle in frequently that led straight to a not so nice trailer park. This doc pointed to one person in that park who had displayed many of the "qualifications" that a killer of this type would have had and that man had killed himself soon after the murder. Did anyone else here see that ?

Those are my two likely candidates.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

When I think of those with an familiarity/association with the Ramsey's apart from employees, (and I hesitate to suggest it), but I wonder about those acquainted somehow with John Ramsey's oldest son, who was about 20 at the time of the murder.

Edited October 26, 2013 by regi

[Aaronsmom]

Oh, I agree.

What's always thrown me the most is the reason for the ransom letter, but Criminal Profiler John Douglas seems to say that what's important about the letter is that it shows that the perp had a grudge against John Ramsey.

Edited to add: I don't recall if Douglas correlated this crime with that other one.

Yes, the tone of the letter does indeed sound very angry toward JR. Very few ppl knew of the amt of JR's bonus, which is only one reason the amt itself is so baffling. The other reason is the amt itself is very strange. I remember reading somewhere that in the history of kidnapping-for-ransom crimes, no other instances did a ransom note demand such an odd number. For one thing, anyone who knew the Ramseys well enough to target them and write the letter in that tone would know JR was a multi-millionaire. With that in mind, why in the world would a kidnapper demand such a comparatively small amount, and why the oddball number (i.e., $100k, $250k, 500k, $1mil, etc.) it does seem that the author was deliberately implicating associates of JR's who presumably might have resented the bonus JR got over their lower bonus. But 2 problems: there were only 2 business associates who had lower bonuses, and both of them had solid alibis at the time of the crime, and neither was known to bear JR ill will, or would be likely to know the dollar amt of JR's bonus. More importantly though (IMO) is what possible reason would a business associate of JR's have for *implicating himself"?? That would surely be the obvious outcome of demanding such an oddball number. It jumps off the page like a waving, shouting word.

This is a detail the BPD (and those in the public accusing the Ramseys) latched on to in pointing a finger at the parents themselves. JR and PR would know the number (though both Ramseys deny PR knew) and would have a motive for implicating someone specific if they were engaging in a cover up to deflect suspicion off of them. Was the letter author deliberately trying to implicate JR's associates who rec'd lower bonuses?

The seething rage in the tone of the letter is indeed a red flag. In other kidnap-for-ransom crimes, the note was rarely so personal in tone. Who would be so angry at JR? This was another check in the column for the Ramseys accusers: they suggest only someone really close to JR would have reason to be so filled with rage, and use such a personal tone. Who could that be? A really angry, resentful spouse? That's why so many pointed the finger at PR, or both Ramseys.

[Aaronsmom]

When I think of those with an familiarity/association with the Ramsey's apart from employees, (and I hesitate to suggest it), but I wonder about those acquainted somehow with John Ramsey's oldest son, who was about 20 at the time of the murder.

From all accounts I've read, the BPD cast a very wide net in their search for the killer, despite accusations that the BPD never looked seriously at anyone else. The older children from JR's first marriage, as well as acquaintances of theirs, and even JR's ex-wife, her second husband and ppl in their social circle (which was in Michigan) were all investigated. None of these ppl could be suspected realistically of having been in Boulder on Christmas night, 1996. All of them were able to account for their whereabouts sufficiently as to turn suspicion away from them. None were shown to have any motive.

[Regi]

Per usual, Aaronsmom, you offer lots of info and insight!

I don't think there can be any doubt that whoever was the author of that note, they knew about the bonus. I don't know what to make of the request of only the bonus amount.

I don't know how thorough the investigation was of other people; any POI's should only be excluded by the DNA.

I still have questions about the DNA specimens. I've heard Douglas refer to semen on clothing, I've seen reference of a hair, but I've only seen blood and skin cells referenced in regards to DNA results.

I don't know if the results offer a single profile or more than one. I don't know if there's a complete profile...obviously, I only know that it's sufficient for exclusion.

I'm not sure if a complete profile is what's required for the DNA data banks, but if there's a complete profile in this case, then it's intriguing that there hasn't been a match.

Edited October 27, 2013 by regi

[Aaronsmom]

Is it possible that the murder has been made by more than one suspect, even if they only found 'one' dna sample?

Maybe the plan, at first, was to kidnapp the girl. One of the two killed her. Then, one of them 'staged' a crime scene with more items to complicate the investigation, while the other one, wrote the 'ransom note'. Because in my mind, if I'd killed someone and I had time. I'd make all the evidences disapear and try to send police in a lot of opposing directions. No?

And it is probably someone who knew the family, like in almost all child murder cases. Maybe like a precedent poster said, a friend of the boy, a cousin, or a neighboor. Someone who, knew, or heard about the 118 000USD bonus.

All excellent questions, and worth exploring. There is strong evidence suggesting more than one perp, each with very different ideas about what he/she wanted--or one perp whose plan changed radically on the spot--the reasons for which are impossible to imagine. I will address some of your points, one at a time:

1. You say the kidnapping was thoughtfully planned out. But the evidence suggests otherwise: if anything, the kidnapping seems an "afterthought"--something the perp came up with on the spot, as if on an impulse. If the plan started out as a kidnap-for-ransome, wouldn't the ransom note be written beforehand? Instead, the evidence shows the letter was written once the perp was inside the house, on a pad of paper and a pen that was from the house. The author clearly felt very safe sitting down to write out a 3-page letter with an exceptional amt of detail and instructions, starting with 2 or 3 "practice letters" which were started, than hastily abandoned to begin a new letter--presumably until the perp felt satisfied the letter was just right. The other practice letters were found on other pages of the same pad. Why did a choice to kidnap made hastily on the spot produce such a long, detailed letter? Why is it the letter's author felt so safe taking that kind of time inside the house to compose the letter?

2. You say that one perp wrote the letter while the other perp killed the child, then one or the other staged the bizarre sado-sexual-murder-ritual. But which came first? The decision to kidnap and write the ransom demand, or the brutal murder and bizarre ritual scene? If the decision was to kidnap JBR, why then kill and molest her? Why leave a ransom note when the body was left in the basement? The perps would have to know the body would be found, which would cancel out payment of any ransom. If the brutal murder took place first, why wrote the lengthy ransom note? Why stage the ritualistic murder scene? If the child was molested and murdered in the house, why would the perp/s take the enormously dangerous risk of composing that lengthy ransom letter? Why wouldn't they be terrified the homeowner might wake up and discover the perp/s in the house?

3. You say maybe the intent was to confuse the police, send them in different directions and make all the evidence disappear. Very definitely the intent of the appearance of very different, opposing motives was to throw the police completely off-track, not knowing who or what to pursue. But the actions of the perp/s didn't make all the evidence "go away". It had the opposite effect: it created a bizarre plethora of evidence; a lengthy sample of handwriting, extended and intimate contact with the victim that runs a serious risk of causing a great deal more forensic evidence to gather on the body, the victim's clothes, the bizarre implements used, and the entire house with so much extended time inside it and many locales where forensic evidence might collect. If the kidnapping plan was botched by one of the perps violently murdering the child, why would one or both of them go to such extreme lengths to stage the sado-sexual scene, or why leave the body in the house? As the ransom note had been written, why not leave the house with JBR's body so that an attempt could be made to collect the ransom? The body could have been disposed of somewhere where it would not be found soon or easily. In the interim, the attempt to collect the ransom could have been made. But it couldn't be made with the body left in the house. The person who murdered and molested JBR did it in a violent rage and psychotic frenzy (unless that's exactly the impression the perp wanted to create). A person like that would be unlikely to write the letter that was found. If two perps were involved, how likely is it the author of this lengthy, detailed, written-on-the-spot ransom letter would be teamed up with a psychopath paedophile, driven by extreme and violent impulses? If it was one perp, how could such a person be capable of both actions?

It's counter-intuitive that a perp or perps desperate to cover up a kidnap-for-ransom plan would do so by taking the time and steps involved to leave the horrifying crime scene they did. Leaving the body behind with so many sick things done to it would be the most obvious mistake. Or if they were too afraid to leave the house with the body, why not leave the body behind with as little extra contact with the perp/s as possible? The quicker the perp/s get out of there with the least amount of contact with the victim, the better for them. Most bizarre and impossible to explain, though, is with all sick things that were done to that child, why is so LITTLE forensic evidence of the perp/s left behind? Why only this tiny drop of foreign DNA on the little girl's underwear, and a single pubic hair on a blanket? It defies logic.

4. You suggest it could have been someone who knew the amt of JR's bonus. Very few ppl could have known what the exact amt was. The two associates who also rec'd bonuses, which were less than JR's, weren't told. Theoretically, someone in the office could have snooped around enough to dig up the info. No info was found inside the house revealing the amt of the bonus, ruling out the likelihood of a housekeeper, handyman, gardener, etc. coming across the number. Even so, all such persons--the business associates of JR's and all people that might have had access to the Ramsey house, such as employees, neighbors, other visitors, etc. we're thoroughly investigated--and all eliminated as suspects.

There is no one explanation I have heard of that accounts for all the clues left behind, nor any suspect, working alone or with an accomplice, that fits the profile/s of the person or persons capable of all the things done in that crime.

I think it is the strangest and most inexplicable crime ever committed.

[coolguy]

A family member did it and got away with it.its a shame that these nuts have to dress up there little kids and make them do these pageants are they livening there youth though these kids.

[Aaronsmom]

If you're so sure a family member was the killer, then the murder had nothing to do with JBR being in child beauty pageants, now did it? Hmm?

[Aaronsmom]

Per usual, Aaronsmom, you offer lots of info and insight!

I don't think there can be any doubt that whoever was the author of that note, they knew about the bonus. I don't know what to make of the request of only the bonus amount.

I don't know how thorough the investigation was of other people; any POI's should only be excluded by the DNA.

I still have questions about the DNA specimens. I've heard Douglas refer to semen on clothing, I've seen reference of a hair, but I've only seen blood and skin cells referenced in regards to DNA results.

I don't know if the results offer a single profile or more than one. I don't know if there's a complete profile...obviously, I only know that it's sufficient for exclusion.

I'm not sure if a complete profile is what's required for the DNA data banks, but if there's a complete profile in this case, then it's intriguing that there hasn't been a match.

regi, as to what DNA was found on clothing, Nancy Grace had a segment on the new info out just last evening. The famous medical examiner Henry Lee, who I believe consulted on this, stated the tiny sample of DNA on the underwear was NOT semen--which is why, he said, it's not adequate proof that the DNA is from the killer. One of her reporters said he had it confirmed the DNA is a tiny drop of blood. Previously, I have heard many things; that it could be a flake of skin, or a speck of mucus, even saliva. Who knows?

I agree though...it IS strange that there hasn't been a match yet in the national data base of DNA from sex offenders. Which makes me wonder all the more if the DNA sample really is from someone at the manufacturing end, or maybe someone who did the Ramsey laundry, or possibly even someone who helped JBR in the bathroom.

Another possibility could be the DNA is from someone who's been dead quite a while.

[Regi]

regi, as to what DNA was found on clothing, Nancy Grace had a segment on the new info out just last evening. The famous medical examiner Henry Lee, who I believe consulted on this, stated the tiny sample of DNA on the underwear was NOT semen--which is why, he said, it's not adequate proof that the DNA is from the killer. One of her reporters said he had it confirmed the DNA is a tiny drop of blood. Previously, I have heard many things; that it could be a flake of skin, or a speck of mucus, even saliva. Who knows?

It must be the nature of the specimens- that they're skin cells- that lends to Lee's opinion. Anyway, the police disagree.

On the wiki site about the murder, the letter to John Ramsey from the police states "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 it's presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder."

I agree that there's no innocent explanation for foreign male DNA to have been present. I think another important point is that there is no other DNA.

It appears from that letter that there is indeed only one profile. From what I understand, the specimen matches are skin cells collected from two areas of the long johns (including the waistband), and the blood spot collected from the crotch of the underwear.

Another possibility could be the DNA is from someone who's been dead quite a while.

True, but I think there are other reasons the profile isn't in the data banks, including that he simply may not have ever offended again.

Edited October 27, 2013 by regi

[Aaronsmom]

Yes, one might suppose the killer never struck again, but I don't see it as a likely explanation. If this was a paedophile/ sex offender who did this, I really don't see someone capable of such brutity and such driven sexual sadoism fading into the woodwork after an act of such depravity, never to be heard from again. There were some perps looked at who died not long after the murder. Within a year or two. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence at the time to nail any of them down. I don't know. But of course if the BPD are right and the Ramseys were behind the murder and staged everything as a cover-up, that would be another explanation why the DNA doesn't match anyone in the data base and why the killer never struck again. Not saying the latter is the real truth...I'm just putting it out there as another explanation.