Family Innocent in Jonbenet Ramsey Murder

[Regi]

Regi where does it say fingernails and a hair ?

That's in the book, The Cases That Haunt Us, by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker

[docyabut2]

That's in the book, The Cases That Haunt Us, by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker

If there were DNA under her fingers nails, plus a pubic hair, besides the DNA on her clothing, they would have a better chance of finding who it was., of which may not be true. In the statement above it says only DNA was found on her clothing.

On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques

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

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

[CuriousLittleOne]

i dont know how well you know this case docyabut2

but can i drect your attention to :

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682477/FrontPage

full of every fact there is to the case.

[Aaronsmom]

Hi Sig. A lot of people have put forward the "burglary gone bad" theory. It doesn't hold up for me, though. If someone breaks into a house thinking the house is unoccupied, only to find the occupants are there, one of two things would happen: either the burglar/s would flee the scene in fear of being discovered, or he/she/they would proceed with the burglary, making every effort not to wake anyone. A small percentage of burglaries occur while the residents are home, sleeping. They're called "cat burglars". What they don't do is what whoever it was did...write a long ransom note, take a family member down to the basement, brutalize her in the most obscene and insane way, then leave with nothing.

If the burglar was someone JBR knew and the motive was to silence a potential witness, the burglar might murder her, but it would be way simpler and quicker than how JBR was killed. Clubbed savagely over the head, then strangled with an elaborate device that would have taken precious time to make, then either sexually molested or a sexual molestation staged to throw LE off the track, and then a long ransom note that the author knew could never be collected written-- not something a surprised burglar would do. He would take out the witness as fast and as quietly as possible, then hightail it outta there. Nothing about JBR's murder fits with a burglary gone wrong.

This is the problem with developing theories about this notorious crime. As I have said, there is no ONE motive known to the imagination that can explain this crime. A planned kidnapping for ransom doesn't happen this way-- a long, time-consuming letter written inside the house, on a pad of paper found in the home, demanding an absurd amount of money ($18,000) and then the intended victim brutally murdered and molested in the basement, killed in a bizarre, ritualistic fashion that would have taken a long time to complete. Neither does a paedophile murder happen this way (note all of the above). The amount of ransom demanded, and the tone and angry wording of the 3-page letter seem to suggest the author is someone who knew JR's bonus amount, and was full of very personal rage against him....or someone hoping to point suspicion at such a person. Why? As a deliberate plan to throw off the police as to who the letter-writer/killer really was. Who would do that? That's the $64,000 question. Answer that and the crime is solved IMO.

[docyabut2]

Hi Sig. A lot of people have put forward the "burglary gone bad" theory. It doesn't hold up for me, though. If someone breaks into a house thinking the house is unoccupied, only to find the occupants are there, one of two things would happen: either the burglar/s would flee the scene in fear of being discovered, or he/she/they would proceed with the burglary, making every effort not to wake anyone. A small percentage of burglaries occur while the residents are home, sleeping. They're called "cat burglars". What they don't do is what whoever it was did...write a long ransom note, take a family member down to the basement, brutalize her in the most obscene and insane way, then leave with nothing.

If the burglar was someone JBR knew and the motive was to silence a potential witness, the burglar might murder her, but it would be way simpler and quicker than how JBR was killed. Clubbed savagely over the head, then strangled with an elaborate device that would have taken precious time to make, then either sexually molested or a sexual molestation staged to throw LE off the track, and then a long ransom note that the author knew could never be collected written-- not something a surprised burglar would do. He would take out the witness as fast and as quietly as possible, then hightail it outta there. Nothing about JBR's murder fits with a burglary gone wrong.

This is the problem with developing theories about this notorious crime. As I have said, there is no ONE motive known to the imagination that can explain this crime. A planned kidnapping for ransom doesn't happen this way-- a long, time-consuming letter written inside the house, on a pad of paper found in the home, demanding an absurd amount of money ($18,000) and then the intended victim brutally murdered and molested in the basement, killed in a bizarre, ritualistic fashion that would have taken a long time to complete. Neither does a paedophile murder happen this way (note all of the above). The amount of ransom demanded, and the tone and angry wording of the 3-page letter seem to suggest the author is someone who knew JR's bonus amount, and was full of very personal rage against him....or someone hoping to point suspicion at such a person. Why? As a deliberate plan to throw off the police as to who the letter-writer/killer really was. Who would do that? That's the $64,000 question. Answer that and the crime is solved IMO.

They found no foot prints in the snow around the house, or by the broken window, the person who kill her was already there.

[CuriousLittleOne]

Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

1. "the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90).
   
   
2. "There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
3. "Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
4. "In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
5. "the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
6. "The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32).
   
   
7. "Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
8. "Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89).
   
   
9. "the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).
   

what i cant get over is the evidence in the office/study and the third floor.

Study

Dictionary

• Opened to Word "Incest." "When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members" (Thomas 2000:293; quote and source provided by Internet poster tylin.
  

Third Floor

• Danish Book Found.
  

1. According to Internet poster Braveheart (in a now-deleted thread), "a book written in Danish language by David Pilgrim found on Patsy's dresser (this would be one of two books, or both, written by Hilary Aidan St. George Saunders and John Leslie Palmer, British authors, writing under the pseudonym of David Pilgrim; "No Common Glory" & "The Grand Design", both available in German, English and Danish translations. They are classified as historical crime fiction novels. I don’t know the plot of these but my guess is that since neither John nor Patsy spoke Danish, and didn’t recognize the book, these have something to do with the crime and were left by the murderer."
   
   
2. According to Internet poster Evening2, "a book was found on Patsy's dresser which she had never seen before nor had she ever read. The book was written in Danish. The title of the book is "The Grand Design", by David Pilgrim. David Pilgrim is one of many pseudonyms that was used by two authors. In 1998 police interviews, Patsy said neither she nor John spoke Danish and she did not know where this book came from.
   

Edited January 9, 2014 by CuriousLittleOne

[CuriousLittleOne]

brainwave, stick with me....

ok , im the intruder (yes i belive that theory, dont judge just listen! ok?)

ok , so i open the grate to the basement room, get in , try to unlock the door to go into the rest of the basement, find out its bocked and i cant get in ( ive read the door was blocked by a chair from the outside)

i put the suitcase under the window, climb out and then gain access through the open butler door.......

am i crazy, on the right track or just posting already theorised stuff?

John Ramsey's Report. John Ramsey reported finding a chair blocking the door to the train room when he was in the basement on the morning of December 26. In his 1998 police interviews he stated (p. 155:lines 7-13): "I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door. Some old things. I moved the chair, went into this room, went back in here. This window was open, maybe that far." It is clear from the last sentence that John is referring to the train room.

[CuriousLittleOne]

ANOTHER THING! sorry for the tripple posts....

the alarm system was off that night, it would be interesting to see where the alarm sensors were triggered, in what rooms, i know my alarm is only active in the single room it is in , as ours is a motion sensor, but i know some use heat to detect things.

[Aaronsmom]

They found no foot prints in the snow around the house, or by the broken window, the person who kill her was already there.

Not sure what your point is. Care to elaborate?

[docyabut2]

Not sure what your point is. Care to elaborate?

Based on an official report from a policeman at the scene who noted: — "Strange, no footprints and stated that there were allegedly no signs of forced entry.

The mayor of Boulder, Leslie Durgan, appeared on television stating: — "By all reports there was no visible signs of forced entry. The body was found in a place where people are saying, someone had to know the house."

[docyabut2]

Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

1. "the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90).
   
   
2. "There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
3. "Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
4. "In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
5. "the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
6. "The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32).
   
   
7. "Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
   
   
8. "Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89).
   
   
9. "the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).
   

what i cant get over is the evidence in the office/study and the third floor.

Study

Dictionary

• Opened to Word "Incest." "When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members" (Thomas 2000:293; quote and source provided by Internet poster tylin.
  

Third Floor

• Danish Book Found.
  

1. According to Internet poster Braveheart (in a now-deleted thread), "a book written in Danish language by David Pilgrim found on Patsy's dresser (this would be one of two books, or both, written by Hilary Aidan St. George Saunders and John Leslie Palmer, British authors, writing under the pseudonym of David Pilgrim; "No Common Glory" & "The Grand Design", both available in German, English and Danish translations. They are classified as historical crime fiction novels. I don’t know the plot of these but my guess is that since neither John nor Patsy spoke Danish, and didn’t recognize the book, these have something to do with the crime and were left by the murderer."
   
   
2. According to Internet poster Evening2, "a book was found on Patsy's dresser which she had never seen before nor had she ever read. The book was written in Danish. The title of the book is "The Grand Design", by David Pilgrim. David Pilgrim is one of many pseudonyms that was used by two authors. In 1998 police interviews, Patsy said neither she nor John spoke Danish and she did not know where this book came from.
   

"Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88).

So where outside are the foot prints? Even if there were was`nt that much snow around the window, well , the grounds would have very muddy, there should have been foot prints if that person entered there.

Edited January 10, 2014 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

"the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90).

The father could have open that door to make it looked like they came in that way, who goes away or goes to bed with out locking their doors.

Edited January 10, 2014 by docyabut2

[Regi]

Even if there were no snow around the window, well . the ground would have very muddy, there should have been foot prints if that person entered there.

(I read something interesting about the use of the word 'should'. I wish I could remember what it was. ....I mean, I should, right? )

Not necessarily.

The father could have open that door to make it looked like they came in that way, who goes away or goes to bed with out locking their doors.

The Ramsey's have said they believed they'd locked the doors.

Edited January 10, 2014 by regi

[docyabut2]

(I read something interesting about the use of the word 'should'. I wish I could remember what it was. ....I mean, I should, right? )

Not necessarily

Sorry kind of worded that wrong this Morning before my cup of coffee:)

For those that claim large areas surrounding the house had no snow cover, concerning any foot prints in the snow.

Even if there were snow or no snow around the window, well , the ground would have been very muddy, there would be foot prints if a person entered there.

[+joc]

How is it that all of a sudden DNA testing is the key? We had DNA testing when the murder took place. How is it now conclusive when before it wasn't?

I will always believe one of them or both of them did it. To cover up their incestuous behavior with their little princess...and until they can prove otherwise that someone else did it...that is what I will choose to believe.

Edited January 10, 2014 by joc

[CuriousLittleOne]

brainwave, stick with me....

ok , im the intruder (yes i belive that theory, dont judge just listen! ok?)

ok , so i open the grate to the basement room, get in , try to unlock the door to go into the rest of the basement, find out its bocked and i cant get in ( ive read the door was blocked by a chair from the outside)

i put the suitcase under the window, climb out and then gain access through the open butler door.......

am i crazy, on the right track or just posting already theorised stuff?

[Regi]

How is it that all of a sudden DNA testing is the key? We had DNA testing when the murder took place. How is it now conclusive when before it wasn't?

The way I understand it, DNA always excluded the family. (When there's an exclusion, it's always "conclusive".)

I know that over a decade later, more results were possible because of advancements in DNA testing and those results matched what they already had.

The way I view it, not only do the the newer results serve to further exclude the family, but together with the previous are additionally incriminating for that unidentified male.

Edited January 10, 2014 by regi

[Aaronsmom]

I am so sick of hearing about those xxx missing footprints in the snow. It's been established that there were many copies of keys to the house floating around at the time of the murder. I read that John Ramsey started leaving an extra key to the house under a rock that lined the walkway to the front door ever since the time he locked himself out. There were several people who knew the location of the key (which wasn't under the rock next time someone looked). If that's not enough, it's in the record that there was at least one door left unlocked the night JBR died. No sign of break-in outside the house (other than the broken window), doesn't mean there wasn't someone uninvited in the house that night. There were many ways to get in besides forced entry. The no footprints thing is not a informative detail.

[docyabut2]

brainwave, stick with me....

ok , im the intruder (yes i belive that theory, dont judge just listen! ok?)

ok , so i open the grate to the basement room, get in , try to unlock the door to go into the rest of the basement, find out its bocked and i cant get in ( ive read the door was blocked by a chair from the outside)

i put the suitcase under the window, climb out and then gain access through the open butler door.......

am i crazy, on the right track or just posting already theorised stuff?

so where are your foot prints

[+joc]

I am so sick of hearing about those xxx missing footprints in the snow. It's been established that there were many copies of keys to the house floating around at the time of the murder. I read that John Ramsey started leaving an extra key to the house under a rock that lined the walkway to the front door ever since the time he locked himself out. There were several people who knew the location of the key (which wasn't under the rock next time someone looked). If that's not enough, it's in the record that there was at least one door left unlocked the night JBR died. No sign of break-in outside the house (other than the broken window), doesn't mean there wasn't someone uninvited in the house that night. There were many ways to get in besides forced entry. The no footprints thing is not a informative detail.

Doesn't mean there wasn't someone INVITED in the house that night either. Maybe someone was paying them a lot of money for sexual favors with their princess...maybe someone with lots of connections...in the modeling/entertainment industry...and maybe it all went really bad...and so they all covered their tracks together. I will never believe those two are innocent...never.

[docyabut2]

I am so sick of hearing about those xxx missing footprints in the snow. It's been established that there were many copies of keys to the house floating around at the time of the murder. I read that John Ramsey started leaving an extra key to the house under a rock that lined the walkway to the front door ever since the time he locked himself out. There were several people who knew the location of the key (which wasn't under the rock next time someone looked). If that's not enough, it's in the record that there was at least one door left unlocked the night JBR died. No sign of break-in outside the house (other than the broken window), doesn't mean there wasn't someone uninvited in the house that night. There were many ways to get in besides forced entry. The no footprints thing is not a informative detail.

so your saying a intruder just happen along to know there was a key or a unlock door when there was a alarm system. most burglars seeing a sigh in the yard would not even try to enter.

Edited January 11, 2014 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

I just happen to think it was her father who killed her. he appears to be a nice guy but with a intent to sexually abuse his daughter, he covered it all up.

[Aaronsmom]

The footprints thing reminds me of another case. Have any of you heard about Brian Dugan and the Jeanine Nicarco murder? This was in 1983. A girl around 10 disappeared from her home one winter day when she stayed home from school with stomach flu. Her mother worked, so Jeanine stayed by herself, with her mom checking in on her every half hour or so. As the worst kind of luck would have it for poor Jeanine, a murdering paedophile was trolling Jeanine's neighborhood in suburban Chicago, with an itch to scratch. When Jeanine's sisters came home, the front door was kicked in, the house was trashed as though a struggle had taken place, and Jeanine was gone. Her body was found a few days later, only a couple of miles from her house. The local police arrested three young guys who lived around there on the basis of them getting very drunk in a bar one night and joking about killing Jeanine. I know, real funny, huh? Anyway, the police arrested them and when they sobered up, they vehemently denied they killed Jeanine. But they were tried, convicted and sentenced to death. In the meantime, another little girl in the suburbs was abducted, molested and murdered. Very quickly, the police zeroed in on a suspect...Brian Dugan. They had him dead to rights, so Dugan pleaded guilty in exchange for life in prison. Turns out he had also raped and murdered a young woman in Iowa several years before. So now Dugan tells investigators that there's another murder he committed that others were convicted for and he would exonerate them if he was promised he wouldn't be executed. As you can probably guess, Jeanine Nicarico is the girl he said he murdered. Police talked with him. Dugan told them details no one in the public knew, and other parts of his story lined up with evidence (boot size of boot print on door, called in sick to work at his factory job matched factory's records, car rec'd a ticket for illegal parking not far from Jeanine's house). It was obvious the cops had their man. But the cops and the DA didn't want to admit to a mistake, so they ignored Dugan's information and stuck to the plan of executing those falsely convicted. They didn't care that the wrong men would be executed. All they cared about was keeping their convictions and death penalty "wins" on the ledger.

Here's the part about footprints in the snow: one argument the DA made for rejecting Dugan's confession was they refused to believe there was only one culprit. They cited footprints in the snow found by police all around Jeanine's house, indicating more than one person. But the boot prints matched child-size feet. It was found in the initial police report that Jeanine's sisters ran all around the house, looking and calling for Jeanine. The boot prints were the sisters'. But the DA was so stubborn, they dismissed the size of the boot prints as proving anything. Listen to this: the DA said the two men convicted (one was acquitted) were not beneath "putting on child's boots when committing the crime, as a ploy to throw police off the trail." Seriously. They really said this. That grown men could put on boots of little kids to throw off police. It sounds incredible, I know, but the DA really said this. They were so determined to see the men they convicted put to death, they would say any kind of outrageous thing to reject Dugan's story.

The epilogue is the two jailed men were successful getting new trials and they were acquitted. But by this time, these young men spent 20 years in prison for a crime committed by someone else. The DA's office suffered no consequences for their reprehensible conduct. Once the falsely convicted men were exonerated, the DA decided to prosecute Dugan after all....and seek the DP. The case is in limbo, but the DP in Illinois was abolished a year ago. If Dugan is ever tried, nothing more can happen to him but what's happened already: he will die in prison.

[Aaronsmom]

so your saying a intruder just happen along to know there was a key or a unlock door when there was a alarm system. most burglars seeing a sigh in the yard would not even try to enter.

No, I'm saying nothing of the kind. My point was, no sign of forced entry doesn't mean no one got into the house that night. It also doesn't mean anyone did get in. It's not a useful detail because it neither proves nor disproves the intruder theory. Whoever did this knew an awful lot about the Ramseys, especially JR. Obviously it wasn't random, as proved by the ransom letter.

Unfortunately for the Ramseys, that detail doesn't help their case, because the Ramseys (one or both) would know all the details that were in the letter. It's precisely because the letter was so lengthy, personal and oddly specific (ransom demand, for example), coupled with PR being a possible hand-writing match, that people who accuse the Ramseys of the murder believe in PR's guilt with such conviction. So if the killer was someone who came inside the house, obviously it wasn't some random burglar.

The alternative, though, is no one other than the family was in the Ramsey home that night. Which is what makes this case perhaps the most mysterious, bizarre and unsolvable crime ever committed.

[Regi]

Hey, Aaronsmom, you might find it of interest that John Douglas made mention (in the book, The Cases That Haunt Us) that there are two categories(?) of child molesters: preferential and situational. He didn't explain the differences and he didn't state it outright, but it appears that since he believes that the molestation was "experimental" and occurred while the opportunity was there, then he must believe the perp is the latter.

I intend to find out more about the differences between those offenders.

Informative link re: sex offenders.

http://www.cac-kent.org/pdfs/Lanning_-_Suspect_Typology.pdf

Edited January 11, 2014 by regi