Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somehow I still can't believe the Ramseys did it. That staging, strangulation. I could see Patsy hitting her in a rage (although there apparently was no history of that sort of thing) and having to cover it up but if THEY staged it, then they were really sick. To be that cold blooded. To even KNOW how to do it. Then to write the note.
There is no evidence of either of them being mentally ill.
To be the stager in the murder of your own child and feel nothing, to compose a long drawn out note and feel nothing. You would have to have severe mental illness, I think. I know if I had been through all that, at least my hand would have been shaking as I wrote the note. Actually, I could never have picked up a pen and written a note at all.
How many people know how to make a garrote? (Something I don't think I had ever even heard of.) Tie the knots. Stage something like this. With most people nothing like this would even enter their minds, let alone be something they knew how to do and even DID it.
If they did it, they were crazy as bats to begin with and had a history of child torture.
Although it is easy to make sense of it by saying they did it, I haven't seen evidence that they were mentally ill. This was done by someone who was nuts=crazy. No normal person could do this to their own child. No normal person would even know how to do this.
I totaly agree. Here is a very hard to look at page on the garrotte that begs the question, what loving parent could do this not once but twice? Http://www.jameson245/garotte.htm
Since I'm not a crime follower and don't watch it on tv or read about it--what does JR mean when he says he wants the rest of it released? The little bit that was released shows that the jury thought they were guilty of child abuse and had placed her in a situation where she might be hurt or killed, right? Also that they knew or knew of the person who did it and were standing in the way, right?
So the rest of the report would contain the evidence? The reasons why the jury came to these conclusions? Why would JR want THAT to come out? I don't get it.
Ok, it's like this. A grand jury hears only the prosecution case. Here they heard what police wanted them to hear in order to get their support for an arrest. They could refuse to bring in ANY evidence that pointed to an intruder
Like the hi-tec boot prints that matched nothing in the house
Like the fact that a scream in the basement coud not be heard on the third floor but most certainly COULD be heard across the street (due to a pipe leading from the basement out a front window)
Like The fact that the cord and tape matched NOTHING Iin the house... same with a palm print, a pubic hair and fibers
Like the unsourced dna that was found mixed with jonbenet's blood, found in her panties.
They were there to make a persecutory case against the Ramseys, mostly Patsy. It's been said a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich ... and that's true.
What John Ramsey would like tp see released is a true transcript of what the grand jury heard, and never got to hear.
Why would he like it released? Because it might help clear suspicion against him and Patsy and bring about a new interest in catching the real killer.
I just find it hard to believe they didn't know she was dead/didn't write the note and/or stage any thing, but they don't search the house and surrounding area for her. If I had a child, heck if my dogs were missing, I'd be tearing up my house.
Arnt said no one in the house seemed to care when the deadline passed for the kidnapper to call. Very odd.
There's too many loose ends if the Ramseys don't know anything.
Read the interview transcripts, watch the interviews. They checked on Burke and looked around the house but didn't find the body. First, you have to know they weren't looking for a body --- and why would they? The note said they took her. So while they checked on Burke and likely made sure there was no intruder left in the house, they weren't doing a proper search. It doesn't appear they opened every closet and rooted around in them (we're talking about some busy closets) and there would be no urgent need to check a room that was locked from the outside. Even the police officers didn't open that door because there was no way to go through and lock the door from the other side.
This statement was issued because the DA didn't have enough evidence to charge the Ramseys and people are innocent until proven guilty. It is a political statement, not a scientific one. The Boulder police and DA office were out of their depth from the start in this case. The Ramseys and their supporters were right about one thing--they were tried in the media rather than given due process. This statement is part of the official apology for so badly mishandling the case. Note that police or DA offices are under no obligation to say what they are really thinking to the hoi polloi. They are secretive and evasive under the best circumstances. In other words, if their lips are moving, they are lying.
Everyone source that I have read concerning the DNA evidence in this case is that it is not conclusive. Not every case can be solved with DNA evidence, and this is apparently one of them. The mere presence of fragmentary male DNA on clothing proves nothing. The world is lousy with DNA from people handling items and being together in public places. There are a million ways to get a random sample of DNA on your clothing. Just because DNA is present doesn't mean that it is related to the crime.
This statement by the DA office seems irresponsible to me, but I may not know all of their reasons for making it. I don't know if they really don't understand the complexities inherent in trying to analyze fragmentary DNA, or if they are just playing dumb. My guess is that this is their way of washing their hands of the Ramsey case once and for all. At the time of this statement, the person who was almost certainly at the bottom of it all, Patsy Ramsey, had been dead for two years. There was nothing left for them to prosecute. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but John may have never been prosecuted as an accessory, because spouses may be exempt from prosecution for accessory to crimes committed by the other spouse. More to the point, there could be no prosecution for accessory if there is no conviction for the principal crime. With the death of the primary suspect, the case was legally a moot point.
Nope. That DNA has been used to clear several suspects, including Michael Helgoth and chris Wolf. It is good evidences and clears her parents of her murder.
(I'm neutral) All that DNA evidence was overblown as evidence, as far as I'm concerned. I used to think that, because they found male DNA underneath JonBenet's fingernails, it would point to the culprit. However, she had been at a Christmas party with a lot of people and she was put straight to bed, not given a bath late at night. So any DNA from playing with the other kids or being around other people could have been present.
As far as the ransom note and calling their friends to come over and calling the police. I guess their behavior doesn't prove anything either way. Or does it? Calling friends is understandable, to get comfort and advice. Calling the police is understandable to get help. That's if they knew nothing.
OTOH, if they DID know something, calling friends would still provide comfort plus witnesses who would see how upset they were. Calling the police would provide police witnesses to their "finding" the body. They showed no sign of nervousness as the deadline mentioned on the ransom note approached, as if they already knew she was dead anyway.
I believe the Whites and all their guests were checked for dna And cleared.
The logical way for the dna to be found where it was: JonBenet scratched her killer, he instinctively touched the wound and then carried his dna into her clothing where it mixed woth her blood during the sexual assault. If it was just willy nilly carried around because she had been around people, there would have been numerous samples found. There were not.
I would say it was pretty good evidence, they found DNA traces of a unidentified male on the long johns waist band JonBenet wore the night she died.The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation.
From what Ive read touch DNA isn't that reliable? my understanding is touch DNA is extracted from skin cells that is most likely skin, but not absolutely skin, but I'm not sure. science wasn't my best subject at school. lol
and why isnt PRs DNA on the long johns, she apparently put them on her.
and if there is touch DNA on the long johns and panties why didn't LE scrap everything for more DNA ie the paint brush, the blanket, the garotte etc.
WONDERFUL QUESTION!
I would think both JonBenet's and Patsy's dna were on the longjohns and easily explained. It's the foreign dna, with no logical explanation, that requires follow up.
Lots more could be done on this case but the BPD isn't going to do it.
Well, docyabut, I did some more digging and found that the so-called DNA match cited by Mary Lacy has been thoroughly debunked. All of the non-Ramsey DNA in this case has been variously characterized as mixed, fragmentary, partial, degraded, etc. This purported DNA match would not be admissible in court. Here is a quote from Dr. Dan Krane, a noted DNA expert:
“… there is no generally accepted means of attaching a reliable statistical weight to a mixed DNA profile where allelic drop out may have occurred."
.
Don't know about this expert but would believe more in what came out in actual case depositions. In the Chris Wolf lawsuit depositions we found out from police Chief Beckner that the DNA evidence is good and has been used to clear people from the suspect list.
If there were a drop of blood in her underwear with DNA belonging to someone other than the family, the Ramsey's would have played that card to the hilt. No mention was made until touch DNA when indictment closed and grand jury rested.
The Ramseys really don't say a lot publicly. Lin Wood has spoken of the DNA evidence repeatedly but never worked Ramsey 24/7.
Then, why didn't they take the corpse? They could have gotten money for the body...
The most dangerous time for a ransom seeking kidnapper is when he tries to pick up the money. The fact this man didn't ask for a large sum, like a million dollars, tells me he wasn't in it for the money. If he wanted a sex toy who was warm and breathing, he lost that in the house when he killed her. Why risk taking her out? Especially on a holiday night where he'd have to risk being seen on that college town city street? . I have been there. He did the logical thing and left her behind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
