PDA

View Full Version : Exhume Jonbenet's Body; Why Not?



Blazeboy3
02-06-2004, 06:24 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523887.shtml
...
Unfortunately, with only photographs to go by, no expert can be sure. The best way to determine the answer would have been to exhume the body to study the injuries. Smit admits that in the months following JonBenet’s death, investigators considered going to court to have her body exhumed. They decided against it

So did John Ramsey. “We had buried our child, she was at peace, she was safe. That was just an abhorrent thought to me,” he says. “We’ve got people that know what they’re doing that say with 95 percent medical certainty that a stun gun was used, no question.” Despite the uncertainty that leaves, he says he didn’t want to disturb his child.
...
IMHO why would Patsy state/say "Go Back To The Damn Drawing Board" as if this is a "picture"?

IMHO, why not exhume JonBenet's body if it would SAVE ANOTHER CHILD ...(KILLER ON THE LOOSE)...HELLO??? :D :D :D

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/attack_3.html?sect=7
Patsy answered in a tearful voice: - "There is a killer on the loose, I don't know who it is, I don't know if it's a he or a she - but if I were a resident of Boulder I would tell my friends to keep their babies close to you."
Rather than explain their point of view, the broadcast only served to bolster the theory that the Ramseys were pretending and would rather talk on television than talk to the police

///...hum Wasn't Patsy a RESIDENT OF BOULDER???

BlueCrab
02-06-2004, 10:42 AM
Exhume the body. Even after seven years it may be able to determine whether or not a stun gun was likely used on JonBenet. If a stun gun was used it points to torture and a whole different outlook on this case. The term "accident" goes out of the window forever.

IMO John Ramsey isn't concerned about "disturbing" JonBenet's body. He's concerned that Ramsey ownership of a stun gun will be uncovered some day and it will point to a Ramsey family member using it on JonBenet. But so long as the marks on JonBenet's body remain inconclusive the Ramseys are left with wiggle room.

JMO

Ivy
02-06-2004, 11:56 AM
BlueCrab...even if it could be determined a stun gun had been used on JonBenet and that around the time of her death, the Ramseys owned a stun gun whose prongs could have made the marks, how would LE go about determining which of the Rs or their friends zapped her, or how long before her death she was zapped?

____
IMO

why_nutt
02-06-2004, 12:38 PM
IMO John Ramsey isn't concerned about "disturbing" JonBenet's body. He's concerned that Ramsey ownership of a stun gun will be uncovered some day and it will point to a Ramsey family member using it on JonBenet. But so long as the marks on JonBenet's body remain inconclusive the Ramseys are left with wiggle room.

JMO

I definitely agree John "isn't concerned about 'disturbing' JonBenet's body." He and Patsy were all in favor of having a child's body exhumed for the relatively frivolous reason of simply wanting that child to be buried elsewhere for convenience (this is in reference to the the Mary Ann Holt story found in DOI). Was that child's body any less "disturbed" than JonBenet's would be? No, it was not. The exhumation would be done with respect, and as it is, JonBenet's autopsy rendered her body into a series of pieces held together only by cosmetics, costumes, and a strong desire to deny what her body really looks like after that autopsy.

In my opinion, an exhumation should take place. At best, enough skin has survived decay to allow for microscopic examination and the potential find of nuclear streaming, which would define once and for all stun-gun use. If a stun gun can definitively be said to have been involved, then the case becomes one of looking for someone who liked to torture a victim, and that aspect of psychological evidence narrows the suspect pool. If, at worst, JonBenet's skin yields up nothing, then truly nothing has been lost. Again, the issue is not that of keeping JonBenet from resting in peace. John approved of the exhumation of a friend's child, therefore he has no reason, real or irrational, to refrain from approving the exhumation of his own child.

BlueCrab
02-06-2004, 12:38 PM
BlueCrab...even if it could be determined a stun gun had been used on JonBenet and that around the time of her death, the Ramseys owned a stun gun whose prongs could have made the marks, how would LE go about determining which of the Rs or their friends zapped her, or how long before her death she was zapped?

____
IMO

It's known from photos that JonBenet didn't have the marks on her on Christmas Day. The marks were inflicted that night.

If it's eventually uncovered the Ramseys owned a stun gun or had access to a stun gun, it would prove they had been covering up the existence of a significant item of evidence. The proven lie would open the door to intensive interrogations, and it's likely the truth would eventually reveal itself under the barrage of those endless police questions.

Even if the authorities are already aware that children were involved in the death of JonBenet (as I suspect they do), it would be important to know whether or not torture was involved.

JMO

BlueCrab
02-06-2004, 11:50 PM
Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

Ivy
02-07-2004, 12:59 AM
BC, if the body were exhumed and found to be in poor condition, making examination of the marks impossible, then even if someday it's established that the Rs owned a stun gun around the time of JonBenet's death, it would have no bearing on the case...right?
___
IMO

Maikai
02-07-2004, 04:23 AM
was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--he did the experiements, and researched the world-wide literature....so there's no point in doing an exhumation, and at this point in time, it's too late. The BPD could have had it done, but didn't. It's unreasonable to expect the Ramseys to have made that decision, and you can't just go to the cemetery and just say you want a body exhumed.

Even if the body had been exhumed, proof of the marks does not reveal who did it.

Blazeboy3
02-07-2004, 04:32 AM
I definitely agree John "isn't concerned about 'disturbing' JonBenet's body." He and Patsy were all in favor of having a child's body exhumed for the relatively frivolous reason of simply wanting that child to be buried elsewhere for convenience (this is in reference to the the Mary Ann Holt story found in DOI). Was that child's body any less "disturbed" than JonBenet's would be? No, it was not. The exhumation would be done with respect, and as it is, JonBenet's autopsy rendered her body into a series of pieces held together only by cosmetics, costumes, and a strong desire to deny what her body really looks like after that autopsy.

In my opinion, an exhumation should take place. At best, enough skin has survived decay to allow for microscopic examination and the potential find of nuclear streaming, which would define once and for all stun-gun use. If a stun gun can definitively be said to have been involved, then the case becomes one of looking for someone who liked to torture a victim, and that aspect of psychological evidence narrows the suspect pool. If, at worst, JonBenet's skin yields up nothing, then truly nothing has been lost. Again, the issue is not that of keeping JonBenet from resting in peace. John approved of the exhumation of a friend's child, therefore he has no reason, real or irrational, to refrain from approving the exhumation of his own child.

I agree. John's thinking ahead of others which IMHO means he has something to HIDE(selfish IMHO) from others. :D

Blazeboy3
02-07-2004, 04:35 AM
Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

Says who...IMHO unexplained mysteries(miracles?) are happening ALL THE TIME!!! ;) ;) ;)

Blazeboy3
02-07-2004, 04:37 AM
Thought I'd do a little research about what happens to bodies after being buried. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for digging up JonBenet and studying the "stun gun" marks under a microscope. The skin, and the marks, may no longer be there. Putrefaction is much quicker in children.

Under normal burial conditions, and depending how deep the casket is buried and how moist the ground is, an adult is reduced to a skeleton in about 10 years; a child is reduced to a skeleton in just 5 years.

JMO

IMHO IT'S NEVER TOO LATE EVER BECAUSE LIFE/EARTH IS A NEVER-ENDING CIRCLE fwiw

Remember this(IMHO it originated from Dixon/Physic?) but not sure!?

KENNEDY(maybe he died because of this belief?): "Some people see things as they are and say why. I see things that never were and say why not."

Blazeboy3
02-07-2004, 04:39 AM
was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--he did the experiements, and researched the world-wide literature....so there's no point in doing an exhumation, and at this point in time, it's too late. The BPD could have had it done, but didn't. It's unreasonable to expect the Ramseys to have made that decision, and you can't just go to the cemetery and just say you want a body exhumed.

Even if the body had been exhumed, proof of the marks does not reveal who did it.

I agree that anyone can "Talk/justify themselves into it/belief OR/CHOICE Talk/justify themselves out of it/belief" IMHO fwiw fyi!

BlueCrab
02-07-2004, 10:46 AM
BC, if the body were exhumed and found to be in poor condition, making examination of the marks impossible, then even if someday it's established that the Rs owned a stun gun around the time of JonBenet's death, it would have no bearing on the case...right?
___
IMO


Ivy,

If a stun gun was found to be owned or readily available to a Ramsey on December 26, 1996 and they had lied about it, I think it would be a significant development. Why would they find it necessary to lie about the stun gun's existence?

It would be powerful evidence that a stun gun had been used on JonBenet to torture her.

If so, WHO used the stun gun on JonBenet? WHO brought the stun gun into the house? WHO took the stun gun from the house? Was there a fifth person in the house that night, invited in by a Ramsey, and that fifth person can answer all of the above questions? If so, what was the age of that fifth person? If that person was 10 or older he can be adjudicated in the juvenile courts. If he is 14 or older he can be prosecuted as an adult.

The Ramseys are definitely covering up for someone, and that someone may not be Burke. Burke was 9 at the time and legally not culpable.

JMO

Shylock
02-07-2004, 11:36 AM
Doberson is sure a stun gun was used, with a high degree of medical certainty--

Doberson is a ham who says whatever gets him the most publicity. He's on record as saying you can never tell from a photograph, that you have to exhume the body and look for very charistic signs in the tissue.

Additionally, the BPD said a few yers ago that they have evidence which proves a stun gun wasn't used. I believe that evidence is blood on the inside of her shirt from the "abrasions". Stun guns don't make people bleed.

Shylock
02-07-2004, 11:42 AM
The Ramseys are definitely covering up for someone, and that someone may not be Burke. Burke was 9 at the time and legally not culpable.

The Ramseys would have had no way of knowing that night that Burke was not culpable. They didn't even know if what Burke did to JonBenet was considered "incest" and they had to look it up in the dictionary.

Besides, even if they knew Burke couldn't be arrested, they would have still staged the crime to protect him from going through life known as the kid who killed his beauty queen little sister while playing "doctor".

I can just hear John Ramsey saying, "Now I've lost TWO daughters, and I'm NOT going to lose a son!"

BlueCrab
02-07-2004, 01:17 PM
The Ramseys would have had no way of knowing that night that Burke was not culpable.


Mike Bynum knew. Although the cell phone records are conveniently missing so it can't be proven, I think John Ramsey called Bynum VERY early that morning to get advice -- probably around 4:00 A.M.

JMO

popcorn
02-07-2004, 05:19 PM
I vote to exhume but not to check for stungun marks rather to see what the Ramseys may have hidden in with the body AND to see if any foreign DNA is in the panties she was buried in. Where did those panties come from? Was Pam allowed to paw through her panty drawer? This needs to be addressed.

The circumference of the largest abrasion is visually similar enough to the jagged paint stick which was within inches of said injury so seems plausible enough to be more likely than a stungun.

Shylock
02-08-2004, 12:40 AM
Mike Bynum knew. Although the cell phone records are conveniently missing so it can't be proven, I think John Ramsey called Bynum VERY early that morning to get advice -- probably around 4:00 A.M.
JMO
The cell phone record is not missing. The record is there but shows no minutes used in the month of December.

Ivy
02-08-2004, 01:20 PM
BC...I too believe the Ramseys phoned Bynum in the wee hours of the 26th. It would have been easy for Haddon to have the record expunged to hide the fact.

When a phone record has been expunged, is there a way to restore it?
___
IMO

LovelyPigeon
02-08-2004, 06:52 PM
If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission.

To establish in court whether or not the marks on JonBenét's body were made by a stun gun there would be need for: (1) an expert to testify to his belief to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and (2) a stungun connected to a person accused of using that stun gun.

Court precedence has been well established since 1996 for an expert to examine photographs of injuries and compare those injuries to a weapon claimed to have been used to make the injuries. That precedence certainly includes a stun gun as a weapon. The murder of Karen Styles in NC may have been the first court to establish that precedent.

There is no need, nor any desire, on the part of LE or parents to exhume JonBenét's body to establish use of a stun gun. Only if and when a person is charged with using a stun gun on her and that stun gun produced will there be testimony in court regarding whether the marks were made by a stun gun.

Toltec
02-08-2004, 06:59 PM
Did Doctor Meyer take tissue samples...anyone?

I do not believe for one second that a stungun was used...and so does John and Patsy Ramsey. John does not want to disturb his daughters body because of fear of finding something more incriminating period.

Ivy
02-08-2004, 07:28 PM
I don't believe in the stun gun theory either. The Rs like to flash it around as "evidence" of an intruder, but even if it could be shown that JonBenet had been zapped with a stun gun, it wouldn't be evidence of an intruder.

LE was already being accused of picking on the Ramseys, so why would LE demand the body be exhumed and leave themselves open to even more negative publicity, especially when the exhumation would accomplish nothing toward solving the case? After all, even if the marks were shown to be stun gun marks, they wouldn't indicate who made them. They could have been made by an intruder, or they could have been made by one of the Ramseys. And if one of the Ramseys, which one?
___
IMO

LovelyPigeon
02-08-2004, 07:44 PM
In order to present proof of a stun gun against a defendant in court, the stun gun used would have to be presented and expert testimony given that the stun gun could have made the marks on the particular victim.

At the very least, it would have to be legally established that the defendant had possession of or access to an identical stun gun at the time the victim was injured.

Evidence of a stun gun used on JonBenét would be only IF a suspect is charged and can be connected with a stun gun that can scientifically be shown capable of making the marks in the photographs of JonBenét's body.

There is no stun gun to use as evidence against the Ramseys. If a Ramsey were ever charged, expert testimony would be presented that the Ramseys did not own or have access to a stun gun but that the marks were made by a stun gun with certain physical characteristics.

Honeybee
02-11-2004, 10:32 PM
[QUOTE=LovelyPigeon]"If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission. "

You're right, LP. All the authorities need is a court order to exhume the body and they do not need the Ramseys' permission at all.

But in order to admit this is the case, (as it definitely is) it would have to be admitted that in one instance at least the Ramseys can't be blamed. Few of the posters here are prepared to do that no matter what the facts are.

BlueCrab
02-12-2004, 10:31 PM
[QUOTE=LovelyPigeon]"If law enforcement wanted to exhume the body they would not need the parents' permission. LE would need a judge's permission. "

You're right, LP. All the authorities need is a court order to exhume the body and they do not need the Ramseys' permission at all.

But in order to admit this is the case, (as it definitely is) it would have to be admitted that in one instance at least the Ramseys can't be blamed. Few of the posters here are prepared to do that no matter what the facts are.

It's a moot question anymore. The body is likely nothing but a skeleton after being buried for seven years. A child's body completes putrefaction after about five years.

JMO

Honeybee
02-13-2004, 03:22 PM
I don't know anything about the decomposition of human bodies, Bluecrab, but I take you at your word, there's nothing left to examine.

This can't be blamed on the Ramseys either.

IMO

akashana
09-29-2010, 12:54 PM
It's been 14 years. Now that there is new activity on the case, I wonder if it would be possible to glean any useful evidence from her remains. If the police do indeed plan to delve deeper into the case, it seems as if exhumation could possibly yield some long-sought answers.

Does anyone know if after all these years a body could still harbor clues to the murder?

DeeDee249
09-29-2010, 11:43 PM
It's been 14 years. Now that there is new activity on the case, I wonder if it would be possible to glean any useful evidence from her remains. If the police do indeed plan to delve deeper into the case, it seems as if exhumation could possibly yield some long-sought answers.

Does anyone know if after all these years a body could still harbor clues to the murder?

Doubtful. The information LE needs in in the soft tissue (vaginal area, and the sites of the alleged "stun gun" marks. She's buried in Georgia, a very warm, humid climate. Even graves that have cement liners (illegal in some States) are not waterproof, and water (and insects) hasten decomposition.

cynic
09-30-2010, 12:13 AM
It’s entirely possible that JBR would be sufficiently preserved had she been buried in Boulder; however, as DeeDee has suggested, the conditions in Atlanta are less than favorable.
The rate of decomposition of a body depends on a large number of variables: temperature, soil acidity, access to the body by insects and other scavengers, moisture, quality of embalming, burial container, burial location (mausoleum or in-ground).
Decomposition is basically the process of your own bacteria eating you from the inside out, with help from some external “friends.” Embalming can slow the decomposition process by flushing away the majority of the bacteria and rendering other tissues "inedible," but no corpse is (typically) buried in a completely sterile state.

Putrefaction will proceed at a slower rate in cooler temperatures, with freezing suspending the process all-together, in those who are thin, in infants, those who are found in water, those who die in a dry environment, whether cold or warm, those who are found lying on a stone surface and in some cases in which the person has been buried.
In reference to those who have been buried, whether putrefaction is hasten or delayed will be determined by the depth of burial, temperature of the soil, water table, the natural drainage of the burial site and the quality of construction and water tightness of the coffin. If the decedent is buried deep, in well drained soil, especially clay soil, whose coffin is water tight, the process of putrefaction will be substantively delayed. If however, the gravesite is shallow, the soil is moist with poor drainage or the water table is high and the coffin is not water tight the rate of putrefaction will be hastened. However, even without embalming a body buried in a sufficiently dry environment may be well preserved for decades. It is generally agreed that an unembalmed adult buried deep in well drained soil, with a water tight coffin, will be reduced to a skeleton in approximately 10 years, whereas a child will become a skeleton in approximately 5 years. There is a general axiom referred to as “Casper’s dictum” which provides an overall perspective to the putrefaction process, “one week of putrefaction in air is equivalent to two weeks in water, which is equivalent to 8 weeks buried in soil, given the same environmental temperatures.”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZR160xPmbs8J:forensicmd.files.wordp ress.com/2010/02/late-postmortem-changes1.doc+LATE+POSTMORTEM+CHANGES/DECOMPOSITION&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZR160xPmbs8J:forensicmd.files.wordp ress.com/2010/02/late-postmortem-changes1.doc+LATE+POSTMORTEM+CHANGES/DECOMPOSITION&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca)

joeskidbeck
09-30-2010, 07:44 PM
I live about 90 miles from where JonBenet is buried and DeeDee is right about the humidity here. It can be unbelievable in the summer months. Anyway, my dad died in 2001 and when we made the funeral arrangements the director asked if we wanted to purchase a vault. I had never been involved in making any kind of arrangements and didn't really know the purpose for these vaults. He told us the one we bought was guaranteed for 700 years. This meant that no water, bugs, or anything for that matter could penetrate the vault and get to the coffin or my dad's body. I am wondering if the Ramsey's purchased a vault for JonBenet (it is not mandatory in Georgia) and if they did, would that have helped to preserve her remains.
Does anybody know of any morticians who post here? I would love to ask one a few questions. If LE is really beginning to heat up this investigation, it could possibly come to exhuming her body. Personally, I don't give any credence to the stun gun theory, but there could possibly be other evidence to be discovered. It seems to me that there were a few things the Ramseys wanted buried with her that could be hiding important information.

DeeDee249
09-30-2010, 10:12 PM
In order for JB to be exhumed without her father's permission, a warrant has to be issued. That means the DA has to ask a judge for it, and has to have a sufficiently serious reason for doing so. Obviously, JR does not want it. Let's face it, the RST does not want her exhumed, and does not want any further evidence to be obtained from her body.

SuperDave
10-01-2010, 07:44 PM
It wouldn't be necessarily hopeless. Medgar Evers's body was buried for almost 30 years in the Deep South before it was exhumed, and he was almost untouched by the elements.

DeeDee249
10-01-2010, 07:51 PM
It wouldn't be necessarily hopeless. Medgar Evers's body was buried for almost 30 years in the Deep South before it was exhumed, and he was almost untouched by the elements.

Yes, that's true. But every case is different, and unfortunately with JB they wouldn't know unless they tried. And they don't want to try. If this DA would put his money where his mouth is, he'd go to a judge (one that isn't "friends" with the R defense attouneys) and get a warrant, exhume the body and see of there is enough soft tissue left to give them some answers.

Trocaria
12-02-2010, 11:16 PM
Just wanted to chime in here regarding the possible state of JBR's human remains.

This was a full post autopsy. Embalming a fully posted case will actually render better results of long term preservasion than the standard embalming routine.

With a full post, meaning that the brain has been removed together with the organs, the mortician will be working harder than usual to ensure that the body will be viewable without looking too odd and most importantly, without a tell-tale smell.

The fact that the organs are now in a seperate bag is a BIG plus. Cavity fluid is poured into the bag which is sealed up tight. The body is then embalmed; due to cuts that have been made on various artories and veins, the majority of the formaldahyde will be running into the abdomen cavity, (and needs to be siphined out quickly otherwise the fumes and smell can be overwhelming!)

Most morticians will also go ahead and bring up other vessels to embalm with such as the femorals in the legs as a precaution in order to ensure all over distribution. If they're smart, in a crime case like this, they may opt to "hit 'em hard!" with a high index of solution which can also help to preserve "evidence" so to speak.

I would refer you all to a child abuse murder case in White Bear, MN where the body of a murdered boy was brought up 20 years after his murder. The mortician, knowing that this day might come, had treated the body with everything he had in order to preserve as much of the tissue as possible.
The result was quite mummified...but the bruises and marks were just as readable and clear as they had been 20 years before when the mortician questioned the offical finding of the boy having died from the "flu".

In JBR's case, my concern would be the fact that they buried her in a wood casket as opposed to metal. Metals will hold up better than wood, thus protecting the remains a little longer. I only hope that a top of the line vault was used in conjunction with the burial.

This has been a very long way to say that yes, she may still be very much intact.

joeskidbeck
12-02-2010, 11:28 PM
Just wanted to chime in here regarding the possible state of JBR's human remains.

This was a full post autopsy. Embalming a fully posted case will actually render better results of long term preservasion than the standard embalming routine.

With a full post, meaning that the brain has been removed together with the organs, the mortician will be working harder than usual to ensure that the body will be viewable without looking too odd and most importantly, without a tell-tale smell.

The fact that the organs are now in a seperate bag is a BIG plus. Cavity fluid is poured into the bag which is sealed up tight. The body is then embalmed; due to cuts that have been made on various artories and veins, the majority of the formaldahyde will be running into the abdomen cavity, (and needs to be siphined out quickly otherwise the fumes and smell can be overwhelming!)

Most morticians will also go ahead and bring up other vessels to embalm with such as the femorals in the legs as a precaution in order to ensure all over distribution. If they're smart, in a crime case like this, they may opt to "hit 'em hard!" with a high index of solution which can also help to preserve "evidence" so to speak.

I would refer you all to a child abuse murder case in White Bear, MN where the body of a murdered boy was brought up 20 years after his murder. The mortician, knowing that this day might come, had treated the body with everything he had in order to preserve as much of the tissue as possible.
The result was quite mummified...but the bruises and marks were just as readable and clear as they had been 20 years before when the mortician questioned the offical finding of the boy having died from the "flu".

In JBR's case, my concern would be the fact that they buried her in a wood casket as opposed to metal. Metals will hold up better than wood, thus protecting the remains a little longer. I only hope that a top of the line vault was used in conjunction with the burial.

This has been a very long way to say that yes, she may still be very much intact.

Thank you for the information, Trocaria. With that expensive slab of concrete on top of JonBenet's grave, one would think the Ramseys would surely have purchased an expensive vault, unless of course, the wooden coffin had a purpose....

eileenhawkeye
12-02-2010, 11:59 PM
It seems that it is John Ramsey that is putting a stop to JBR being exhumed. I believe he said that it's disrespectful? That sounds like an excuse to me. I really hope JBR is exhumed one day and the mortician took that possibility into account.

Also, does anyone else found the thought of them opening JonBenet's casket and seeing her in her pageant dress, tiara, and blonde curls 14 years after she died just so creepy? If she was bones now, that would be one thing, but to know she might still be intact just gives me the shivers.

joeskidbeck
12-03-2010, 11:19 AM
Shivers for sure, Eileen, but just think, if it would help her to finally rest in peace, it would be worth it. I guess the thing is, if Karma means for her body to still be able to give evidence, then it will be there. But we have to remember that before this would happen, someone in Boulder is going to have to man-up and get that warrant issued. Wonder if there are any real men left in Boulder?

eileenhawkeye
12-03-2010, 11:35 AM
Does the victim's family have any say in whether the body is exhumed? I know that John doesn't want it done and he can use his connections to make sure his request is honored. But let's say this case involved a working class family who doesn't want their child exhumed, does that matter? Does LE take into account what the family wants before exhuming their child? Or not in cases where the child was murdered and it's still unsolved?

joeskidbeck
12-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Does the victim's family have any say in whether the body is exhumed? I know that John doesn't want it done and he can use his connections to make sure his request is honored. But let's say this case involved a working class family who doesn't want their child exhumed, does that matter? Does LE take into account what the family wants before exhuming their child? Or not in cases where the child was murdered and it's still unsolved?

Eileen, if there is a possibility that her body could yield evedence that would point to her killer, the da's office in Boulder can get a warrant and have her exhumed no matter what John Ramsey thinks. Now, JR could give permission (with no warrant needed) and maybe we could find out who killed her. He will NEVER give his permission, but it wouldn't be needed with a warrant.
Becky

madeleine
12-03-2010, 11:53 AM
What do they need for such a warrant?I mean,what does the affidavit have to say.Don't they usually get exhumation warrants when there's new evidence that might be corroborated with what they would find if exhuming the body?

Becky319
12-03-2010, 12:47 PM
[QUOTE=eileenhawkeye;5865523]It seems that it is John Ramsey that is putting a stop to JBR being exhumed. I believe he said that it's disrespectful? That sounds like an excuse to me. I really hope JBR is exhumed one day and the mortician took that possibility into account.

snipped for space
What is disrespectful is not knowing who killed your daughter after 14 years. Oh wait sorry, he probably does know.

Becky319
12-03-2010, 12:49 PM
If they do ever exhume her body I hope it is done in private and no one knows except the investigators, coroners and family, I would not want a media circus out of it, that would be disrespectful.

eileenhawkeye
12-03-2010, 02:15 PM
If they do ever exhume her body I hope it is done in private and no one knows except the investigators, coroners and family, I would not want a media circus out of it, that would be disrespectful.

I agree. The media shouldn't find out about it until JonBenet is back in her casket underground. However, all it takes is for one person to tell one media outlet about it and they'll all be on the next flight to Marietta, Georgia. However, if they plan accordingly and have it involve as little amount of people as possible and have consequences for anyone who leaks it to the media (for example: you get fired), then I'm sure they could keep it a secret until they are ready to announce any new findings.

The Boulder PD gave Burke a business card on his college campus. He graduated from Purdue in May. The media did not find out about this until September/October so it was at least four months before it was leaked to the press. If they want to keep something a secret, they can.

joeskidbeck
12-03-2010, 03:31 PM
What do they need for such a warrant?I mean,what does the affidavit have to say.Don't they usually get exhumation warrants when there's new evidence that might be corroborated with what they would find if exhuming the body?

Hey Maddy! You would think that all these so called "experts" running around saying the marks were stun gun marks would be enough to get a warrant.
Here in Georgia, there was a woman who killed her husband with antifreeze and then several years later killed her boyfriend the same way. There was a thread about it here at WS, I believe she died in prison a couple of months back. Anyway, my point is that after it was proven that the boyfriend died this way, they got the warrant to exhume the husband because his cause of death had always been something like the flu and so it was suspicious enough to warrant the exhumation.
What I consider strange or curious is that JR always seemed to agree with the stun gun theory but refused to let them exhume her in order to prove it. I think he knew the truth and was afraid that it would not set him free!

DeeDee249
12-03-2010, 10:10 PM
Interesting, as corroborating a stun gun use would favor IDI a bit more. The fact that JR refuses to allow exhumation is particularly suspicious. They DID find a stun gun video in the home (though no stun gun).

Linda7NJ
12-03-2010, 10:34 PM
Interesting, as corroborating a stun gun use would favor IDI a bit more. The fact that JR refuses to allow exhumation is particularly suspicious. They DID find a stun gun video in the home (though no stun gun).


Well, the intruder probably brought it to the Ramsey home to watch it before using it, as his own VCR was on the fritz:innocent: