Let me hear from you if you think the R's are innocent

For every piece of flimsy evidence that the Ramsey Spin Team says points to the Ramsey's innocence, we can easily come up with evidence that counters it.

If you think the Ramseys are innocent I would like you to please post the evidence you think points to an outsider or the innocence of the parents.

No flaming please. I am curious as to what misconceptions people have about this case.

Tricia

Tricia-

I am certainly NOT an expert on this case like some of the other Websleuthers who post here (I just find it really interesting), so it will take me a bit of time to sort through what is fact and what is fiction with regards to the evidence. However, there are three things that I know are fact that IMO point to the Ramseys' innocence:


1. Foriegn male DNA in the size 12 panties

Somebody, somewhere (maybe here) had suggested that it could have been deposited there during the manufacturing process. Okay - I guess that is possible, except wouldn't this sort of contamination be an issue in other crimes that use DNA technology. And, even if this were the case, unless Jon Benet put these underpants on herself, the Ramsey who put them on her would have to be wearing gloves or else left some DNA. Highly unlikely!!


2. Location of the body in the Ramsey residence

If this act was performed by a Ramsey then why did they leave the body in the house. They were in control of this situation, right? They called the police. They could have easily removed the body and the evidence before this 911 call was made. The Ramseys don't seem to be stupid people. Scott Peterson on the other hand is stupid.


3. No arrest has been made

If the evidence against the Ramseys is so concrete why hasn't one or the other of them been arrested and charged with this crime? I have read Bluecrab's arguments about the Childrens Watchamacallit law in CO, but how would they have been aware of that at the time IF they were covering for him. Peterson got the death penalty on LESS evidence than what supposedly proves that the Ramseys killed their daughter. [Please note I am not a Peterson fan (see stupid comment above). In fact I think he is below slime.]


Comments?

bensmom98 said:

1. Foriegn male DNA in the size 12 panties

Somebody, somewhere (maybe here) had suggested that it could have been deposited there during the manufacturing process. Okay - I guess that is possible, except wouldn't this sort of contamination be an issue in other crimes that use DNA technology. And, even if this were the case, unless Jon Benet put these underpants on herself, the Ramsey who put them on her would have to be wearing gloves or else left some DNA. Highly unlikely!!

Click to expand...

this point is certainly a valid one. i don't know enough about forensics to really comment one way or another. i do believe that the sample was quite small which may speak to the possibility that it was not from the perp, but again, i don't know enough to comment. does anyone know what this DNA came from? blood? hair? semen?

bensmom98 said:

2. Location of the body in the Ramsey residence

If this act was performed by a Ramsey then why did they leave the body in the house. They were in control of this situation, right? They called the police. They could have easily removed the body and the evidence before this 911 call was made. The Ramseys don't seem to be stupid people. Scott Peterson on the other hand is stupid.

Click to expand...

i don't think this point is convincing at all. why would they wander around the neighborhood with a dead body in the middle of the night? this piece of evidence, IMO, does nothing but STRENGTHEN a case AGAINST the ramseys.

bensmom98 said:

3. No arrest has been made

If the evidence against the Ramseys is so concrete why hasn't one or the other of them been arrested and charged with this crime? I have read Bluecrab's arguments about the Childrens Watchamacallit law in CO, but how would they have been aware of that at the time IF they were covering for him. Peterson got the death penalty on LESS evidence than what supposedly proves that the Ramseys killed their daughter. [Please note I am not a Peterson fan (see stupid comment above). In fact I think he is below slime.]

Click to expand...

this is probably the weakest of all your points. it is extremely difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in this case. an indictment may be another story, but don't forget about double jeopardy...if they lose round 1, there is not round 2, so there's no point in indicting if you can't convict. considering that we are talking about prosecuting a family member of a crime committed inside their house without a confession, what evidence would NOT be subject to reasonable doubt? certainly, no forensic evidence against a ramsey would have much of an impact. it's their house!!

guilt and innocence inside and outside of a courtroom are two completely different animals. would you say OJ is innocent because he was acquitted? legally, yes, but really? i don't think so.

Voice of Reason said:

this point is certainly a valid one. i don't know enough about forensics to really comment one way or another. i do believe that the sample was quite small which may speak to the possibility that it was not from the perp, but again, i don't know enough to comment. does anyone know what this DNA came from? blood? hair? semen?

Click to expand...

I did some perusing and found that the unknown DNA sample was isolated from 2 spots of blood found in the size 12 underpants. Jonbenet's DNA (ie blood) was mixed in with it. Apparently, a small amount of matching unknown DNA was also found under her fingernails. I think this would probably rule out that the DNA identified was deposited during the manufacturing of the underpants otherwise how would it get under her nails. I am also not a foreniscs experts, but I am a biochemist. DNA evidence is pretty hard to dispute. I am still to this day amazed and astonished that OJ got away with murder based on all the DNA evidence they had linking him to the murders.

Voice of Reason said:

i don't think this point is convincing at all. why would they wander around the neighborhood with a dead body in the middle of the night? this piece of evidence, IMO, does nothing but STRENGTHEN a case AGAINST the ramseys.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll give you this one. My thinking was that it would be really stupid of somebody to leave the body of the person they killed in their house, or in dingdong's case in his alibi.

Voice of Reason said:

this is probably the weakest of all your points.

Click to expand...

I disagree - again back to dingdong. He was essentially convicted on three things: a hair, an affair, and her body washing up in the bay where he was "fishing". (If there were other things, let me know and I will rethink this - I didn't follow this case all that closely. Got kinda sick of it.)

Voice of Reason said:

it is extremely difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in this case. an indictment may be another story, but don't forget about double jeopardy...if they lose round 1, there is not round 2, so there's no point in indicting if you can't convict.

Click to expand...

Peterson was convicted on less evidence...

Voice of Reason said:

considering that we are talking about prosecuting a family member of a crime committed inside their house without a confession, what evidence would NOT be subject to reasonable doubt? certainly, no forensic evidence against a ramsey would have much of an impact. it's their house!!

Click to expand...

Couldn't Laci's hair have come from the house that she shared with Peterson and been transferred to the wrench (or whereever it was found)? My hair is all over the place - my kids, my husband, etc. - they take it everywhere. Some pregnant women shed a lot of hair. (I am NOT an SP advocate, I am just playing the devil's advocate for the moment.)

Voice of Reason said:

guilt and innocence inside and outside of a courtroom are two completely different animals.

Click to expand...

Absolutely

Voice of Reason said:

would you say OJ is innocent because he was acquitted? legally, yes, but really? i don't think so.

Click to expand...

NO!!!


IMO the DNA evidence clearly suggests that someone other than the Ramseys are responsible.

bensmom98-

first off, let me just say that i'm not trying to convince anyone that a ramsey is guilty of this crime. in fact, i'm not really that convinced myself. at the moment, the only thing which seems sure in my mind, is that the ransom note was bogus, no kidnapping was ever intended, and if it was an intruder, it was not a stranger to the ramsey family. aside from that, i'm up for objective discussion on any of this.

i think the DNA evidence in this case is very interesting. for starters, this crime was committed in 1996. it wasn't until december of 2003 that they even had a complete sample to put into the national data banks. for all you conspiracy theorists out there, this was just days after the ramseys filed suit against FOX, and just months before john announced his candidacy for the michigan state legislature. conspiracies aside, i don't understand scientifically how the sample became "more complete" as time went on. some here are suggesting that it had to do with the FBI technology getting up to speed, but i have not read that anywhere. on top of that, the conclusions to be drawn from this sample are in dispute. JR used it as part of his campaign, claiming that it clears him completely, and is representative of the perpetrator. however, the actual scientists who analyzed the evidence don't agree...

from thedenverchannel.com:

That claim is disputed by the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

The scientist, who talked to the Rocky Mountain News, told them it is possible the sample came from the killer, but that there are other possibilities that explain how the sample got in the underwear.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist told the News. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

The scientist asked that his name not be published, according to the newspaper.

A second forensics expert, who the newspaper said is close to the case, also agreed that the significance of the DNA sample is open to interpretation.

<end of excerpt>

take all of this for whatever it's worth, but just remember that these people are experts, and as much as anyone here at websleuths may think they know about this crime, these people have actually dealt with the hard evidence, and probably have access to other evidence that we do not.

as for your discussion on prosecution, more specifically regarding scott peterson, i still do not agree. scott peterson was a very different case. you are correct that evidence was slim there, but trial by jury is about theater much of the time. scott was not a likeable guy. he cheated on his wife, and he had means, motive, and opportunity. the hair was found in his boat, which laci never frequented in, and on the end of some pliers. scott had extensive information on the tides stored on his computer and was constantly trailed after laci's disappearance leading up to his arrest.

compare that to the ramsey case...what do we really have to implicate anyone, intruder or ramsey? at this point, about 99% of the evidence is still disputed. nothing can be taken as hard fact since the police botched the investigation from day one, and the entire crime scene was contaminated...

Voice-

You have made some good points and have noted some things I was not aware of. I find it especially interesting that the results of the DNA analyses did not come out until JR was running for public office. :waitasec:

I used to think that PDI, but ever since I have had my own kids I find it really hard too believe that a parent(s) could do that to their own child, and have changed my position. But people do terrible, horrible, awful things to their children every day, don't they? Obviously, I could be convinced that they were involved if there was a confession by one or both parent(s).

Voice of Reason said:

bensmom98-first off, let me just say that i'm not trying to convince anyone that a ramsey is guilty of this crime.......

Click to expand...

Just what is it that you're trying to do?

I thought the purpose of this thread was to give people who think an intruder did it, an opportunity to say so and substantiate their views; not to invite argument from those whose opinions differ. Am I mistaken about this? If you don't think an intruder did it, you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

"aside from that, i'm up for objective discussion on any of this." In other words, you've made up your mind about the ransom note, and don't want to discuss it further. Can we hold you to your word?

"It's possible that the DNA came from the killer" Of course it is, but what we can say for certain is that it didn't come from the Ramseys; you're jumping through hoops to finger the Ramseys. We don't need a scientist to tell us that there might be an innocent explanation for the DNA; we've known that all along; that's a no-brainer. Whenever you have DNA of unknown origin, the donor is, by definition, UNKNOWN. This is an example of evidence that seems to exonerate the Ramseys, but which the anti-Ramseys are trying to find alternative, out-of-the-ordinary explanations for. To be truly objective, you have to acknowledge that you don't know WHO the DNA belongs to, and leave it at that. It doesn't belong to a Ramsey, that's for sure.

The DNA from the underpants was ONLY found in the blood-stained areas--the spots, and not elsewhere in the panties. This suggests that it was deposited along with the blood. There are several markers in the fingernail DNA that match the markers in the panty DNA. These two facts are suggestive of an intruder (a non-Ramsey) as the perpetrator of the crime. They don't point to a garment manufacturer or packager as the donor of the DNA. We all have common sense that we aren't going to abandon just because some scientist says there may be an innocent explantion (translated to mean, the Ramseys are the killers). The common sense explantion (which is the one the jury would go with) is that whoever killed JonBenet left his DNA in her panties and under her fingernails. What you are trying to convince us of is that we can't rely on our common sense. Baloney! The DNA issue has to be resolved before the case can move forward toward a resolution.

I suggest that you watch the 48hr mystery segment that discussed the new DNA findings, or read the transcript on the internet; then maybe you'll have a better understanding of the matter. The man who developed the new profile is working for law enforcement, not for the Ramseys. It's not wise to dismiss technology just because you don't understand it. How many of us are intimately familiar with DNA profiling; familiar enough to know, on that basis alone, that it is trustworthy? Virtually none of us has that familiarity, yet we put our trust in the people who do. That's the reality of the matter.

If you're undecided, you shouldn't be posting here; this thread is for folks who think an intruder did it.

RedChief, i think you're way off-base here. this thread was started by Tricia for two reasons...

1-to allow people who think an intruder did it voice their views
2-to see "what misconceptions people have about this case."

with all due respect to bensmom98, i felt that her post was not quite on the money. i addressed what i saw to be flaws in her logic. we have since engaged in DISCUSSION. this is not a forum for advocates. it's for discussion. if i see something that doesn't sit right in my mind, i address it.

also, please reread my posts as i gave much credit to the DNA evidence as suggesting an intruder. it was mostly the other two points made that i did not agree with. i did add the possibility of unknown DNA evidence combined with a RDI theory, but only as a way to keep both sides aware of the other sides' arguments. i also made clear that i was not advocating for one side or another. why you have a problem with such objectivity is beyond me...???

Voice of Reason said:

RedChief, i think you're way off-base here. this thread was started by Tricia for two reasons...

1-to allow people who think an intruder did it voice their views
2-to see "what misconceptions people have about this case."

with all due respect to bensmom98, i felt that her post was not quite on the money. i addressed what i saw to be flaws in her logic. we have since engaged in DISCUSSION. this is not a forum for advocates. it's for discussion. if i see something that doesn't sit right in my mind, i address it.

also, please reread my posts as i gave much credit to the DNA evidence as suggesting an intruder. it was mostly the other two points made that i did not agree with. i did add the possibility of unknown DNA evidence combined with a RDI theory, but only as a way to keep both sides aware of the other sides' arguments. i also made clear that i was not advocating for one side or another. why you have a problem with such objectivity is beyond me...???

Click to expand...

I have no problem with objectivity; I don't even have a problem with lack of objectivity. I don't think you're being objective in your posting here, and I expressed that impression, but the thrust of my post was to inform you what the thread is for.

Look at the title of the thread and read the administrator's comments. The thread is CLEARLY for people who think an intruder did it. In stating their cases, the administrator hopes to notice what their misconceptions are. The thread is obviously not for those who want to dispute the intruder theorists. Heaven knows that disputation has been ensuing for years.

I wouldn't have posted here except that you did, and claimed to be undecided. I'm undecided at this point. I'm not going to post here and dispute what the intruder theorists are saying. Let them have their say. That's the purpose of the thread. It's not for the undecided, it's for the IDI enthusiasts.

So, I think you're way off base here.

RedChief said:

It's not wise to dismiss technology just because you don't understand it. How many of us are intimately familiar with DNA profiling; familiar enough to know, on that basis alone, that it is trustworthy?

Click to expand...

As I said in another post I am not a forensic scientist, but I am a biochemist. As long as the samples are collected correctly and not "mixed up", and the appropriate internal tests included to make sure that the analysis is performed correctly (called controls), the results are conclusive. All laboratory analyses, many of which I AM intimately familiar with, are performed with these same caveats. DNA profiling is a routine procedure these days, and I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the analysis was sloppy in this instance.

I still maintain that the reason the Ramseys have not been charged with any crime is because the evidence was not convincing. Yes, if they were tried and found NOT guilty they could not be charged again. However, they would have been tried and probably found guilty in the public's eyes like OJ and Blake (IMO).

Tricia - I'll state right up front that I don't know every single detail of this case, just the bulk. I don't believe the Ramsey's killed her, just based on gut feeling and based on it doesn't seem like that's a parental killing. That's a sexual predator killing.

I recently watched a Lou Scmit (spelling?) documentary, and it may be that that was slanted or even contained disputed facts. But his points were convincing, especially the way into the basement, and his discussion of the sexual predator evidence.

The thing is, who knows how that pineapple got there. A person who would break into a house, sit and write a ransom note within the house, and take his time brutally killing a little girl might just also be weird enough to bring pineapple with him!! That's the kind of thing pleasure killers do, weird stuff that seems out of place. Just because they're odd.

How else can you explain that Avila monster posing little Samantha's nude body within view of his window? Sometimes predators can be unbelievably brash, because it's a pleasure to violate the victim as fully as they can. Sitting and writing a note at the desk in the house seems fully in line with what some of those monsters do.

In the light of the recent Jessica Lunsford case, and the Danielle Van Dam case, and the Polly Klaas case and innumerable other horrible cases that haven't been solved, why does it seem so difficult to believe that some monster from the deep snuck into the house and killed her?

What possible motive would Patsy Ramsey have for fixing a bowl of pineapple and then lying about it?

DNA under her nails & in her panties... have matched... (points towards one person)
The fact that Smit could get in the window without much disturbance. The unknown shoe print beside her bed. The horrific way she was posed (the sexual suggestive ropes). There was ample time for the killer to linger throughout the home. I know there's more in my head... just cannot think of it all.

AND BTW, I'm not PRO RAMSEY, I'm pro intruder theory. I think much of what they initially did casted a bad dye on them. They should have never hired lawyers. I'd go to the ends of the earth to prove I'm innocent.

I would believe 100% in an intruder if it wasn't for that crazy "ransom" note!! The ransom note has always been a source of confusion for me, because I think it was written by Patsy.

We know for a fact that intruders do enter peoples homes and kidnap and/or murder children...Jessica is just the latest victim. For a long time I was a RDI, but I just don't see any reason why they would have killed their daughter, it just does not make any sense to me. In my opinion, it seems to me that the Ramsey's dearly loved their daughter, so why kill her? I used to think one of the parents got angry and lashed out at her, accidentally killing her, but why the elaborate cover up? Why not just take her to the ER and say she fell down the steps?

The only thing I will believe about the Ramseys is that perhaps they are covering up a horrible accident. That's my theory; it was either an accident that happened in the home (therefore NOT a murder), or it was an intruder.

Kristabelle said:

I would believe 100% in an intruder if it wasn't for that crazy "ransom" note!! The ransom note has always been a source of confusion for me, because I think it was written by Patsy.

We know for a fact that intruders do enter peoples homes and kidnap and/or murder children...Jessica is just the latest victim. For a long time I was a RDI, but I just don't see any reason why they would have killed their daughter, it just does not make any sense to me. In my opinion, it seems to me that the Ramsey's dearly loved their daughter, so why kill her? I used to think one of the parents got angry and lashed out at her, accidentally killing her, but why the elaborate cover up? Why not just take her to the ER and say she fell down the steps?

The only thing I will believe about the Ramseys is that perhaps they are covering up a horrible accident. That's my theory; it was either an accident that happened in the home (therefore NOT a murder), or it was an intruder.

Click to expand...

THE RANSOM NOTE.... another falsehood of the media that continues to report what the "other guy reported"...


Pasty PASSED the test of the ransom note.... she scored a 4.5 out of 5... on a scale of reading that a 5 WOULD BE NO MATCH Patsy scored a 4.5. WHICH in essence means that she is all but excluded to being the writer of the ransom note. less than a 10% chance.... WHY??? because of ONE WORD "HENCE". She has been known to use the word HENCE and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON she cannot be excluded. There was NO MATCH on the style of writing.... only the question of that word.

SIGH.... it is very frustrating arguing against the MISINFORMATION the media keeps printing......

Patsy is NOT the writer. AND HOW could a mother disguise her handwriting to such a HUGE degree that she would not be recognized.

It's so frustrating. IF Patsy had been determined to be the author, she would have been on trial by now.

my 3 1/2 cents

Duct tape and rope - I believe they were never traced to the Ramsey's.

My number 1 answer would be you are innocent until proven guilty. The grand jury was in session for more than a year and no charges have been filed.
Who's DNA was in the panties and also under the fingernails?
I do not believe Patsy would of harmed her daughter. She idolized her.How in the world can you kill your baby then go write a long ransom letter that doesn't even fit the crime. She was not kidnapped but murdered.

bensmom98 said:

Voice-

You have made some good points and have noted some things I was not aware of. I find it especially interesting that the results of the DNA analyses did not come out until JR was running for public office. :waitasec:

Click to expand...

Let's just be clear about this. The results of the DNA analysis came out pretty soon after Jonbenet's murder - not just during John Ramsey's political campaign. What has happened though, is that further testing coupled with advances in DNA testing has enabled the investigators to obtain a *better* DNA profile. It is still degraded, but during (or just before) the political campaign, they were able to identify sufficient additional markers to run the DNA through the CODIS database (it requires 10 markers and the Ramsey panty DNA has 9 good markers plus 1 weaker one).

There is also an additional DNA sample which is of interest to investigators. It is known as DNA-x. We know very little about DNA-x other than that it wasn't found on her body or clothing. There is plenty of evidence which has never been made public. I trust my source on this.

During his political campaign, John Ramsey claimed on his website that they had the killer's DNA. Michael Tracey made a documentary in which some Ramsey PIs made the same claim. Following these claims, Tom Bennett, who is the official detective working on the case, broke a two year silence and made a public statement saying that they do not know for sure that the DNA belongs to the killer and that it MAY have been deposited there during the manufacturing process.

Ask yourself why he would make this statement. After all, the ramseys were threatening to sue the BPD and Mary keenan responded by taking the case from the BPD and assuring everyone that there would be no more leaks. For two years they were true to their word and did not comment on the case evidence - then Bennett speaks out - why? My guess is that he was sick of the spin and felt obliged to to set the record straight. TeamRamsey were putting out misinformation about the DNA to influence public opinion.

I am confident that if there was sufficient evidence to clear the Ramseys, Mary Keenan would have done it. She refuses to clear the Ramseys despite apparently agreeing with Judge Carnes that the weight of the evidence suggests an intruder killer Jonbenet.

The RST are always talking about how the panty DNA and fingernail DNA is a "match". I believe this is false. The panty DNA was degraded but the fingernail DNA was even more degraded. It may also have been contaminated as it appears Meyer used the same clippers to cut each nail.

If the fingernail DNA and the panty DNA were a "match" then I am sure investigators would have little difficulty in saying that it probably belonged to the killer. I really doubt that they would make an official statement saying that the DNA may have come from a cough or a sneeze in the factory.

No credible source has confirmed that the fingernail DNA and panty DNA are a "match". There have been a lot of myths put out there by Team ramsey.

KatherineQ said:

Tricia - I'll state right up front that I don't know every single detail of this case, just the bulk. I don't believe the Ramsey's killed her, just based on gut feeling and based on it doesn't seem like that's a parental killing. That's a sexual predator killing.

Click to expand...

I don't want to argue with you as you seem to have made up your mind, but I will point out some very serious facts why this was not a sexual predator.

Polly Klass was raped.
Samantha Runnion was raped and sodimized.
Jessica Lunsford was raped.
Danielle was probably raped but due to decomposition and animal activity it couldn't be proven.

JonBenet was not raped. Digital penetration with a finger or paint brush would not be done from a sexual predator. They are there for the prize, not the thrill of possible discovery. They don't leave fake 2 1/2 page ransom notes either...

Seeker - sexual predators are not your average guys. To state that a pedophile would only violate a victim with a standard penetration sex act . . . is wrong. Yes, penetration with an object is often done in acts of sexual aggression.

Look at this Avila character - he used test tubes on his first victims. People just keep expecting normal behavior out of a predator - normal "sex", normal behavior of not sitting and writing a ransom note in a house, all that is a fallacy.

Sexual predators don't have normal motivations, and don't have normal fears, and don't have normal sexual behavior.

edited to add: Do you get *advertiser censored* spam email? for some reason, we get a LOT of *advertiser censored* spam, and it's disturbing. If you don't get *advertiser censored* spam, you can spend an hour or so looking through *advertiser censored* sites if you can stomach it. You won't believe how many videos you'll find, for sale, people pay good money to watch this, of women getting rammed with various horrible objects - mop handles, knives, whatever. There are other videos with just women peeing on men. There's no accounting for taste, as they say, but to imagine that a sexual predator will ONLY have standard sex acts with a victims is just not the way they work, Seeker. These people could buy regular sex videos, of regular sex, but they don't. Rammed with inanimate objects. Think about it.