806 users online (113 members and 693 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    150

    Re-examining the case

    Okay, the Ramseys held a party at their house 3 days before the murder where over a hundred guests showed up. They also entertained quite frequently. I think that whoever the murderer of Jon Benet is, that it is someone the Ramsey's know. Whether it was her parents or one of their friends, I believe that they either know the murderer or they came into contact with this person. This person would have to have knowledge of the house and I believe that it was a man who did this.

    Is it true that the DNA came from an unknown male?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    150
    Here are some things that don't add up:

    1) Patsy found a 2 1/2 page ransom note from a "small foreign faction" and the amount of the ransom demand was $118,000. That is an odd amount and what was this small foreign faction?
    2) Why would the kidnapper or kidnappers demand money and deliver a ransom note for a child already murdered?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by elliottness View Post
    Here are some things that don't add up:

    1) Patsy found a 2 1/2 page ransom note from a "small foreign faction" and the amount of the ransom demand was $118,000. That is an odd amount and what was this small foreign faction?
    2) Why would the kidnapper or kidnappers demand money and deliver a ransom note for a child already murdered?
    1. There was no small foreign faction. The $118,000 was the amount of JR's bonus that year, known to few people.
    2. Because there were no kidnapping either. She was killed first, then the note was written by the killers as a way to "explain" a dead child in the house
    and lastly
    3. The ransom note was a work of fiction.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by elliottness View Post
    Okay, the Ramseys held a party at their house 3 days before the murder where over a hundred guests showed up. They also entertained quite frequently. I think that whoever the murderer of Jon Benet is, that it is someone the Ramsey's know. Whether it was her parents or one of their friends, I believe that they either know the murderer or they came into contact with this person. This person would have to have knowledge of the house and I believe that it was a man who did this.

    Is it true that the DNA came from an unknown male?
    Quote Originally Posted by elliottness View Post
    Here are some things that don't add up:

    1) Patsy found a 2 1/2 page ransom note from a "small foreign faction" and the amount of the ransom demand was $118,000. That is an odd amount and what was this small foreign faction?
    2) Why would the kidnapper or kidnappers demand money and deliver a ransom note for a child already murdered?
    There is so much crazy crap surrounding this case. the $118,000 being the amount of the bonus leads me to believe it was someone with a reason to seek revenge on John.

    The touch DNA didn't come from any of the Ramsey's. The basement window was broken for over two weeks IIRC and it wasn't fixed.

    The Ransom note as you pointed out was made after the child was dead.

    They searched the house and never found the body until the second search.

    The Ramsey's immediately lawyered up.

    The police handling of the crime scene would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious crime.

    It seems to me that there is a possibility that John was involved in some illegal activity that he couldn't tell the police about and this murder was some sort of revenge from someone he effed over. Patsy may not have even been aware of this activity John was involved in.

    I hope they solve this before I die because it sounds like a very interesting convoluted story.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by elliottness View Post
    Okay, the Ramseys held a party at their house 3 days before the murder where over a hundred guests showed up. They also entertained quite frequently. I think that whoever the murderer of Jon Benet is, that it is someone the Ramsey's know. Whether it was her parents or one of their friends, I believe that they either know the murderer or they came into contact with this person. This person would have to have knowledge of the house and I believe that it was a man who did this.

    Is it true that the DNA came from an unknown male?
    Oops......there was not over a hundred people at their party....it was The $tine family, The Whites, Santa and Wife, the Lady that helped Patsy keep the home clean and her daughter, and other various family members - I can get you the exact number, but trust me - it was nowhere near 100.

    The Scamseys were too much "On The Go" to entertain there at the end. Years before they let their house be used on a tour of homes, but they want you to think that it was the year that JonBenet was murdered!!! Just more RamSpin. Just remember what John's first words were right before trying to book a flight out of Boulder within 30 minutes of finding his daughter dead - It's an Inside Job!!! Just like the fibers from Patsy's sweater that were found InSide the garrotte knots......

    A fleck of dust they call DNA and JohnMark' Karr is all that Team Ramsey can fall back on now after 12 years of throwing innocent people under the bus and intruding into their normality of life just to Cover their A$$es, another aspect about them that makes me detest everything about them. But, that's just me thinking out loud again!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    Oops......there was not over a hundred people at their party....it was The $tine family, The Whites, Santa and Wife, the Lady that helped Patsy keep the home clean and her daughter, and other various family members - I can get you the exact number, but trust me - it was nowhere near 100.

    The Scamseys were too much "On The Go" to entertain there at the end. Years before they let their house be used on a tour of homes, but they want you to think that it was the year that JonBenet was murdered!!! Just more RamSpin. Just remember what John's first words were right before trying to book a flight out of Boulder within 30 minutes of finding his daughter dead - It's an Inside Job!!! Just like the fibers from Patsy's sweater that were found InSide the garrotte knots......

    A fleck of dust they call DNA and JohnMark' Karr is all that Team Ramsey can fall back on now after 12 years of throwing innocent people under the bus and intruding into their normality of life just to Cover their A$$es, another aspect about them that makes me detest everything about them. But, that's just me thinking out loud again!
    If they are innocent they are a text book example of how not to handle a crime investigation. Lawyering up very quickly makes LE suspicious and it should.

    They also seemed less than helpful to LE in solving this crime. The $118,000 dollar amount narrows the suspect pool down immensely.

    I think they were less than helpful in providing information on who would want to do that to their daughter that would also have had that information.

    It seems they took the "It wasn't me" approach without providing any other suspects and that raises serious red flags IMO.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    IF (Big IF) you were innocent, would you hide from your interview with Law Enforcement for FOUR Months? And put the blame on grieving and medication....even though you could manage to conduct interviews with the media instead?

    Oh my gosh.....I could be here strolling down Memory Lane all day, but with Day Two with the new puppy in the house, I'm on Standby!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    IF (Big IF) you were innocent, would you hide from your interview with Law Enforcement for FOUR Months? And put the blame on grieving and medication....even though you could manage to conduct interviews with the media instead?

    Oh my gosh.....I could be here strolling down Memory Lane all day, but with Day Two with the new puppy in the house, I'm on Standby!
    It was so long ago I didn't realize they waited four months.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    122
    The Ramsey's didn't kill this child. An intruder killed her... "unkown" and "unidentified" DNA has indicated as much, for whatever reason such animal had for commenting such a crime.

    I have read here for a number of years before joining and I'm convinced that the Ramseys (the parents) didn't commit this crime.

    Now......I have to admit from the get-go I suspected a cover story was made to protect their young son......but I've never been sure whether he actually did it....or whether he saw the crime and knew who did.... which led me to believe a theory held by a poster here called Blue Crab.

    What ever happened to Blue Crab? I haven't seen him posting here in a very long tme.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappy View Post
    The Ramsey's didn't kill this child. An intruder killed her... "unkown" and "unidentified" DNA has indicated as much, for whatever reason such animal had for commenting such a crime.

    I have read here for a number of years before joining and I'm convinced that the Ramseys (the parents) didn't commit this crime.

    Now......I have to admit from the get-go I suspected a cover story was made to protect their young son......but I've never been sure whether he actually did it....or whether he saw the crime and knew who did.... which led me to believe a theory held by a poster here called Blue Crab.

    What ever happened to Blue Crab? I haven't seen him posting here in a very long tme.
    I don't think the Ramsey's did it but I believe they know who did.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    I don't think the Ramsey's did it but I believe they know who did.
    OK, now lets think about that statement. Your 6 year old daughter is bashed on the head so hard that her skull splits nearly in half- she is strangled with a garrote and there is evidence that HER blood was wiped from her thighs along with inner bruising of the vagina and eroded hymen- all indications that there was prior sexual assault as well as an assault that night that caused the bleeding.
    You didn't do it but you KNOW who did.
    WHY wouldn't you come forward with this information?

    Here are some reasons:
    Your 9-year old son is somehow involved in some way. In this case, even if police knew this, they could not proceed because of Colorado Law.
    OR
    You are involved in some horrible, illegal activity that caused someone to do this horrendous thing to your LITTLE GIRL, and even to bring her killer to justice, you can't risk coming forward with the information.

    Version 1- a possibility, but still leaves us with a family involvement.
    Version 2- happens in the movies. NOTHING would stop a parent from bringing the perp to justice.
    And even these two theories leave us with parents who covered up the crime. The handwriting, the silly note, the mother's clothing fibers from what she wore that day being entwined INTO the garrote and INSIDE the tape. The father's fibers from what he wore that day found on her pubic area (where she was wiped down). The public contamination of the body by BOTH parents.
    The coverup in itself is an indictable crime. Why no indictment? An inept DA afraid of tangling with powerful R friends and lawyers. And, lets face it, mistakes made right at the start that allowed the contamination of the crime scene- put solving this case at a disadvantage right from the start.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    IF (Big IF) you were innocent, would you hide from your interview with Law Enforcement for FOUR Months? And put the blame on grieving and medication....even though you could manage to conduct interviews with the media instead?

    Oh my gosh.....I could be here strolling down Memory Lane all day, but with Day Two with the new puppy in the house, I'm on Standby!
    This, combined with the note, pretty much rolled it all into a ball for me.
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    OK, now lets think about that statement. Your 6 year old daughter is bashed on the head so hard that her skull splits nearly in half- she is strangled with a garrote and there is evidence that HER blood was wiped from her thighs along with inner bruising of the vagina and eroded hymen- all indications that there was prior sexual assault as well as an assault that night that caused the bleeding.
    You didn't do it but you KNOW who did.
    WHY wouldn't you come forward with this information?

    Here are some reasons:
    Your 9-year old son is somehow involved in some way. In this case, even if police knew this, they could not proceed because of Colorado Law.
    OR
    You are involved in some horrible, illegal activity that caused someone to do this horrendous thing to your LITTLE GIRL, and even to bring her killer to justice, you can't risk coming forward with the information.

    Version 1- a possibility, but still leaves us with a family involvement.
    Version 2- happens in the movies. NOTHING would stop a parent from bringing the perp to justice.
    And even these two theories leave us with parents who covered up the crime. The handwriting, the silly note, the mother's clothing fibers from what she wore that day being entwined INTO the garrote and INSIDE the tape. The father's fibers from what he wore that day found on her pubic area (where she was wiped down). The public contamination of the body by BOTH parents.
    The coverup in itself is an indictable crime. Why no indictment? An inept DA afraid of tangling with powerful R friends and lawyers. And, lets face it, mistakes made right at the start that allowed the contamination of the crime scene- put solving this case at a disadvantage right from the start.
    There is touch DNA that can't be matched to anyone in the family. They didn't do an interview with LE for four months. IMO, they wanted to make it difficult for LE to solve this case. MOO.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    There is touch DNA that can't be matched to anyone in the family. They didn't do an interview with LE for four months. IMO, they wanted to make it difficult for LE to solve this case. MOO.
    Touch DNA could have been transferred to JBR's clothing in several ways OTHER than by whoever killed her. If she herself touched something that had previously been touched by that person, it gets on her fingers (it was skin cells) and then onto her clothes when she uses the toilet. If one of her parents (both have mentioned either putting her clothes on or off that night) had shaken hands with someone for example (a likely happening at a holiday party) then the skin cells transfer that way. If one of BR's friends who were playing at the Rs Christmas Day before they went to the White's had handled something then touched by JBR, that is another way for the transfer. Bottom line- before any DA declares that this is "The Killer's DNA" they have to test every male she saw that day. Not just ADULT males, but every male child (now grown, of course) who was at both homes that day. PR admitted her daughter didn't bath Christmas day, so whoever was at their home is also a possible donor. The term "foreign male DNA" is mistakenly interpreted as being from an ADULT male. That is false. DNA can prove gender, but not age with the exception of semen, which by it's nature indicates someone over the age of puberty. And even then, that is ALL is proves- not the exact age.
    And Lacy knows this. This was her grandstanding "parting gift" to the R family.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Touch DNA could have been transferred to JBR's clothing in several ways OTHER than by whoever killed her. If she herself touched something that had previously been touched by that person, it gets on her fingers (it was skin cells) and then onto her clothes when she uses the toilet. If one of her parents (both have mentioned either putting her clothes on or off that night) had shaken hands with someone for example (a likely happening at a holiday party) then the skin cells transfer that way. If one of BR's friends who were playing at the Rs Christmas Day before they went to the White's had handled something then touched by JBR, that is another way for the transfer. Bottom line- before any DA declares that this is "The Killer's DNA" they have to test every male she saw that day. Not just ADULT males, but every male child (now grown, of course) who was at both homes that day. PR admitted her daughter didn't bath Christmas day, so whoever was at their home is also a possible donor. The term "foreign male DNA" is mistakenly interpreted as being from an ADULT male. That is false. DNA can prove gender, but not age with the exception of semen, which by it's nature indicates someone over the age of puberty. And even then, that is ALL is proves- not the exact age.
    And Lacy knows this. This was her grandstanding "parting gift" to the R family.
    I don't know for sure but I'd be willing to bet that casual contact and then touching something isn't enough to leave touch DNA. I believe they found it because whoever did this grabbed on to her panties pretty hard. A skin cell here or there isn't enough to detect a DNA profile from. JMO.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-20-2009, 09:38 PM
  2. Two legendary cold-case detectives in Texas give their views on Anthony case.
    By QuickAttack in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:55 PM