Re-examining the case

New Posts

E

elliottness

New Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
150
Reaction score
13
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?
 
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?
 
elliottness said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
elliottness said:
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?
Click to expand...

elliottness said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
elliottness said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
RiverRat said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
RiverRat said:
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!
Click to expand...

It was so long ago I didn't realize they waited four months. :eek:
 
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.
 
Cappy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Ramsey's did it but I believe they know who did.
 
Steely Dan said:
I don't think the Ramsey's did it but I believe they know who did.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RiverRat said:
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!
Click to expand...

This, combined with the note, pretty much rolled it all into a ball for me.
 
DeeDee249 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steely Dan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DeeDee249 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Steely Dan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. There' s no difference between touching a gun and touching fabric. New methods can take DNA from very tiny sample. Remember how microscopic DNA actually is. A single skin cell can give the complete double helix. (a person's genetic code).
What's the difference between someone touching JBR's clothing and leaving a few skin cells and JBR touching something that person has touched and having the same skin cells on her own hands? None. The skin cells are the same, no matter how they got there.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Sure it is. There' s no difference between touching a gun and touching fabric. New methods can take DNA from very tiny sample. Remember how microscopic DNA actually is. A single skin cell can give the complete double helix. (a person's genetic code).
What's the difference between someone touching JBR's clothing and leaving a few skin cells and JBR touching something that person has touched and having the same skin cells on her own hands? None. The skin cells are the same, no matter how they got there.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the difference in amount of skin cells. A few skin cells from someone on the fabric isn't what the lab is looking for. They are looking for a sizeable amount of them. They are also looking for them in a pattern that shows something like a hand grabbing or pushing whatever they are taking the DNA from. IIRC, that's how it works.
 
Twelve years since the murder, now marching into the 13th year and still covering the same tired ground, same same same.

THE largest number of violent crimes today are done with the hands of a person who is fillled with alcohol, or drugs.

Forgiveness would and could be given to a 'close' family member who was a user of such substances.

WHY was the dictionary open to the page containing the description of familial sexual abuse? How many times would someone staging a murder case do THAT? What a coincidence huh. I suppose that dictionary is still in the evidence room, you think?

Great care and money were used to defend any inference of the young boys involvement, but none was made for the older son, why not? Well he was in GA, the entire family said that, hmmm.

Someone tell me IF IF IF any pictures of the family Christmas in GA ALL together were ever shown or given to LE?

I have my own theory and it is a workable one, and it was long ago sent to people who have the ability to follow through on it. IT hangs by a thread for the 'one' person who could speak and make it a real theory of what actually happened 12 years ago. Profit and long time friendship have kept this person quiet for 12 plus years, imop.

I am not going to expound on my theory any further here on the forum, I have done my duty and did what I felt I needed to do.

Get out your little yellow crayons and color me dumb IF you wish.

I would like to SEE with my own eyes the pictures of the family Christmas in GA.

LE missed the boat on that one. EACH member of the family should have been interviewed about what was eaten, the color of the napkins, the centerpiece, who sat next to each other etc. etc. Many more questions could have been asked that would have given more precise and meaningful help to this case, imop.

The suitcase in the basement with semen all over it belonging to the older son, and a Dr. Seuss book tucked in there with it, did it for me.

I am done.

The end.

.
 
Camper said:
Twelve years since the murder, now marching into the 13th year and still covering the same tired ground, same same same.

THE largest number of violent crimes today are done with the hands of a person who is fillled with alcohol, or drugs.

Forgiveness would and could be given to a 'close' family member who was a user of such substances.

WHY was the dictionary open to the page containing the description of familial sexual abuse? How many times would someone staging a murder case do THAT? What a coincidence huh. I suppose that dictionary is still in the evidence room, you think?

Great care and money were used to defend any inference of the young boys involvement, but none was made for the older son, why not? Well he was in GA, the entire family said that, hmmm.

Someone tell me IF IF IF any pictures of the family Christmas in GA ALL together were ever shown or given to LE?

I have my own theory and it is a workable one, and it was long ago sent to people who have the ability to follow through on it. IT hangs by a thread for the 'one' person who could speak and make it a real theory of what actually happened 12 years ago. Profit and long time friendship have kept this person quiet for 12 plus years, imop.

I am not going to expound on my theory any further here on the forum, I have done my duty and did what I felt I needed to do.

Get out your little yellow crayons and color me dumb IF you wish.

I would like to SEE with my own eyes the pictures of the family Christmas in GA.

LE missed the boat on that one. EACH member of the family should have been interviewed about what was eaten, the color of the napkins, the centerpiece, who sat next to each other etc. etc. Many more questions could have been asked that would have given more precise and meaningful help to this case, imop.

The suitcase in the basement with semen all over it belonging to the older son, and a Dr. Seuss book tucked in there with it, did it for me.

I am done.

The end.

.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the dictionary being open to abuse and the semen on the older brother's suitcase. LE says the touch DNA doesn't match anyone in the family but they probably didn't take the DNA from the older brother.
 
Feel free to make evidence that is not true in this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 3,365 (members: 128, guests: 3,237)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
3,237
Total visitors
3,365
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,866
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top