Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-12-2006, 11:33 AM
ellen13 ellen13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 751
What exactly were Dr. Lee's findings?

In regard to Dr. Lee, what exactly did he conclude?
I'm sure there's a long thread about this somewhere
and from what I've read, the DNA findings were not
consistent with anyone in the house because and she
was wiped down. I thought about someone's question
saying if we hired top notch people who didn't have
huge egos, then progress might have been made. It seems
to me that Dr. Lee was top notch and if he couldn't find
anything about DNA, then everything would be circumstanstantial
at this point. I'll say it again, please excuse this rather
amateur question and my newbie status. Ignore it if
it's already been discussed at length. I just didn't have
the patience to try to dig it up.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-12-2006, 01:12 PM
sissi sissi is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maryland
Posts: 1,832
Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-12-2006, 02:14 PM
ellen13 ellen13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 751
To Blue Crab and others

#4
12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
aRnd2it vbmenu_register("postmenu_483688", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 273


Early Show recap
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain662681.shtml


I found this from a 2004 posting. Is this why Blue Crab believes

there was a 5th person there that night?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-12-2006, 02:19 PM
BrendaStar BrendaStar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,110
no straight answers from Dr. Lee

Questioned repeadedly on talk shows, Dr. Lee said that they had "three legs of the table" but needed the fourth to solve the mystery of JBR's death.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-12-2006, 02:25 PM
Seeker Seeker is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellen13
#4
12-23-2004, 10:55 AM
aRnd2it vbmenu_register("postmenu_483688", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 273


Early Show recap
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain662681.shtml


I found this from a 2004 posting. Is this why Blue Crab believes

there was a 5th person there that night?
If he really believes there was a 5th person that night then why not an intruder as well? He has discounted any notion that John (if up at 3 or 4 am to "cut JonBenet down") would have removed the body due to the light dusting of snow that night...but holds onto his theory that there was at least one other child (male) in the house that was spirited away before the police got there.

Dr Lee stated that most of the fiber and DNA evidence could have been from secondary transfer and therefor not 100% conclusive of who did it. IOW too much cross contamination as well IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-12-2006, 02:57 PM
Voice of Reason Voice of Reason is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissi
Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.
I agree Dr. Lee may have spoken prematurely and perhaps without the benefit of a FULL examination of the crime scene, but I also think that someone of his stature would not venture an opinion based on other's statements. He is an expert in forensic evidence, and therefore, he was brought on board to view the evidence and give his expert opinion. I can't imagine BPD would expect him to do so without looking at the evidence, and I can't imagine Dr. Lee would give an opinion without doing so.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-12-2006, 06:22 PM
SisterSocks SisterSocks is offline
What a wild and crazy trip its been
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Don't mess with Texas
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissi
Lee was briefed by the same people who had already decided the case was an RDI. He had no reason at that time not to trust a police department, that is is "gig". Sadly, he did not have access to the crime scene when time was important. It doesn't seem he was aware of the dna that was finally tested and proven to be "codis" worthy. Lee should have kept his "mouth shut" , clearly he is not a "player" in the eventual solving of this case.
Rice already cooked...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2006, 08:30 AM
ellen13 ellen13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 751
Unhappy More questions for you all

I appreciate everyone filling me in on Lee in a nutshell.Like I have stated before, if Modesto police were on this, or other police departments, even Wichita (BTK) for that matter,they may have taken their time, but they got it solved.
I wonder if the Boulder Dept. and DA is still filled with people with huge egos.
If this exact situation happened again in Boulder, now in 2006,
would they have learned their lessons and handled it better? Would they
let the FBI stick around? Speaking of the FBI, to my recollection, they didn't stick around. Shouldn't they have had sole jurisdiction? Tell me I don't know
what I'm talking about or please correct me where I'm wrong. It's been a while
since I read PTPM and I still haven't finished Thomas' book. Like I've said, there's so much I don't know and I admit that.
My next question was this: Is everything in Thomas' book factual?? Was anything disputed?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2006, 01:22 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellen13
Would they let the FBI stick around? Speaking of the FBI, to my recollection, they didn't stick around. Shouldn't they have had sole jurisdiction? Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about or please correct me where I'm wrong. It's been a while since I read PTPM and I still haven't finished Thomas' book. Like I've said, there's so much I don't know and I admit that.
My next question was this: Is everything in Thomas' book factual?? Was anything disputed?
Kidnapping or terrorist related crimes come under the jurisdiction of the FBI, Field Agents did attend the crime-scene that morning but left quietly after conferring with their Field Office and BPD.

Make of that whatever you want, some people see a conspiracy, others pragmatism of the part of the FBI, others think the Ramsey influence had its effect, also Lockheed-Martin was a major defense contractor, and some think there was a reporting protocol in the instance of an abduction or terrorist attack.

I found Steve Thomas' book more readable than PMPT, and I guess both books have some factual errors, the former book seems to be more motivated by personal theory, maybe it was his best shot at the time, IMO reviewing the forensic evidence allows for a more darker interpretation than a bed-wetting/toilet-rage scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2006, 03:56 PM
tipper tipper is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,796
Eller clearly had some sort of grudge against the FBI and I'm sure that also played into their not sticking around.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:44 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
If he really believes there was a 5th person that night then why not an intruder as well?

Seeker,

That's a fair question. My response as to why there was likely a fifth person in the house that night revolves mainly around the missing crimescene evidence, but there were others things too. The reason the fifth person was probably invited into the house and therefore not an intruder is because of the Ramsey coverup. The Ramseys wouldn't lie, refuse to cooperate, obfuscate (confuse) at every chance, and carry out an obvious coverup -- to protect an intruder.

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:56 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Seeker,

That's a fair question. My response as to why there was likely a fifth person in the house that night revolves mainly around the missing crimescene evidence, but there were others things too. The reason the fifth person was probably invited into the house and therefore not an intruder is because of the Ramsey coverup. The Ramseys wouldn't lie, refuse to cooperate, obfuscate (confuse) at every chance, and carry out an obvious coverup -- to protect an intruder.

BlueCrab
BlueCrab.

They might if John & Patsy were indulging in some form of illegal activity, and the invited intruder had left then returned after the Ramsey's had gone to bed.

And if there was no fifth person the Ramsey's may lie because they were both guilty.

The securing of separate attorneys, all round, suggests the possibility of potential finger-pointing at some stage?

JonBenet's homicide is not a case of accidental death that was covered up, the forensic evidence suggests something far darker than that, that forensic evidence was re-located and staged suggests the perpetrator(s) foresaw and planned for the lea and media response.

Whether you attribute their success in evading justice to their crime-scene staging or the ineptness of the lea, is an open question, but this they have accomplished, and to date no theory satisfactorly explains either the evidence or supplies a motive!


.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2006, 07:08 PM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKGuy
BlueCrab.

They might if John & Patsy were indulging in some form of illegal activity, and the invited intruder had left then returned after the Ramsey's had gone to bed.
That's true. If the Ramseys were engaged in kiddie sex or some other crime with a fifth person that night, they would likely cover up his having been there. But the pineapple evidence rebuts such a scenario.

JonBenet ate pineapple about one hour before she died. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple. That and the waterglass with a tea bag in it can place Burke at the breakfast room table with JonBenet about one hour before she died.

Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs in the middle of the night for some reason, and they could have been waiting for someone to show up -- such as Santa Claus or another young person, but they would not likely be waiting up for mom and dad's pedophile friend to show up. The pineapple scenario inserts Burke into the equation.

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-13-2006, 08:00 PM
capps capps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,056
I would love to know whose fingerprints they found on the spoon and glass.If it was Burke's,why would they readily divulge his fingerprints were on the bowl,but not on anything else?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-13-2006, 08:16 PM
rashomon rashomon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple.
Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?

Quote:
Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs in the middle of the night for some reason
Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2006, 08:50 PM
narlacat narlacat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 9,284
>>Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?<<

I'm pretty sure Patsy's were on it as well.


>>Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.<<

It is an assumption, noone knows who was up that night and where they were.
We only know where JonBenet ended up.
However, it would seem at some stage Burke and JonBenet sat at the table and Jonbenet had pineapple and Burke had tea. There was a glass with a tea bag in it, in Burke's spot at the table.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-13-2006, 09:14 PM
UKGuy UKGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
That's true. If the Ramseys were engaged in kiddie sex or some other crime with a fifth person that night, they would likely cover up his having been there. But the pineapple evidence rebuts such a scenario.

JonBenet ate pineapple about one hour before she died. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple. That and the waterglass with a tea bag in it can place Burke at the breakfast room table with JonBenet about one hour before she died.

Burke and JonBenet were secretly downstairs in the middle of the night for some reason, and they could have been waiting for someone to show up -- such as Santa Claus or another young person, but they would not likely be waiting up for mom and dad's pedophile friend to show up. The pineapple scenario inserts Burke into the equation.

BlueCrab
BlueCrab,

You may be correct but there is not enough evidence to be conclusive on this one. e.g. Was the tea-sipping and pineapple eating co-terminous events, they may be exclusive. Burke or Patsy may have laid out the bowl, assuming it came from the fridge, possibly they have to wait a little for it to warm up.

Maybe JonBenet took some in a bowl upstairs to snack on, maybe the tea was sipped at a different point in time, children are not reknowned for their tidying up activities.

How did JonBenet eat this pineapple, from memory, there was just a large serving spoon in the bowl, if she used her hands, maybe she made a mess of her top. I've seen kids do this.


The pineapple and JonBenet is great because we have a timeline, to insert Burke and another party seems a bit tenuous, but it does'nt cost to speculate, and you could be onto something. Personally I think you are but dont find the invited guest scenario helps explain things.

Only thing is, is this invited intruder, and Burke and the Colorado Childrens Code, he/she will also have to be under the age of ten, else why was he/she given a Get-Out-Jail-Card?

.

Last edited by UKGuy; 01-13-2006 at 09:16 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-13-2006, 10:00 PM
ellen13 ellen13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 751
[quote=narlacat]>>Were there any other family members' fingerprints found on the bowl too?<<

I'm pretty sure Patsy's were on it as well.


>>Is there any evidence to back this up? For if not, this is a mere assumption stated as fact.<<

Hi Narla,
Yes, I'm almost certain that Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl as
well, unless that fact was manufactured by LE. I don't know the source, but the little that I do know about the case, I do believe that was a fact, because they thought for sure that Patsy fed it to her, having her fingerprints on the bowl.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2006, 12:52 AM
trixie trixie is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,649
(Quote)[JonBenet ate pineapple about one hour before she died. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet ate the pineapple. That and the waterglass with a tea bag in it can place Burke at the breakfast room table with JonBenet about one hour before she died.(End quote)

************************************************** *****
Burke was also a known bedwetter. Seeing as tea is a known diuretic and also a caffinated beverage I highly doubt Patsy and/or John would have allowed Burke to sit up late at night and sip on tea while Jonbenet ate some pineapple. Are you saying Burke and Jonbenet were up at night without J and P's knowlege? If that's the case, I have to wonder with all the Christmas goodies around why Burke would choose to sit and drink tea. Even Patsy said Burke would always go for the chocolate. Maybe this doesn't make sense to me because I have not really followed your theory Bluecrab, but I do have to ask: Do you have children?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-15-2006, 12:57 AM
sandraladeda sandraladeda is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,609
Re: the pineapple - this may sound like a dumb question, but were JBR's fingerprints on the pineapple bowl? It would seem odd to me that she would not have touched the bowl herself, in the course of eating from it (try this yourself. Eat a bowl of fruit or cereal or something, do you ever do it without actually touching the bowl?)

The teabag thing is not a very useful clue, imo. Can Patsy or John actually say that they never drank tea? Ever? Perhaps in general, Burke was a tea drinker. A spent teabag is not enough to make me think hmmm, conclusive it was Burke who drank the tea....same with the glass being at his spot at the table. Sure, my "spot" at the table is mine if the whole family dines together. But when 1 or 2 of our family members eat at the table, we sit wherever we like, not in our "spot".
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-15-2006, 08:47 AM
capps capps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,056
That makes sense Sandraladeda.
Which also brings us back to the question,of why was it known that Patsy and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl,but no word on whose fingerprints were on the big spoon, tea bag or glass.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-15-2006, 09:20 AM
BlueCrab BlueCrab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by trixie
Maybe this doesn't make sense to me because I have not really followed your theory Bluecrab, but I do have to ask: Do you have children?

Yes trixie, I have children -- lots of them. In fact, seven grandchildren are living with me right now -- and have been for the past four years. I had to buy a bigger house to accomodate them all. Why do you ask?

BlueCrab
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-15-2006, 11:01 AM
ellen13 ellen13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipper
Eller clearly had some sort of grudge against the FBI and I'm sure that also played into their not sticking around.
Well, the FBI should have "grown a set" and not get intimidated by Eller.
To me, that was a national crime!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-15-2006, 09:43 PM
trixie trixie is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCrab
Yes trixie, I have children -- lots of them. In fact, seven grandchildren are living with me right now -- and have been for the past four years. I had to buy a bigger house to accomodate them all. Why do you ask?

BlueCrab
Congradulations on being such a good grandpa! The only reason I asked is because most people who have children know when their back is turned the kids will get into things they shouldn't have. I think if Burke was up without parents he would go for chocolate or other goodies instead of tea. Until we find out whose prints are on that tea glass I can't conclude it was Burke who was up drinking it in the middle of the night. IMO, it's just not what a kid would do if he had a chance to eat or drink anything he wanted. Burke being the resident tea drinker is wrong, IMO, since Patsy said she drinks sweet tea also.So Burke is not the only tea drinker in the house.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-15-2006, 11:51 PM
narlacat narlacat is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 9,284
Trixie

I've often thought the same thing.

If the kids were downstairs by themselves and getting a midnight snack, why on earth would they go for pineapple and tea??
My child loves fruit too, but given a choice he'd opt for junk food first.
Why would they snack on pineapple and tea when the fridge/cupboard was probably full of christmas goodies.
Maybe there wasn't any Christmas goodies left or maybe the fridge had been emptied out due to the family going away the next day.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!