Separating FACT from fiction

[Swirlz]

He hit her with a golf club once when he was 7. Patsy said it was an accident. A former friend of the family who wasn't present said in a television interview that he did it on purpose.

I'm not aware of anything else.

 

[Newbie97]

...

The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA
Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.

Actually, Mary Lacey very clearly, expressly and publicly cleared the Ramsey family. Even if subsequent Boulder DA's may have disagreed.

 

[dcountmontecristo]

Actually, Mary Lacey very clearly, expressly and publicly cleared the Ramsey family. Even if subsequent Boulder DA's may have disagreed.

based on her letter to the Ramseys

but what about this

"You know, noone is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a CONVICTION, in court beyond a reasonable doubt."

-Mary T. Lacy (Former DA)

Press Conference 8/29/06

Reality: THE CASE HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CONVICTION..

then why were the Ramseys cleared?
What was the purpose of issuing an EXONERATION?

 

[Newbie97]

based on her letter to the Ramseys

but what about this

"You know, noone is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a CONVICTION, in court beyond a reasonable doubt."

-Mary T. Lacy (Former DA)

Press Conference 8/29/06

Reality: THE CASE HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CONVICTION..

then why were the Ramseys cleared?
What was the purpose of issuing an EXONERATION?

1. Mary Lacey's statement from 2006 is factually inaccurate. Someone can easily be cleared of a homicide -- as John Mark Karr was -- without someone else being convicted, because of overwhelming evidence proving the first person's innocence. I'm guessing she made the statement in a specific context, referring to a specific person. Either way, it's untrue.

2. Mary Lacey's public, official letter to the Ramseys in 2008 (2 years later) makes clear that she understood this, and/or had changed her mind regarding her earlier statement.

3. Why were the Ramseys cleared? Because of new DNA identified on multiple clothing items JBR was wearing at the time of the murder that did not match anyone in the family. Along with the entire case file, including all evidence viewed by the grand jury, all of which Lacey had access to. Including her own first-hand examination of the crime scene at the time of the murder.

4. What was the purpose of issuing a public exoneration? Well, given that the family had been living under a cloud of suspicion that appeared to be unfair and improper in light of the DNA evidence, the purpose was clearly to spare them any more unwarranted suffering. Given that they had already lost their daughter. In her own words, from 2016:

“Here’s what I was doing with the exoneration letter,” Lacy explained. “I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice. I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track.”

One can try to argue that the DNA evidence is inconclusive, but it doesn't change the fact that Mary Lacey did clear the Ramseys in 2008, and still appears to hold that view.

 

[dcountmontecristo]

1. Mary Lacey's statement from 2006 is factually inaccurate. Someone can easily be cleared of a homicide -- as John Mark Karr was -- without someone else being convicted, because of overwhelming evidence proving the first person's innocence. I'm guessing she made the statement in a specific context, referring to a specific person. Either way, it's untrue.

2. Mary Lacey's public, official letter to the Ramseys in 2008 (2 years later) makes clear that she understood this, and/or had changed her mind regarding her earlier statement.

3. Why were the Ramseys cleared? Because of new DNA identified on multiple clothing items JBR was wearing at the time of the murder that did not match anyone in the family. Along with the entire case file, including all evidence viewed by the grand jury, all of which Lacey had access to. Including her own first-hand examination of the crime scene at the time of the murder.

4. What was the purpose of issuing a public exoneration? Well, given that the family had been living under a cloud of suspicion that appeared to be unfair and improper in light of the DNA evidence, the purpose was clearly to spare them any more unwarranted suffering. Given that they had already lost their daughter. In her own words, from 2016:

“Here’s what I was doing with the exoneration letter,” Lacy explained. “I was trying to prevent a horrible travesty of justice. I was scared to death that despite the fact that there was no evidence, no psychopathy and no motive, the case was a train going down the track and the Ramseys were tied to that track.”

One can try to argue that the DNA evidence is inconclusive, but it doesn't change the fact that Mary Lacey did clear the Ramseys in 2008, and still appears to hold that view.

friendly advise... pls educate yourself about the role of a prosecutor (district attorney) in the criminal justice system so you can tell if what you wrote here is making any sense.

 

[Tobiano8th]

was JBR a minor boulder celebrity BEFORE her death?

i have done a deep dive on this the last 24-48 hours....... so far, i'm at 4 independent people saying/suggesting they killed JBR. sort of like JFK theories, they can't all be the truth. frankly, i think none of them are the truth.. are there more than 4 people that said/suggested they killed JBR? (electrician, oliva, guy from indiana, weirdo teacher (karr?). i believe only the indiana guy (suggested he did to wife) didn't explicitly admit to the murder.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

"You know, no one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a CONVICTION, in court beyond a reasonable doubt."

-Mary T. Lacy (Former DA)

Press Conference 8/29/06

Reality: THE CASE HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CONVICTION..

then why were the Ramseys cleared?
What was the purpose of issuing an EXONERATION?

dcountmontecristo, There won’t be a conviction because BR was a little over a month away from being held accountable. Why else the cover up and the get away? With the facts as we know them there was an indictment as well as an exoneration. We all know how money talks in our judicial system. Would it not make sense then that the R’s never wanted this solved?

 

[dcountmontecristo]

dcountmontecristo, There won’t be a conviction because BR was a little over a month away from being held accountable. Why else the cover up and the get away? With the facts as we know them there was an indictment as well as an exoneration. We all know how money talks in our judicial system. Would it not make sense then that the R’s never wanted this solved?

i believe the statement was addressed to the issue of clearing the Ramsey couple as suspects based on the investigation.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

i believe the statement was addressed to the issue of clearing the Ramsey couple as suspects based on the investigation.

based on her letter to the Ramseys

but what about this

"You know, noone is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a CONVICTION, in court beyond a reasonable doubt."

-Mary T. Lacy (Former DA)

Press Conference 8/29/06

Reality: THE CASE HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CONVICTION..

then why were the Ramseys cleared?
What was the purpose of issuing an EXONERATION?

dcountmontecristo,
I was addressing your quote above.

 

[HOPE770145]

Her parents did something to her maybe sold her. IMO. They're guilty. JMO

 

[Tobiano8th]

BR was a month away from accountability....... i'm thinking he was 8 years away...... and it was probably accidental if it happened.

 

[HOPE770145]

BR was a month away from accountability....... i'm thinking he was 8 years away...... and it was probably accidental if it happened.

Who is BR? Wasn't the mom involved with someone? Wasn't there drugs involved and a monetary dispute with neighbour down the hall? I have heard there was abuse also and that Nicole was trying to get away from the yelling. If someone took her it was someone in that hallway someone she knew and or they killed her in that condo.

 

[Rain on my Parade]

BR was a month away from accountability....... i'm thinking he was 8 years away...... and it was probably accidental if it happened.

Who is BR? Wasn't the mom involved with someone? Wasn't there drugs involved and a monetary dispute with neighbour down the hall? I have heard there was abuse also and that Nicole was trying to get away from the yelling. If someone took her it was someone in that hallway someone she knew and or they killed her in that condo.

I’m starting to feel like I'm living in the world of Alice.
It’s got me thinking about obvious things, contrary wise.

 

[Tobiano8th]

i think Hope is in the wrong forum for the one comment....... happens to me at least a few times a year.

or EDIT, maybe on 2nd thought it's a comment regarding a similar child abduction case......... i assumed nicole = OJ, but rereading it, i'd say no...

 

[Crimefighter331]

Now that we know Websleuths attracts such a distinguished readership, I think it would be good to have a thread which will provide students of the case with a summary of "facts" which are not actually FACTS!

Please note:- "not FACT" means that we do not know with absolute certainty that it is a fact. Some people may believe it to be fact, but that is their opinion only.

There was foreign DNA in her panties which does not match the parents
FACT.

The DNA in her panties is the killer's
Not-FACT. The DNA was degraded and early testing produced too few markers to identify anyone with 100% certainty. Later testing produced a few more markers enabling the sample to be entered into CODIS. The only official statement about the DNA which we have came from Tom Bennett last year when he said that the DNA might be the killer's but it might not. The sample was miniscule and could have been deposited at the time of manufacture if a worker had coughed or sneezed over the underwear.

The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source.

Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?

She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.

There were no footprints in the snow - therefore it was an inside job
Unclear. The first policemen to arrive at the house observed that there were no footprints in the snow which was lying around the house. Photographs show very little snow and large patches where an intruder could avoid walking on snow but these photographs were taken hours after the first policeman's report - when the small covernig of snow could have long melted.

This is worn out statement which is often used to try and discredit peolpe who believe in Ramsey guilt but it is rather a non-point.

The bedsheets were not wet
Not FACT. According to Steve Thomas' deposition, lab reports stated that the sheets had "traces of creatinine". Tiny amounts of creatinine are found in the urine of a healthy person. A bladderful of urine emtied on a sheet would therefore leave only traces of creatinine.

Also, the sheets were poly-cotton and multi-coloured. They would have dried very quickly and urine stains would not have been easy to see from a photo. Steve Thomas also stated in his deposition that witnesses had told him the sheets smelled of urine.

The Ramseys co-operated in every way
Not FACT. The Ramseys were obligated to co-operate with giving physical evidence and they did. However, it was 4 months before they sat down with police and gave formal interviews and another 18 months before they gave second interviews. John Ramsey also declined to take a polygraph saying that he would be "insulted". When asked if she would take a polygraph, Patsy ramsey said she would take "ten of them".

The Ramseys passed polygraphs
FACT. However, they refused to take FBI polygraphs and the polygraphs which they took were self-sponsored. The first polygraphs they took were inconclusive and they changed polygrapher. When they passed later polygraphs with a different polygrapher, they announced it to the press.

The Ramseys have been cleared by a Federal Judge
Not FACT. In one of the many Ramsey libel cases (Ramseys v Wolf), Judge J Carnes stated that the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the parents. However, Judge Carnes was ruling on a libel case. She did not have access to the police files and worked only with outdated evidence supplied by the Ramseys. This judgement was not on a murder trial.

The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA
Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.

 

[Crimefighter331]

thank you for posting this. I always heard about this case and just decided to do the research. It helps a newbie me like to have something so crystal clear

 

[Darknight007007]

If something is unclear,than it is not a hard fact.So,it would be easier to just post hard facts,that we know of as today:

FACT - Patsy Ramsey called 911 on the morning of Dec.26,1996,claiming she discovered her daughter gone,and there is a ransom note.

FACT - Boulder police arrived,and after a cursory search outside the house,found no force entry,or footprints in the snow.

FACT - Patsy,John and Burke were in the house from 10:00 pm until the following morning,when police were called.

FACT - Two couples who were close friends were called by the Ramseys'to come to the house the morning of the 911 call.Rol Hoverstock(pastor),and Dr. Beuf (JonBenets' pediatrician),was also there.

FACT - The call from the kidnappers never came.

FACT - Burke Ramsey was taken from his bedroom,and taken to a neighbors house.

FACT - John,after being asked by a detective to search the house,found the body of JonBenet in the basement,which he carried upstairs,and put her on the floor,just outside the basement door.

FACT - John Ramsey was heard by one of the authorities,making a call for arrangements to leave Boulder Colorado,to go to Atlanta,Georgia.

FACT - A few hours later,the Ramsey's were asked by the LE to leave the house.They stayed with various friends for a few days,until they ended up staying with the Stine family for several months,before leaving for Atlanta.

FACT - The autopsy confirmed that JonBenet was choked and her hands were bound by the same cord,the cord also had a broken paintbrush attached to it. The autopsy also confirms that JB was bashed in the head.Abrasions were found in three separate areas on JB's body,which later Dr.Meyer said could be consistent with the marks of a stungun. Markings were on the palm of JB's hand,which Dr. Meyers' believes is a drawing of a heart done with a red pen.

FACT - DNA found in JB's panties were tested to confirm it is not the DNA of a Ramsey male.

There may be more,but that's all I can think of at this moment of HARD evidence,anything else is either inconclusive or disputed.

Hello there

Thank you for these FACTS and NOT FACTS.

If you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions which bug me

1. It is reported that JonBenet had pineapple semi-digested in her stomach (autopsy). Is this true and is it significant? Could it be that she was upset during the night, fed pineapple to keep her happy, however, she was still upset and the crime continued?

2. Is there any significance to the broken window in the basement? John Ramsay states that the window was broken previously in the past and was not repaired. This sounds odd to me as it is an access point to the house and easily fixed. Don't you want to protect your family? However, this is not necessarily an indication of foul play by the family. Just interesting as the sole access point to the house (none of the doors or other windows were broken or tampered with).

3. The random note. It has been discussed that the sum of money matches closely to the amount John Ramsey received as a bonus payment at his workplace. Could this be a case of a disgruntled colleague wanting to inflict pain on John Ramsay, or could the amount subconsciously have been on John Ramsay's mind if he were responsible, at least for the random note.

Sorry, I have no facts or evidence to contribute but these points have puzzled me

Many thanks

Darknight007007

 

[Mimsy2]

Hello there

Thank you for these FACTS and NOT FACTS.

If you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple of questions which bug me

1. It is reported that JonBenet had pineapple semi-digested in her stomach (autopsy). Is this true and is it significant? Could it be that she was upset during the night, fed pineapple to keep her happy, however, she was still upset and the crime continued?

2. Is there any significance to the broken window in the basement? John Ramsay states that the window was broken previously in the past and was not repaired. This sounds odd to me as it is an access point to the house and easily fixed. Don't you want to protect your family? However, this is not necessarily an indication of foul play by the family. Just interesting as the sole access point to the house (none of the doors or other windows were broken or tampered with).

3. The random note. It has been discussed that the sum of money matches closely to the amount John Ramsey received as a bonus payment at his workplace. Could this be a case of a disgruntled colleague wanting to inflict pain on John Ramsay, or could the amount subconsciously have been on John Ramsay's mind if he were responsible, at least for the random note.

Sorry, I have no facts or evidence to contribute but these points have puzzled me

Many thanks

Darknight007007

I too have wondered why someone with means and ability, didn't not replace said wondow in a timely fashion. Even those without the means would have done what they could have to secure the window to protect their family from harm....IMOO... However, I do find it curious that it was never secured and conveniently pointed at as a probability of accessibility. I meanI if was to have beached it for entrance months before it would have long since been secured. Especially seeing that I had the means to do so. I can only speculate as to the why it was never secured. ..My grandfather once locked himself out and broke out the glass to the back door (I was raisedbymy grandparents). We did not have the means to repair it quickly, yet he was a handy fellow, in being so he replaced the glass with plexiglass to solve the problem cheaply.

 

[kill4nic]

Fact: A deliberate and sustained force was required to create the deep furrow around JBR's neck. This can only be reasonably construed as deadly force. This is supported by evidence, including local hemorrhaging that would not have occurred if she was already dead.

Fact: The strangulation was not staged. JBR was strangled.

Fact: Hitting over the head with a blunt instrument is common in murder and attempted murder, including some infamous ones.

Fact: JBR's fractured skull is most likely attributed to the use of additional deadly force, since its already been established that deadly force was being used.

Fact: JBR was most likely hit over the head with a blunt instrument.

Fact: The cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma (Death of JonBenét Ramsey - Wikipedia).

I would assume that the blunt force trauma wasn’t what killed her, but did seriously injure her, and the asphyxia is what finished her off. Of course this is just a theory established based on what I read here and the coroner’s report I found on Reddit.

 

[Chebrock]

Thank you for posting this. I have been very frustrated with the 'not FACT' information that has come from the Ramsey's and Lou Smit months and years after the incident. I do think that just saying that the experts disagree with whether or not Jon Benet was sexually abused before her death as an explanation of 'not FACT' is misleading. Her autopsy report revealed some old scaring or marks to her vaginal area. What caused this is subject to opinion but the scaring is FACT.

Now that we know Websleuths attracts such a distinguished readership, I think it would be good to have a thread which will provide students of the case with a summary of "facts" which are not actually FACTS!

Please note:- "not FACT" means that we do not know with absolute certainty that it is a fact. Some people may believe it to be fact, but that is their opinion only.

There was foreign DNA in her panties which does not match the parents
FACT.

The DNA in her panties is the killer's
Not-FACT. The DNA was degraded and early testing produced too few markers to identify anyone with 100% certainty. Later testing produced a few more markers enabling the sample to be entered into CODIS. The only official statement about the DNA which we have came from Tom Bennett last year when he said that the DNA might be the killer's but it might not. The sample was miniscule and could have been deposited at the time of manufacture if a worker had coughed or sneezed over the underwear.

The DNA under her fingernails matches the DNA in her panties
Not-FACT. The DNA under her fingernails had even fewer markers than the DNA in her panties and little has been spoken of it. Also, early reports suggested that the same nail clippers had been used for all of her fingernails and that cross contamination could have occured. There exists only one statement which says that the fingernail and panty DNA "match" - from Lou Smit when he made a documentary some years ago. However, Mr Smit made several statements at that time which we know to be erroneous and he has never repeated it - nor has any other official source.

Also - if the fingernail and panty DNA matched, it would make a nonsense of Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA possibly coming from a cough or sneeze. If there was any possibility of that, how would such a miniscule amount of DNA find its way under her nails?

She was sexually abused before her death
Not FACT. Experts disagree about this.

There were no footprints in the snow - therefore it was an inside job
Unclear. The first policemen to arrive at the house observed that there were no footprints in the snow which was lying around the house. Photographs show very little snow and large patches where an intruder could avoid walking on snow but these photographs were taken hours after the first policeman's report - when the small covernig of snow could have long melted.

This is worn out statement which is often used to try and discredit peolpe who believe in Ramsey guilt but it is rather a non-point.

The bedsheets were not wet
Not FACT. According to Steve Thomas' deposition, lab reports stated that the sheets had "traces of creatinine". Tiny amounts of creatinine are found in the urine of a healthy person. A bladderful of urine emtied on a sheet would therefore leave only traces of creatinine.

Also, the sheets were poly-cotton and multi-coloured. They would have dried very quickly and urine stains would not have been easy to see from a photo. Steve Thomas also stated in his deposition that witnesses had told him the sheets smelled of urine.

The Ramseys co-operated in every way
Not FACT. The Ramseys were obligated to co-operate with giving physical evidence and they did. However, it was 4 months before they sat down with police and gave formal interviews and another 18 months before they gave second interviews. John Ramsey also declined to take a polygraph saying that he would be "insulted". When asked if she would take a polygraph, Patsy ramsey said she would take "ten of them".

The Ramseys passed polygraphs
FACT. However, they refused to take FBI polygraphs and the polygraphs which they took were self-sponsored. The first polygraphs they took were inconclusive and they changed polygrapher. When they passed later polygraphs with a different polygrapher, they announced it to the press.

The Ramseys have been cleared by a Federal Judge
Not FACT. In one of the many Ramsey libel cases (Ramseys v Wolf), Judge J Carnes stated that the evidence was more consistent with an intruder killing JonBenet than the parents. However, Judge Carnes was ruling on a libel case. She did not have access to the police files and worked only with outdated evidence supplied by the Ramseys. This judgement was not on a murder trial.

The Ramseys have been cleared by the Boulder DA
Not FACT. After Judge carne's ruling, Boulder DA Mary Lacey said that she agreed with her statement that the evidence pointed more to an intruder than the ramseys. She later qualified this by stating that the Ramseys were nevertheless not being excluded from the investigation.