By Accident Or On Purpose Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[DeDee]

The murder has never presented itself to me as an accident. JBs skull was hit too hard. It was meant to do horrific damage and it did.

If it was an accident, JR could phone his lawyer, no matter who did it, to discover that if BDI, there could be no charges. Too young, under law, to be charged. There would be a CPS investigation. Would they sacrifice their money and reputations due to an in home investigation? If BDI, there is no need for the adults to strangle her as some may feel one of them did.

I totally get BDI, except for the location. Con:

How did BR get JB to the dreadful basement that she detested with all of her might? Her body does not indicate abrasions from long periods of dragging.

UKGuy, respectfully, this is not a case of playing doctor gone wrong, jmho. JBs genital area of her body was raped, poked and prodded with the artist's paintbrush until she bled. That is not playing dr. That is sadistically sexually abusing a child.

I had a student once who detested being touched by others. It was as if he felt a physical pain when touched. He always screamed. And, lawdy, don't touch any of his personal belongings! BR may not be this severe but the audacity of anyone touching his drink can! I wouldn't drink from it again either had it been mine. Nor do I equate pineapple in JBs system as being an encounter from stealing BRs fruit.

Causes of Aphenphosmphobia

Causes of Aphenphosmphobia will also vary from one person to the next. Most often, phobias are caused by a trauma, which typically occurs during childhood. Physical or sexual child abuse are very common causes of Aphenphosmphobia. When a child is exposed to this type of environment, especially since they are at such an impressionable age, they begin to lack trust in others. They often associate any type of touch with pain, since they is what they were used to whilst growing up.
http://mostcommonphobias.com/aphenphosmphobia-the-fear-phobia-of-being-touched/

Merry Christmas! Justice for JonBenet!

 

[OliviaG1996]

It's not what I've read, and how can the DNA be inconclusive when there is a definitive DNA profile found on the crime scene?

This article may answer your questions: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_30657415/boulder-police-da-plan-new-dna-testing-jonbenet

From the article, this is of specific importance:

"Multiple forensic experts who examined that evidence on behalf of the Camera and 9NEWS disputed all of Lacy's conclusions with regard to the DNA.

"For example, they determined that male DNA located in JonBenet's panties and in two spots on her long johns contained genetic material from at least two people in addition to the 6-year-old. As a result, they suggested that the "profile" entered into the FBI's CODIS database in 2003 — dubbed Unknown Male 1 by investigators in the case — may not be the profile of an individual at all, but a conglomeration of genetic material from multiple people."

In short, the idea that the DNA pinpoints one specific person, which seems to be most IDIs' stance, is most likely untrue.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is shocking to me that Burke being the killer is the most voted option when test after test after test of DNA and circumstantial evidence has cleared Burke and the family over and over and over again for almost 30 years now. The killer will never be found with this blinders on mentality that Burke did it. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how the killer got away, by obsessing over Patsy Ramsey's non-existent guilt. The facts AND the truth, will set you free.

I'm not exactly positive who exactly did what.

I am 100% without a shadow of a doubt certain it was Ramsey's - there is absolutely zero evidence of an intruder -ZERO.

Sure, there's a ton for a defense attorney skilled at smoke & mirrors, but that's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[HarmonyE.]

It's not what I've read, and how can the DNA be inconclusive when there is a definitive DNA profile found on the crime scene?

There has never been a definitive DNA profile from a non-Ramsey at the scene.

There is no evidence of an intruder, period. She was killed by one or more Ramseys. As others have suggested, you may want to read up on the weakness of the trace DNA "evidence" and note that those who decided to clear the Ramseys using it had no clue what they were actually dealing with.

Even if you don't want to do this, think about what was done to JonBenet that night and the odds of an intruder leaving absolutely nothing behind but a few microscopic skin cells that can't even be fully marked. It's not possible. It's late Christmas night here. There are probably microscopic skin cells from all sorts of relatives and friends on and about my person right now. Poor little kid probably came into contact with even more people than I have in the hours and days before her death.

 

[RL2]

Twenty years ago tonight exactly! Does anyone have addresses for higher-ups (govt officials) in Boulder and the state of Colorado so that all of us can start peppering their post with letters urging them to release the entire Grand Jury file and solve this once and for all?!??!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

"...the two gentlemen looking over your daughter. . ."

I couldn't recognize all the movie posters in the basement but one was for "An Officer and a Gentleman" and hung on wall between the train room and the hall/WC.

I have long thought that there was a clue in the RN as to where JBR would be found.

Anyone catch another 'gentleman' on a poster?

In the movie Zack Mayo ( Richard Gere) was in Subic Bay Training Center just as John Ramsey was. Some think it means subic bay

A CandyRose

38
7 LOU SMIT: I would like to show you
8 another photograph and this again is photograph
9 562 and this was also a photograph taken during
10 the crime scene investigation, and again I will
11 just hold this up to the camera. It shows a bag
12 and I would like you to identify that, if you
13 can.
14 JOHN RAMSEY: That's a plaque I got
15 when I was at the Naval base in Subic Bay late
16 60's, early 70's, I don't know if the date is
17 on. I was stationed there. It was hand carved
18 by Philippines, they had a lot of craftsmen that
19 could carve like that. I don't recall where it
20 was, it wasn't something that I had out.
21 LOU SMIT: Who else would have
22 known about that, because there has been a lot
23 of things said about Subic Bay training center,
24 things of that nature? What does that say on
25 there by the way?

0539
1 JOHN RAMSEY: It says Lieutenant
2 J.P. Ramsey, PNBC, Subic, which is where I was
3 stationed. USNR, I think.
4 LOU SMIT: Does it say anything
5 about Subic Bay Training Center, does it have
6 initials on this?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: It's PWC, was the
8 public works center.
9 LOU SMIT: I see.
10 JOHN RAMSEY: U.S. Navy Public
11 Works Center, Subic Bay, Philippines. March
12 '68. October '70.
13 LOU SMIT: You have to speak a
14 little louder.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: I think it says
16 March 1968 to October 1970, CEC, which is Civil
17 Engineer Corps.
18 LOU SMIT: Do you know where you
19 kept that at home?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: It might have been
21 in my closet, in my dressing room, which is here
22 (indicating) in these closets up on a shelf,
23 perhaps.
24 LOU SMIT: In the study area?
25 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. Or it could

Also John was a Star Trekl fan... again at A CandyRose

On November 22, 1996 the movie "STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT" was released in theaters across the country. Star Trek fans across the country were eagerly anticipating its release, and in all probability it would have been playing on multiple screens in Boulder as it was everywhere else. It went on to gross over 120 million dollars.

This is a portion of the movie's script posted on a Star Trek web page:

While Picard is trekking his way through the intricate maze of Jeffries Tubes, trying his best to stay one step ahead of the ever-pursuing Borg, Picard is suddenly caught from behind by Lily Sloane, who has fashioned a makeshift garrote and is using it to strangle Picard. Picard assures her that he is not associated with any faction and that she must trust him and do as he says.

The actual dialog from that scene in the movie:

Lily Sloane: Who are you?!
Picard: My name is Jean-Luc Picard.
Lily Sloane: No, who are you with, what faction?!
Picard: I'm not with the Eastern Coalition.
Picard: There's a new faction that wants to prevent your launch tomorrow.

Now, not only is an additional movie reference tied into the ransom note in the form of the word "faction", but that word is actually tied to the use of a "makeshift garrote" in a movie that John Ramsey would have had easy access to in Boulder, and as a Star Trek fan, probably couldn't wait to see.

 

[icedtea4me]

In the movie Zack Mayo ( Richard Gere) was in Subic Bay Training Center just as John Ramsey was. Some think it means subic bay*snip*

No, Zack's father was stationed in the Philippines. Zach's military training was in Washington, near Puget Sound.

Foley warns the male candidates about the "Puget Sound Debs" — young women in the area who dream of marrying a Naval Aviator to escape their dull, local lives. Foley claims they scout the regiment for OCs, and will feign pregnancy or even stop using birth control to become pregnant to trap the men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Officer_and_a_Gentleman

 

[UKGuy]

The murder has never presented itself to me as an accident. JBs skull was hit too hard. It was meant to do horrific damage and it did.

If it was an accident, JR could phone his lawyer, no matter who did it, to discover that if BDI, there could be no charges. Too young, under law, to be charged. There would be a CPS investigation. Would they sacrifice their money and reputations due to an in home investigation? If BDI, there is no need for the adults to strangle her as some may feel one of them did.

I totally get BDI, except for the location. Con:

How did BR get JB to the dreadful basement that she detested with all of her might? Her body does not indicate abrasions from long periods of dragging.

UKGuy, respectfully, this is not a case of playing doctor gone wrong, jmho. JBs genital area of her body was raped, poked and prodded with the artist's paintbrush until she bled. That is not playing dr. That is sadistically sexually abusing a child.

I had a student once who detested being touched by others. It was as if he felt a physical pain when touched. He always screamed. And, lawdy, don't touch any of his personal belongings! BR may not be this severe but the audacity of anyone touching his drink can! I wouldn't drink from it again either had it been mine. Nor do I equate pineapple in JBs system as being an encounter from stealing BRs fruit.



Merry Christmas! Justice for JonBenet!

DeDee,
Playing Doctor is a euphemism intended to allow for Burke's young age. It would have been the parents who moved JonBenet down to the basement, its an example of BDI All falling down.

Your reference to Aphenphosmphobia is interesting, case history generally refutes the common sense notion, so on the surface what appears to be childish behavior might have deeper roots?

The genital injuries are open to debate, i.e. caused partially by the parents or wholly by BR?

Again an example of BDI All falling down, we may have to move to BDI Partial?

Nor do I equate pineapple in JBs system as being an encounter from stealing BRs fruit.

ITA. Its patently a nice concise Freudian explanation.

If we could ascribe a phobia to BR then this would be an advance?


.

 

[otg]

Someone else pointed this out to me not long ago. I didn't remember it from the movie:

https://youtu.be/WIP1sO9Pv50?t=2m36s

 

[Rott Mom]

I'm giving myself a TO - I want to reflect & pray justice will be served for this
innocent little girl on her 20th anniversary.

 

[Meara]

It's not what I've read, and how can the DNA be inconclusive when there is a definitive DNA profile found on the crime scene?

Our fellow websleuths have done a fine job of responding to your question. It may be worth adding that Kolar begins his book by imagining a scenario involving six intruders, one for each of the distinct DNA samples found on JBR's clothing. His gentle satire illustrates a central problem with the DNA evidence. We don't know who any of it belongs to, or how it got there, or when, so we can't say only one DNA profile is significant and the others aren't. Kolar's opinions count because he's a good investigator, he's seen all the evidence, and he did not bring a PDI bias to his work.

Again, it's hard to reconcile any IDI theory with the Ramseys' behavior (and I was originally IDI). We can say everyone reacts to shock and grief differently, but how many times can the exceptionalism card be played before it's worthless? If they're different from other people at every turn and didn't just relocate to the U.S. with a yak and a yurt, they are asking to be believed against billion to one odds. The grievously experienced Mark Klaas and John Walsh both thought the Ramseys very strange. And I have to wonder at people who continue to support the Ramseys when even their close friends - who also started out IDI - found their behavior so questionable and sometimes downright duplicitous that they withdrew their support.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Our fellow websleuths have done a fine job of responding to your question. It may be worth adding that Kolar begins his book by imagining a scenario involving six intruders, one for each of the distinct DNA samples found on JBR's clothing. His gentle satire illustrates a central problem with the DNA evidence. We don't know who any of it belongs to, or how it got there, or when, so we can't say only one DNA profile is significant and the others aren't. Kolar's opinions count because he's a good investigator, he's seen all the evidence, and he did not bring a PDI bias to his work.

Again, it's hard to reconcile any IDI theory with the Ramseys' behavior (and I was originally IDI). We can say everyone reacts to shock and grief differently, but how many times can the exceptionalism card be played before it's worthless? If they're different from other people at every turn and didn't just relocate to the U.S. with a yak and a yurt, they are asking to be believed against billion to one odds. The grievously experienced Mark Klaas and John Walsh both thought the Ramseys very strange. And I have to wonder at people who continue to support the Ramseys when even their close friends - who also started out IDI - found their behavior so questionable and sometimes downright duplicitous that they withdrew their support.

as far as I know there is only one foreign DNA, not six.

 

[Meara]

as far as I know there is only one foreign DNA, not six.

Then you need to keep reading.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Then you need to keep reading.

depends on what, there is a lot of disinformation.

 

[Annapurna]

depends on what, there is a lot of disinformation.

Keep reading about the DNA of course. Even if you don't agree with his (unstated) conclusion, Kolar's book is a great read. He writes in a simple, straightforward way about the complexities and evidence in this case. As other posters were saying, he saw all the police files and was in charge of the cold case unit that handled the JBR case. His chapters on the DNA report and the "interpretation of injuries" were both extremely informative. If you read nothing else I would recommend this book. (Btw I think you can still get a free trial of kindle unlimited and download it for free!!)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays everyone. 20 years later and still no justice... the way things are moving again, this may be the last anniversary we have to say that. Sweet little angel baby JonBenét, watch over and guide the investigators and all those looking for justice[emoji319]❄️❤️[emoji320]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RL2]

I sincerely pray God grants John Ramsey no peace until Jonbenet is granted justice.

your sins will surely find you

 

[otg]

(bbm)

It's not what I've read, and how can the DNA be inconclusive when there is a definitive DNA profile found on the crime scene?

(bbm)

There has never been a definitive DNA profile from a non-Ramsey at the scene.

There is no evidence of an intruder, period. She was killed by one or more Ramseys. As others have suggested, you may want to read up on the weakness of the trace DNA "evidence" and note that those who decided to clear the Ramseys using it had no clue what they were actually dealing with.

Even if you don't want to do this, think about what was done to JonBenet that night and the odds of an intruder leaving absolutely nothing behind but a few microscopic skin cells that can't even be fully marked. It's not possible. It's late Christmas night here. There are probably microscopic skin cells from all sorts of relatives and friends on and about my person right now. Poor little kid probably came into contact with even more people than I have in the hours and days before her death.

As HarmonyE stated in response to your post, "There has never been a definitive DNA profile from a non-Ramsey at the scene." Period.


(rsbm)

Our fellow websleuths have done a fine job of responding to your question. It may be worth adding that Kolar begins his book by imagining a scenario involving six intruders, one for each of the distinct DNA samples found on JBR's clothing. His gentle satire illustrates a central problem with the DNA evidence. We don't know who any of it belongs to, or how it got there, or when, so we can't say only one DNA profile is significant and the others aren't. Kolar's opinions count because he's a good investigator, he's seen all the evidence, and he did not bring a PDI bias to his work.

Kolar does an excellent job of demonstrating the absurdity of using only the DNA to try and solve the crime.

as far as I know there is only one foreign DNA, not six.

So that's as far as you know. As others have suggested, you really need to read a little more about it before making up your mind. Knowledge is power, ignorance is bliss. Which would you prefer?

depends on what, there is a lot of disinformation.

There is indeed. But there is also a lot of information available you need to consider that you apparently haven't yet.


(rsbm)

Keep reading about the DNA of course. Even if you don't agree with his (unstated) conclusion, Kolar's book is a great read. He writes in a simple, straightforward way about the complexities and evidence in this case. As other posters were saying, he saw all the police files and was in charge of the cold case unit that handled the JBR case. His chapters on the DNA report and the "interpretation of injuries" were both extremely informative. If you read nothing else I would recommend this book. (Btw I think you can still get a free trial of kindle unlimited and download it for free!!)

Kolar's book (Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped HonBenet) explains the problems with the DNA in this case. The new book I'm reading (Listen Carefully: Truth and Evidence in the Ramsey Case) has an entire chapter dedicated to understanding in depth about the DNA, which is helpful for me because I've never completely understood much about it. It also has a separate appendix on DNA ("DNA Technical Reference") that explains the basics and the advanced elements of DNA. I haven't read it yet, but I intend to muddle through it till my little pea-brain can understand it.


LetThemEatCake, you've been given many sources now by numerous posters so you can learn and better understand about the DNA. Hopefully, you'll follow up.

 

[ElleElle]

Then you need to keep reading.

I just bought the Foreign Faction book from Kolar on Amazon Kindle. I need to brush up on the experts here on this case on WS.

If I come on here and post and ask questions, this is why.

 

[BOESP]

I sincerely pray God grants John Ramsey no peace until Jonbenet is granted justice.

your sins will surely find you

Here's a snipped quotation from the "Larry King Live" show with Steve Thomas and the Ramseys. Does anyone notice something possibly incriminating in this quotation?

THOMAS: Well, absolutely. But the Bible also says, without confession, there is no forgiveness.Patsy, do you think...
J. RAMSEY: It doesn't say that.
THOMAS: It doesn't?
J. RAMSEY: Christ did not ask for repentance when he forgave his executers.
THOMAS: Without confession, there is no forgiveness. Do you think that God will forgive the person that did this?
P. RAMSEY: That's up to that person and God.

 

[UKGuy]

Here's a snipped quotation from the "Larry King Live" show with Steve Thomas and the Ramseys. Does anyone notice something possibly incriminating in this quotation?

THOMAS: Well, absolutely. But the Bible also says, without confession, there is no forgiveness.Patsy, do you think...
J. RAMSEY: It doesn't say that.
THOMAS: It doesn't?
J. RAMSEY: Christ did not ask for repentance when he forgave his executers.
THOMAS: Without confession, there is no forgiveness. Do you think that God will forgive the person that did this?
P. RAMSEY: That's up to that person and God.

BOESP,
Strictly we all know that's Patsy lying through her teeth again, why because they aint Christian, their just book carriers.

If I had been there I would have said John when was the last time you spoke to God

Whatever his reply I would then have asked and what did God say to you?

P. RAMSEY: That's up to that person and God.

That's the Team Ramsey front line response, i.e. Third Person.

Sometimes known as Looking Into The Mind of God.