Discussion of "Overkill - The Unsolved Murder of Jon Benet" doco crime scene footage

[andreww]

He's not a fake because he is recognized world-wide for his accomplishments. I think Morrisey has a burr in his butt over the Tim Masters case. As far as not being able to take away what someone doesn't have, Kolar doesn't have a case against Burke; there is that.

Kolar is tiptoeing a fine line. He doesn't seem to have the freedom to present his complete case for fear of being sued. I don't think anybody can know 100% who did it because the other two witnesses were complicit. However, when one studies all the evidence and has a thorough knowledge of this case, they begin to put the pieces together. Why would she lie about this? Why did he mislead us about that? Why would she stay with him? Why would he stay with her? All these questions, and there are a million of them, are pieces to a puzzle and the can only fit together one way, and as far as I can tell, the answer is always Burke.

For instance, You could theorize that John did it when JB threatened to out him for sexual abuse. Not a bad theory. But then you would have to explain why Patsy would cover for him. You'd have to explain why a marriage that was rocky at best, could endure this? You'd have to explain why a man that obviously had access to plenty of adult woman would abuse his daughter, yet there was nothing in his history to remotely suggest that he was sexually attracted to children. So the theory may be good, but when you peel back the layers there is absolutely nothing to support it. Time to start again.

The only scenario that I see as viable is that Burke did it. As you peel back the layers here you find more and more things that make you shake your head. You find more and more questions. Why was he do indifferent? Why did they work so hard to hide his medical records? Why did they lie about him being on the 911 call? Why did they lie about him being asleep? Would each parent risk everything to help their only remaining child?

 

[Miz Adventure]

Kolar is tiptoeing a fine line. He doesn't seem to have the freedom to present his complete case for fear of being sued. I don't think anybody can know 100% who did it because the other two witnesses were complicit. However, when one studies all the evidence and has a thorough knowledge of this case, they begin to put the pieces together. Why would she lie about this? Why did he mislead us about that? Why would she stay with him? Why would he stay with her? All these questions, and there are a million of them, are pieces to a puzzle and the can only fit together one way, and as far as I can tell, the answer is always Burke.

For instance, You could theorize that John did it when JB threatened to out him for sexual abuse. Not a bad theory. But then you would have to explain why Patsy would cover for him. You'd have to explain why a marriage that was rocky at best, could endure this? You'd have to explain why a man that obviously had access to plenty of adult woman would abuse his daughter, yet there was nothing in his history to remotely suggest that he was sexually attracted to children. So the theory may be good, but when you peel back the layers there is absolutely nothing to support it. Time to start again.

The only scenario that I see as viable is that Burke did it. As you peel back the layers here you find more and more things that make you shake your head. You find more and more questions. Why was he do indifferent? Why did they work so hard to hide his medical records? Why did they lie about him being on the 911 call? Why did they lie about him being asleep? Would each parent risk everything to help their only remaining child?

It's the only plausible scenario.

Arguing about DNA seems a bit academic in the light of what we now know regarding how and why JBR was killed.

It's time people put this bogus 'intruder theory' to bed, isn't it?

If a stranger had really murdered JonBenet, he wouldn’t have to stage the body to make it look like a stranger had murdered her. Why would a stranger use a ligature to pretend to suffocate JonBenét, when he thought she had died from the head injury? Why would a stranger only loosely tie a cord around JonBenét’s arms or wrists - after she was dead—to feign she was constrained when she never was? Why would a stranger wish to put a piece of duct tape over her mouth after she was already dead? The FBI called this a “staging within staging"

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation had determined that the flashlight was probably the murder weapon and that it (and the batteries inside) had probably been wiped of fingerprints. Why would an intruder wipe the flashlight—and open it to wipe the batteries—rather than taking it with him when he left if it was the murder weapon? It’s more probable that someone from inside the house would have panicked and removed the prints.

It always seemed curious to me that people were prepared to blame the neighbors, John’s friends or an intruder without a shred of evidence, yet unwilling to accept the predominance of proof pointing to the parents

 

[searchinGirl]

Is worldwide recognition the standard for determining someone's legitimacy? If so, I think that method is flawed. If not, then it proves nothing about this man.

Science is science. Eikelenboom totally proved himself in the Camm case. And besides, other than commenting on the a&e special, he's not part of this case. It is what it is.

 

[BoldBear]

It's the only plausible scenario.The Colorado Bureau of Investigation had determined that the flashlight was probably the murder weapon and that it (and the batteries inside) had probably been wiped of fingerprints. Why would an intruder wipe the flashlight—and open it to wipe the batteries—rather than taking it with him when he left if it was the murder weapon? It’s more probable that someone from inside the house would have panicked and removed the prints.

Is the part I bolded true? I think it's the most likely weapon, but I didn't know there was such a determination.

Wiping down the batteries bothers me. If you're a member of the Ramsey family, there's no need to wipe down the batteries. The only reason to wipe them down would be if someone outside of the household handled them or if they were handled during the crime.

 

[kanzz]

Science is science. Eikelenboom totally proved himself in the Camm case. And besides, other than commenting on the a&e special, he's not part of this case. It is what it is.

BBM
"Science is science".
Sure. Except for when it's junk science.
Let's not forget there was a time when all scientists agreed that the Earth was flat.
Physicians used to insist that gastric ulcer patients drink milk every 30 minutes.
The polygraph? Obviously junk science.

Or, "science is science" except when humans get involved and misinterpret, contaminate, or otherwise abuse it. We all know that can happen and that it has far too many times on both sides -- innocent people have been sent to prison and guilty people have gone free.

Touch DNA? With rare exception - Junk Science.
Some states don't even allow it as evidence.

Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence

A two-minute handshake, then handling a knife led to the DNA profile of the person who never touched the weapon being identified on the swab of the weapon handle in 85 percent of the samples, according to a new study by University of Indianapolis researchers, entitled “Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime?”

If your DNA is found on a weapon or at a crime scene, does that make you guilty?

A judge or jury might think so, but a new study from the University of Indianapolis shows that secondary transfer of human DNA through intermediary contact is far more common than previously thought, a finding that could have serious repercussions for medical science and the criminal justice system.

Forensic Nightmare: The Perils of Touch DNA

Touch DNA is also central to the murder case of Colorado toddler JonBenet Ramsey. Thanks to joint reporting by Denver's 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera, current Boulder County district attorney Stan Garnett announced three weeks ago that he is reopening the DNA portion of the investigation initially conducted by his predecessor, Mary Lacy. In 2008, she concluded in a letter exonerating the Ramsey family that an unknown male's DNA on JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because no innocent explanation existed for its presence.

A growing body of peer-reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Unfortunately, many state crime labs and police departments haven't caught up.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Is the part I bolded true? I think it's the most likely weapon, but I didn't know there was such a determination.

Wiping down the batteries bothers me. If you're a member of the Ramsey family, there's no need to wipe down the batteries. The only reason to wipe them down would be if someone outside of the household handled them or if they were handled during the crime.

I think I took that sentence from an article in the Federalist. I'll try and find it.

 

[akh]

Wiping down the batteries bothers me. If you're a member of the Ramsey family, there's no need to wipe down the batteries. The only reason to wipe them down would be if someone outside of the household handled them or if they were handled during the crime.

I've always wondered if the lack of fingerprints on the flashlight and batteries was more dumb luck than an intentional wipe down. Even to the point of wondering whether the flashlight was left in plain sight because JR nor PR had no idea it was used in the commission of the crime. Assuming one or both found an obviously strangled JBR, and no obvious head injury, that flashlight could've flown right under their radar.

Or it was the ball bat and the flashlight is a red herring, maybe used in the coverup (to see by) and wiped down for that reason but had no known connection to the head injury.
Use the flashlight to see by during the coverup so the house is not all unusually lighted in the middle of the night, wipe the flashlight down after finishing the staging, and then call 911. And it ultimately becomes a useful distraction, maybe even taking focus away from the bat, but totally just dumb luck and not planned. Or it could've been the weapon used for the headstrike and the parents had no idea as they were using the flashlight for staging and wiped it down afterwards and that ultimately helped BR with no idea JBR had been hit in the head with it or anything else.

 

[searchinGirl]

Let's not forget there was a time when all scientists agreed that the Earth was flat.

Yes but there was that one person who could see the Earth wasn't flat and proved otherwise.

 

[kanzz]

Yes but there was that one person who could see the Earth wasn't flat and proved otherwise.

In the case of one man discovering that the Earth was round - that was something that was eventually backed up by fact and ergo gathered the support of other scientists.

In the case of touch DNA (tDNA) - it's the exact opposite. It was a new discovery that quickly gathered the support of other scientists until they began to find that the science just didn't hold up under further scrutiny.

Unfortunately, I see that one of my links was broken in my previous post. My apologies, everyone.
Forensic Nightmare: The Perils of Touch DNA
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/malkin-forensic-nightmare-perils-touch-dna

Touch DNA is also central to the murder case of Colorado toddler JonBenet Ramsey. Thanks to joint reporting by Denver's 9News and the Boulder Daily Camera, current Boulder County district attorney Stan Garnett announced three weeks ago that he is reopening the DNA portion of the investigation initially conducted by his predecessor, Mary Lacy. In 2008, she concluded in a letter exonerating the Ramsey family that an unknown male's DNA on JonBenet's underwear must belong to the killer because no innocent explanation existed for its presence.

 

[searchinGirl]

In the case of one man discovering that the Earth was round - that was something that was eventually backed up by fact and ergo gathered the support of other scientists.

In the case of touch DNA (tDNA) - it's the exact opposite. It was a new discovery that quickly gathered the support of other scientists until they began to find that the science just didn't hold up under further scrutiny.

I get that tDNA isn't infallible but as far as it not holding up under scrutiny I don't believe concensus has yet been reached. tDNA was able to prove Tim Masters wasn't part of the crime scene that he spent ten years in prison for murder; and tDNA not only proved David Camm didn't kill his family but that Charles Bonney did. Colorado paid Tim Masters $10M, Indiana paid Camm $35M.
Besides, the DNA profile in CODIS for JB murder is not tDNA.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Oh, for Pete's sake, if some stranger or strangers broke into the Ramsey house, hung out in the kitchen for some period of time writing a note from Patsy's tablet and getting some pineapple together, kidnapped a child from her bed, fed her pineapple and then brutally murdered her by striking her on the head and then strangling her with a homemade toggle rope fashioned with Patsy's paintbrush, at some point removed some of her clothing to sexually assault her, moving the child or her body from the second floor to the basement room where she was eventually found, how can anyone believe the only thing left behind would be a few microscopic cells? It is simply not possible. If a few cells from the killers were left behind, much, much more should have been left behind as well.

I won't bash tDNA. I know it has it's uses in certain narrow circumstances. This, however, clearly is not one of them.

"This was an inside job." John Ramsey

Let it go, IDIs. Just let it go.

 

[searchinGirl]

Oh, for Pete's sake, if some stranger or strangers broke into the Ramsey house, hung out in the kitchen for some period of time writing a note from Patsy's tablet and getting some pineapple together, kidnapped a child from her bed, fed her pineapple and then brutally murdered her by striking her on the head and then strangling her with a homemade toggle rope fashioned with Patsy's paintbrush, at some point removed some of her clothing to sexually assault her, moving the child or her body from the second floor to the basement room where she was eventually found, how can anyone believe the only thing left behind would be a few microscopic cells? It is simply not possible. If a few cells from the killers were left behind, much, much more should have been left behind as well.

I won't bash tDNA. I know it has it's uses in certain narrow circumstances. This, however, clearly is not one of them.

"This was an inside job." John Ramsey

Let it go, IDIs. Just let it go.

When you were in college, or just moved away from your parents for the first time, did you ever hang out with any friends who still had access to their parents home? Like with access to laundry machines and video, snacks, beer and other forms of recreation?

Just think about it. It could be that this inside job was someone on the outside looking in.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Is the part I bolded true? I think it's the most likely weapon, but I didn't know there was such a determination.

Wiping down the batteries bothers me. If you're a member of the Ramsey family, there's no need to wipe down the batteries. The only reason to wipe them down would be if someone outside of the household handled them or if they were handled during the crime.

The wiping of the batteries makes sense to me. IMO, the Rs were trying to pin the ownership of this flashlight to an outside party, and in order to do so, all of their prints needed to disappear.

This wouldn't be the first item the Rs would try to distance from the family. PR swore to the moon and back that she never laid eyes on the Christmas Santa bear on JBR's spare bed, insinuating an intruder must have brought it. Come to find out, JBR won it in a pageant. Not to mention the pineapple she didn't remember buying (IIRC) and the ransom note she swears she didn't write.

 

[Miz Adventure]

As kanzz has often stated. Two words 'Occams Razor'.

Example:

Two trees have fallen down during a windy night. What do you think happened?

1. The wind has blown them down?

Or

2. Two meteorites have each taken one tree down, and after that hit eachother and removed any trace of themselves?



And I like this one: When you hear the sound of hooves, think horses, not zebras.

　
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

 

[searchinGirl]

As kanzz has often stated. Two words 'Occams Razor'.

Example:

Two trees have fallen down during a windy night. What do you think happened?

1. The wind has blown them down?

Or

2. Two meteorites have each taken one tree down, and after that hit eachother and removed any trace of themselves?



And I like this one: When you hear the sound of hooves, think horses, not zebras.

　
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

And make sure you hate the Ramsey's first and foremost. And keep pretending you do so because that's what JonBenet wants. If you eliminate the possibilities and the probabilities, you don't have much left except scientific evidence.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The wiping of the batteries makes sense to me. IMO, the Rs were trying to pin the ownership of this flashlight to an outside party, and in order to do so, all of their prints needed to disappear.

This wouldn't be the first item the Rs would try to distance from the family. PR swore to the moon and back that she never laid eyes on the Christmas Santa bear on JBR's spare bed, insinuating an intruder must have brought it. Come to find out, JBR won it in a pageant. Not to mention the pineapple she didn't remember buying (IIRC) and the ransom note she swears she didn't write.

I agree that these are two excellent examples of the Ramseys' post-murder game plan. With regard to the flashlight, I can think of no other reason for the batteries to have been wiped clean. An intruder would not have needed to touch them and the only reason for a Ramsey to wipe them clean - and then leave the flashlight in plain sight - was because they wanted LE to conclude it was brought in and left behind by the intruder. As if the intruder would go out of his way to wipe the batteries clean just so he could then leave the flashlight at the scene!

As for Santa Bear, my understanding is that while it's possible Patsy may not have known about it (I think it may have been given to her when Nedra was at the pageant with her), it's ridiculous to make an issue of a small Christmas-related trinket in that messy room. It easily could have been given to her by a little friend before or during Christmas. Once again, the Ramseys trying to throw LE off track. Of course, given that ransom note, and the fact that Patsy's writing tablet and paintbrush were used in the commission of the crime, this shouldn't have worked with anyone.

 

[EarthtoMel]

originally posted by ZoriahNZ
#7-13 Are extremely graphic autopsy photos. We've seen these before, but these are HQ. There appears to be dried saliva or mucus streaks/runs on her right cheek which (jmo) is inconsistent with the idea of her mouth being gagged with duct tape prior to death. Unless it's adhesive residue from the tape? #12-13 close ups of her hand, it doesn't look like a heart to me, more like a crude happy face. What is the white particulate on her palm? Plaster from the WC floor?


Graphic photo to follow:





I found a bigger photo of the residue on her mouth. It looks to me like it could be duct tape shaped. It covers her upper lip more in this photo.
Please let me know what you think....I am very new to all of this.

 

[BBB167893]

He's not a fake because he is recognized world-wide for his accomplishments.

Not anymore. It speaks volumes that frauds like him are the only ones still tooting the DNA horn.

I think Morrisey has a burr in his butt over the Tim Masters case.

It wasn't Morrisey who made the decision.

 

[BBB167893]

Let it go, IDIs. Just let it go.

Let it go!
Let it go!
Can't sell those myths anymore

(I couldn't resist!)

 

[BBB167893]

And make sure you hate the Ramsey's first and foremost. And keep pretending you do so because that's what JonBenet wants.

LOW, searchinGirl. All the worse because I EXPECTED that. Very well. If that's how you want it, by God, that's how you'll get it!

If you eliminate the possibilities and the probabilities, you don't have much left except scientific evidence.

Couldn't have said it better myself. All IDI has is a lot of outside chances and a lot of maybes.

The war is over, searchinGirl. You lose.