JonBenet Ramsey

[Drogo]

This is the place to discuss your general thoughts on the case - all theories welcome. 

[Alonzo Mosely FBI]

Beaver hairs... And black duct tape that isn't found in the house. You know what's often made out of beaver fur? A top hat . A fancy pageant top hat. Which are often black and often sized with duct tape inside the brim if they are too large so they'll stick just long enough for a 45 second routine.  Isn't there even videotape of JB in a pageant outfit with a top hat?  Wonder if they had that top hat in the house and in evidence. 

I think BDI. The kids are up playing in that huge house and something happened. I think Burke put her in the big undies because if Patsy wouldn't put a big spoon in A small bowl she wouldn't put huge underpants on her kid. That's a dad move or a child move . If Burke made feces mistakes he left for the world to see I can see him making a huge mistake and having to cover it up on his own. 

A mom will do anything for their child. If JB was already dead she would have done anything in a panic to protect Burke . The sick thing is that she may have never discussed any of the cover up with Burke . Just send him away to his room. She's been covering up for him for years because of her own obsession with appearances. That would create confusion for Burke maybe he didn't do it ? Even Burke isn't sure "what did you find" after some more sleep. 

Deep acting dysfunction for this family was standard operating procedure. 

ETA that the whole reason for the cover up was something so heinous about Burke would have come out that Patsy could not cope with. Perhaps she started a  frantic cover up and John somewhat unwillingly went along. Or he had to when he saw how far it had gotten along....

Edited September 22, 2016 by Alonzo Mosely FBI

[SonofaBiscuit]

Snipped from the "Part Two" thread:

Quote

If John and Patsy staged the whole thing to make it look like an intruder, why be so forthcoming about John having broken the window himself -- why wouldn't he "conveniently" forget about that?

I imagine that since John really did break the window (either when he locked himself out of the house or in a possible staging of the crime scene), he knew that the police may find his DNA there.  This way, if crime scene investigators came up with samples of his DNA in that location, he could just say "Yeah, I told you I broke the window."  

Also snipped from the "Part Two" thread:

Quote

And the DNA under JB's fingernails -- erm, DNA under fingernails seems like a pretty damning piece of evidence, and if it wasn't Ramsey DNA, then whose was it?  Somehow this was glossed over on the show -- confirmation bias.

 According to this article posted in the "Part Two" thread, DNA from two males and one female were found under JonBenet's fingernails.  Here's what that article says about the DNA evidence:

Quote

Although the body had apparently been wiped down, investigators had found minute amounts of unidentified DNA, including male DNA mixed with JonBenét's blood in her underwear. Find the owner of that DNA, the mantra went, and you'd have your perpetrator.

[snip] Scrapings of the long johns worn by JonBenét had turned up two sites of male DNA that matched the profile found in the panties. 

[snip] Since it was issued, Lacy's exoneration has been routinely cited in most news stories about the Ramsey case, usually in a way that implies the Ramseys have been positively and unambiguously "cleared by DNA." But Kolar considers the letter to be misleading at best. It fails to mention that investigators also found unidentified DNA from two males and one female under the victim's fingernails -- samples too tiny and badly degraded to put into a database or even determine if they came from blood or skin tissues. They also gathered additional samples of DNA from two males that came from the cord and garrote used in the crime. None of these samples match each other or the touch DNA obtained from the clothing.

"DNA can be very helpful in any criminal investigation, but it needs to be looked at in the context of all the other evidence," Kolar says. "If you look at all the trace samples involved in this, if you follow the DNA evidence solely, then we should be looking for six perpetrators, not one."

Lacy's assertion that there's no "innocent" explanation for one partial DNA profile showing up in three locations is also dubious. Dan Krane, a biochemist who's testified as a DNA expert in criminal cases around the world, says the ability to gather ever smaller amounts of DNA has raised increasing concerns about the "provenance" of that evidence. "The DNA in your tests could be there because of a contact that was weeks, months, even years before the crime occurred," he says. "It's not possible to make inferences about the tissue source here. We can't say that it came from semen or saliva or blood or anything. What if one of the medical examiners sneezed on one of these articles of clothing and it came into contact with the other one? There are just so many possibilities."

Edited September 22, 2016 by SonofaBiscuit

[Jel]

Thanks for that info, SonofaBiscuit. 

I'll be right up front and say, despite the oddities of the case, and Burke's odd behavior, I think an intruder (or more than one) did it.  I also note, that for many of these article writers, and maybe even the police, "body residue" (fingerprints/dna) seems highly relevant and important to the case when it involves the Ramseys, and inconclusive or even inconsequential when it points to anyone else.  Same seems to be true for fibers, boot prints, etc. Confirmation bias at play, imo.

Burke's behavior was odd as a child (way too much smiling) and seeming lack of care. Maybe he did resent his sister, maybe he was actually very jealous of her, maybe there was a part of him (and I feel awful typing this, but here goes) that was not that unhappy his sister wasn't around anymore. Maybe that explains some of his behavior, even if he didn't do it himself?  Or maybe he's just a person who smiles when he is nervous (Dr. Phil's take).

Personally, I think Ramseys' truthfulness about both the broken window and the bowl of pineapple points more to their innocence over their guilt. Liars, in my experience, are only too willing to go with whatever suggestion someone else offers to back up their own stories -- seems both the unidentified pineapple provider and the broken window would have lent credence to their intruder "story", and I think they would have happily let those things erroneously point to their intruder lie had they been making it up.

But, childhood Burke's reaction to the pineapple, I thought, was very odd. Red flag odd. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Jel
typos, and more typos!

[Cara]

2 hours ago, Josette said:

Calling the police is what almost everyone does when a loved one is kidnapped.  Ransom notes always tell them not to involve the authorities or else.  As to the friends, it is odd to me, but maybe they were the kind who needed a lot of support.  They didn't have any family in Boulder, so they turned to friends.   Or maybe that was just Patsy.

Of course you should notify the police. But Patsy in the 911 call never mentions anything about the note telling them not to call law enforcement and that there was a need to be stealth so they shouldn't send a marked unit. Of course they sent a marked unit.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Drogo
EDITED BY MOD: Quote formatting.

[AZChristian]

Patsy didn't mention it because she knew there was no need for stealth; she knew there was no kidnapper.  She wrote the note!

[Cara]

46 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Patsy didn't mention it because she knew there was no need for stealth; she knew there was no kidnapper.  She wrote the note!

Exactly, it's one of the many reasons I think the Ramseys know much more than they have admitted.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Cara

[choclatechip45]

Lin Wood keeps posting on Twitter how a civil judge ruled an intruder broke into the house one of the reasons the judge gives is that the grand jury did not indict anyone.

[Court]

Parents are often in denial about their child. They likely blamed themselves for what happened if Burke did it. 

[BitterApple]

If a Ramsey did it, my money's on Burke. As weird as John and Patsy were, I can't see them hauling off and bashing their kid on the head. A whack on the bottom or slap in the face, maybe, but fracturing her skull? No. I think the theory that the kids were playing, it got physical, a fight broke out and Burke lashed out impulsively is the most logical explanation of RDI. 

However, how do you explain the lack of John, Patsy or Burke's DNA on the body? How would they have wiped her down sufficiently enough to eliminate their trace evidence but not the trace evidence of an unknown male? 

[pamplemousse]

1 hour ago, choclatechip45 said:

Lin Wood keeps posting on Twitter how a civil judge ruled an intruder broke into the house one of the reasons the judge gives is that the grand jury did not indict anyone.

Yeah, that judge's opinion/ruling is a joke, he also gave a ton of credence to the touch DNA. Basically at this point, anyone who brings up the touch DNA as proof that the Ramseys are innocent and an intruder did it can talk to the hand where I'm considered. It has been stated by many experts that the DNA in this case cannot be used to include or exclude anyone given that it has no detectable/traceable provenance, was only matched to 1/3 of the standard amount of markers, is touch DNA, and 5-6 people's (of both genders) DNA was found. So if I'm supposed to take this DNA as proof that an intruder did it, then we might as well start saying that a foreign faction of 5-6 people were there in the house for hours working on this 3 page ransom note and lying in wait for the Ramseys to return from the Christmas Party.

[ghoulina]

4 hours ago, SonofaBiscuit said:

I imagine that since John really did break the window (either when he locked himself out of the house or in a possible staging of the crime scene), he knew that the police may find his DNA there.  This way, if crime scene investigators came up with samples of his DNA in that location, he could just say "Yeah, I told you I broke the window."  

Not only that, and I posted this in the episode thread - but it's possible there was someone other than Patsy that knew about him breaking it. A neighbor, the housekeeper, the gardener. So if he was all, "An intruder broke the window and came in to steal my daughter!", the housekeeper might say, "Um no, you did that yourself when you got locked out 2 months ago. Duh." It would cast all sorts of suspicion on him if he wasn't honest. 

[pamplemousse]

11 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

Not only that, and I posted this in the episode thread - but it's possible there was someone other than Patsy that knew about him breaking it. A neighbor, the housekeeper, the gardener. So if he was all, "An intruder broke the window and came in to steal my daughter!", the housekeeper might say, "Um no, you did that yourself when you got locked out 2 months ago. Duh." It would cast all sorts of suspicion on him if he wasn't honest. 

Funny thing is (well, only in a pitch black humor sort of way), that's exactly the type of lies the Ramseys would tell. During the first day, the police noticed that the frame of a door looked like it was broken/had been tampered with and when they asked the Ramseys about it, Patsy was like Oh, that was just John one time when he forgot his keys and locked himself out. Later in their book, the Ramseys said that the intruder damaged the door. Like...wtf people.

[Jel]

From Part 2 thread: part quoting ghoulina:

Unless they were in a rush and weren't really thinking. Or maybe John did it and didn't really know what size she wore. Others have posted that they think the staging is odd because there were two people involved, who were scared, hurried, and not consulting each other. And I agree. These are not professionals. So the whole thing is a mess. 

That is possible, and for me, (this and the big spoon)  causes some major eyebrow raising -- wrong size underwear and big spoon: both would be things that someone who hadn't raised children (intruder or Burke) would be far more likely to do over a mother.

Possibly because someone else could validate that he did that. Maybe neighbors saw him/the broken window. Maybe he told the housekeeper or gardener. So perhaps he thought he better just be upfront about it or it would look like he was trying to hide something if he pinned it on an intruder. 

I see this as possible, certainly, but doesn't it require a fair bit of thinking ahead/covering bases? Is that a reasonable thing to expect of someone whose child has just been killed by his other child and now he and his wife are in the process of covering it up? I just think, if Burke did it say, they'd be so psychologically traumatized that they wouldn't be operating on all cylinders, not enough to think  a few moves ahead. I see it as within the realm of possibility, but for me it's real stretch.  It's an easier leap for me to think that he was being honest about it because he had nothing to hide, but mmv.

[GaT]

31 minutes ago, Jel said:

I see this as possible, certainly, but doesn't it require a fair bit of thinking ahead/covering bases? Is that a reasonable thing to expect of someone whose child has just been killed by his other child and now he and his wife are in the process of covering it up? I just think, if Burke did it say, they'd be so psychologically traumatized that they wouldn't be operating on all cylinders, not enough to think  a few moves ahead. I see it as within the realm of possibility, but for me it's real stretch.  It's an easier leap for me to think that he was being honest about it because he had nothing to hide, but mmv.

And to me, this is one of the biggest problems with all the "one of the Ramsays did it" theories. Whoever killed her, I don't believe it was planned, I think it was either an accident & someone in a fit of rage, but nobody made a decision to kill JonBenet beforehand.. If it was one of the Ramsays, I'm having a hard time seeing how they could setup this whole elaborate thing. Everything is so complicated & they couldn't have been thinking straight. I'm just having a hard time believing that either John or Patsy (because I'm pretty sure Burke wouldn't have been able to plan it) saw their dead daughter & started hatching a coherent plan to cover it up.

[ghoulina]

12 minutes ago, GaT said:

And to me, this is one of the biggest problems with all the "one of the Ramsays did it" theories. Whoever killed her, I don't believe it was planned, I think it was either an accident & someone in a fit of rage, but nobody made a decision to kill JonBenet beforehand.. If it was one of the Ramsays, I'm having a hard time seeing how they could setup this whole elaborate thing. Everything is so complicated & they couldn't have been thinking straight. I'm just having a hard time believing that either John or Patsy (because I'm pretty sure Burke wouldn't have been able to plan it) saw their dead daughter & started hatching a coherent plan to cover it up.

I do get that. They would be totally torn up about their daughter. But there was another child involved. So I can buy that they went into crisis mode and began doing what they had to in order to protect Burke. 

[AZChristian]

Patsy herself said in one of the interviews she did in lieu of talking to the police that she would "do anything to protect one of my children."  At that point, she only had one living child left.  Lying to protect him wasn't much of a stretch for her.

[choclatechip45]

The Ranseys also told invesrigators in 98 they didn't recognize the one of the stuffed animals in her bed. The DA released a whole statement about it and made it into some mystery "gift" that was left behind from the intruder. Turned out it was a Santa bear that was a prize at one of JonBenet's pageants. I do believe that John had no idea about it. Just another good chase the Ramseys liked to send people on.

[LGGirl]

I think there are some parents that would do anything to save a child.  If Burke did it, I could see the Ramseys felt responsible and guilty as if they had done it themselves.  I honestly think that they felt more compassion for their living son than dead daughter.   But then I'm if the belief that Burke was abusive to JonBenet more than once and the Ramseys made excuses for it every time.  

Regardless, it's been said that one of the neighbors heard a scream at 2am.  If that was Patsy finding the body then there would have been ample time for them to write the ransom letter and stage the scene.  I'm of the opinion that Patsy did the staging not Jon.  She could have looked it all up on the Internet.  Did the police ever check their computers?  I can't see John involved with the staging just because I don't think he (like most fathers) had the stomach for it. I do think John disposed of the actual murder weapon, tape and rope.   

[BitterApple]

Continuing on that thought, where would John have disposed of the items? I'm assuming the entire neighborhood was searched thoroughly, along with storm drains and nearby dumpsters. A night owl neighbor may have seen him coming and going. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just wondering how he could have done it (if he did) with minimal risk.

[AZChristian]

They had gazillion people in the house that morning (friends of the Ramseys).  All they had to do was had a sack with the hiking boots, tape, cord, etc., to a friend (with a couple of hundred dollar bills tucked within sight.  John just had to ask one of them to dump the bag for them in a large dumpster ("but not too close to your house or our house").  Evidence gone.

NOTE:  This is pure conjecture on my part, but makes as much sense as anything else in this case.

[LGGirl]

Wasn't John gone/missing for 90 minutes?  Pretty sure it would have been done at that time.  

I can't believe one of their friends doesn't know the truth.  And they just won't say anything as to protect Burke and the family.  

[AZChristian]

Some of their friends DO know the truth.  Fleet and Priscilla White.  Oh, wait.  Former friends.

[Cara]

1 hour ago, LGGirl said:

 

Regardless, it's been said that one of the neighbors heard a scream at 2am.  If that was Patsy finding the body then there would have been ample time for them to write the ransom letter and stage the scene.  I'm of the opinion that Patsy did the staging not Jon.  She could have looked it all up on the Internet.  Did the police ever check their computers?  I can't see John involved with the staging just because I don't think he (like most fathers) had the stomach for it. I do think John disposed of the actual murder weapon, tape and rope.   

There really wasn't that much to the Internet in 1996. It wasn't widely used then, certainly nothing approaching what it is now. It would surprise me if Patsy even knew how to use a computer in 1996.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Cara

[AZChristian]

But John started a computer company.  Seems like they would have had a computer.  

[Cara]

6 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

But John started a computer company.  Seems like they would have had a computer.  

Yeah, I just remembered that and edited my post. They probably did have a computer in the home that John used for work. However, I would kind of doubt Patsy used it much if at all. At any rate there was no where near the information available on the Internet as there would be just a few years later.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Cara

[Ohmo]

BitterApple actually started me on this train of thought.  He/She talked about being sad.  I'm mad because this child who was SIX can't get even any attempted resolution of this case.  It annoys me.  I believe that Burke did it, but I don't know if it was intentional or accidental.  I'm leaning toward intentional, but that's just a lean.  I've seen these specials referred to in not great terms, but at least all of those people are doing something.  No one in any sort of law enforcement capacity is willing to step out there and do crap for this little girl...even 20 years later.  I get it.  If Burke did it, he might not have been able to be prosecuted due to his age.  But he hasn't even been investigated.  To those who support the intruder theory, I would love ALL of the evidence to be tested as Dr. Lee suggested.  If an actual intruder pops up. I would be among the first to applaud because at least something had been DONE.  At least the TV specials (no matter what their bias) are keeping the issue front and center.  No one with any investigative power seems interested in re-testing anything, questioning anything. or doing anything.  If the killer turned out to be Patsy, that would make me sad.  JonBenet's dead, Patsy's dead, she died of cancer.  That situation is sad, but this inaction makes me mad.  "We were incompetent.  Everything was too political.  We don't have enough evidence, blah, blah, blah..."  .Maybe all of that is true, but the last time that was challenged by law enforcement was twenty years ago.  Everyone is content to do nothing, except talk about it on TV.  (If they'd let us handle it, both pro-BDI AND pro-intruder posters, I'm VERY confident we would accomplish SOMETHING at least. :) )  I'd have respect if Boulder PD tried again now and then said "We still can't get anywhere, but we at least tried again. " Like the CBS special said, JonBenet has become a footnote in her own murder.

1 hour ago, LGGirl said:

I honestly think that they felt more compassion for their living son than dead daughter.

I agree.  JonBenet can't seem to get compassion from her family or from law enforcement to at least try and look at this case again.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Ohmo

[AZChristian]

In Part 2 of the CBS show, Dr. Henry Lee found DNA in the knots on the cord from the guy on the panel who tied the knots.  Were the knots on the garotte cord ever tested for DNA?  Science is so advanced now that I'd be curious to see what would happen if they would re-test them (if they were ever tested).

[Jel]

I'm for a full re-test of the DNA, for sure.

But, if they found unknown DNA on the knots, would that mean anything to people who have their minds made up that the Ramseys did it?

And if they found Ramsey DNA on the knots, would that mean anything to the people who think an intruder(s) did it?

[BitterApple]

While it's a shame JonBenet will likely never get justice, I can kind of understand the Boulder PD and DA's reluctance to revisit the case. The crime scene and evidence was so badly mishandled, a conviction is unlikely even with a DNA hit. I'm sure there's a healthy dose of CYA and bruised egos in the mix as well, but every budget strapped police department in the country prioritizes active cases over cold ones.

From what I've seen in these situations, it's usually the victims' families screaming and hollering for the authorities to keep trying, however in this instance the Ramseys were the exact opposite. They closed up shop and left town. They didn't even pull a "we won't rest until the killer is caught" a la OJ. I'm not saying it's indicative of their guilt, but they certainly weren't proactive in trying to get the case solved.

[AZChristian]

46 minutes ago, Jel said:

I'm for a full re-test of the DNA, for sure.

But, if they found unknown DNA on the knots, would that mean anything to people who have their minds made up that the Ramseys did it?

And if they found Ramsey DNA on the knots, would that mean anything to the people who think an intruder(s) did it?

I'm in the Ramseys did it camp, but definitive DNA from an outside source hidden in that knot could change my mind.  But I'd put up cash money that that's not what would be found.

[Jel]

13 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I'm in the Ramseys did it camp, but definitive DNA from an outside source hidden in that knot could change my mind.  But I'd put up cash money that that's not what would be found.

You may be more open minded that many, AZChristian, because I suspect there would be more talk of trace DNA from factory workers.

And I'm in the intruder did it camp, and I'd probably say, oh well if was rope from the Ramsey's house (was it?), then of course it's not weird to have their DNA on it.

I feel hopelessly cynical about it right now :(

[Court]

7 hours ago, pamplemousse said:

Yeah, that judge's opinion/ruling is a joke, he also gave a ton of credence to the touch DNA. Basically at this point, anyone who brings up the touch DNA as proof that the Ramseys are innocent and an intruder did it can talk to the hand where I'm considered. It has been stated by many experts that the DNA in this case cannot be used to include or exclude anyone given that it has no detectable/traceable provenance, was only matched to 1/3 of the standard amount of markers, is touch DNA, and 5-6 people's (of both genders) DNA was found. So if I'm supposed to take this DNA as proof that an intruder did it, then we might as well start saying that a foreign faction of 5-6 people were there in the house for hours working on this 3 page ransom note and lying in wait for the Ramseys to return from the Christmas Party.

Not to mention that it came from a contanimated crime scene. 

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

In Part 2 of the CBS show, Dr. Henry Lee found DNA in the knots on the cord from the guy on the panel who tied the knots.  Were the knots on the garotte cord ever tested for DNA?  Science is so advanced now that I'd be curious to see what would happen if they would re-test them (if they were ever tested).

I think part of the issue is the sample is likely very decayed now and unusable. It was decayed when Lacey had it tested and why they could only use 4 instead of the standard 13.

Then there's the whole issue of the botched crime scene and contamination.

[Court]

8 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

Lin Wood keeps posting on Twitter how a civil judge ruled an intruder broke into the house one of the reasons the judge gives is that the grand jury did not indict anyone.

But that's not true. The grand jury did choose to indict. Hunter chose not to do anything with it.

[choclatechip45]

Quote

But that's not true. The grand jury did choose to indict. Hunter chose not to do anything with it.

I agree which is why his argument is bogus.

[annlaw78]

7 hours ago, Jel said:

That is possible, and for me, (this and the big spoon)  causes some major eyebrow raising -- wrong size underwear and big spoon: both would be things that someone who hadn't raised children (intruder or Burke) would be far more likely to do over a mother.

I agree.  Same with leaving the bag of tea in a glass of iced tea (and, in general, thinking that's how you make iced tea, and serving iced tea (assuming it's caffeinated) to a child at night).  I don't see a mother doing that.

[ElDosEquis]

Let's go under the assumption that there was a break-in.

Any outsider DNA, fabric or hair evidence was never found - IF the crime was committed by a Ramsey, their DNA would not seem out of place.

The reluctance of the Ramseys' to speak to LEO for almost 5 months AFTER the crime stinks. Why would you NOT want to catch the criminals - and what about the neighbors/community not wanting to get involved.  Were the Ramseys' THAT selfish/stupid to NOT want to protect other neighbors who may have be under the same kind of danger?

And what about the fuckery with the family friends?

There is a 'common sense' when it comes to committing a crime -  crooks/bad guys/killers mostly think in linear terms - they don't usually have a 'plan b' and when their 'plan a' fails, they panic and start making stupid mistakes.

Like leaving SOME kind of evidence behind.

Even the most inept investigation would have turned up SOME definitive evidence of an intruder and if there were more than one? Evidence being deposited by a team of kidnappers would have gone up by 50%.

The reason that the profilers/cops were stumped by this crime is that weren't looking for the standard kidnapper/perv/killer that fit 'the profile'.

It MIGHT have been a kid, woman and man?

That would explain all the disjointed nature of all the evidence left behind - it didn't make any 'sense' to the investigators because they were looking for someone/something that didn't exist.

[choclatechip45]

5 hours ago, AKraven said:

Well.  Shit.  Fuck.  Damn.  Let me tell y'all something about the media (they're evil, by the way). 

I am close to people who have been involved in a national incident, and the real truth is hard to come by if you watch the news.  Yeah, every side is gonna spin it their way.  It's really shitty because good and innocent people get hurt.  Take everything you hear with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Yeah I agree. I feel bad for Fleet White's son when he went in front of the Boulder City Council and talked about how when someone googles his name the Nancy Krebs story comes up. I'm around the same age as him. Alex Hunter should be ashamed of himself of that whole incident. 

[Jel]

2 hours ago, ElDosEquis said:

Let's go under the assumption that there was a break-in.

Any outsider DNA, fabric or hair evidence was never found - IF the crime was committed by a Ramsey, their DNA would not seem out of place.

The reluctance of the Ramseys' to speak to LEO for almost 5 months AFTER the crime stinks. Why would you NOT want to catch the criminals - and what about the neighbors/community not wanting to get involved.  Were the Ramseys' THAT selfish/stupid to NOT want to protect other neighbors who may have be under the same kind of danger?

And what about the fuckery with the family friends?

There is a 'common sense' when it comes to committing a crime -  crooks/bad guys/killers mostly think in linear terms - they don't usually have a 'plan b' and when their 'plan a' fails, they panic and start making stupid mistakes.

Like leaving SOME kind of evidence behind.

Even the most inept investigation would have turned up SOME definitive evidence of an intruder and if there were more than one? Evidence being deposited by a team of kidnappers would have gone up by 50%.

The reason that the profilers/cops were stumped by this crime is that weren't looking for the standard kidnapper/perv/killer that fit 'the profile'.

It MIGHT have been a kid, woman and man?

That would explain all the disjointed nature of all the evidence left behind - it didn't make any 'sense' to the investigators because they were looking for someone/something that didn't exist.

The Ramseys' reluctance to talk to the police did come across as shady, you'd think a parents would be eager to give talk, blood/dna samples/submit handwriting for analysis/take lie detector tests, so they could be ruled out and the cops could get to work finding the person who did it.  But, and for what it's worth, they did provide all the samples theye were asked for and in the recent Dr. Phil interview, John said that initially they did talk to the police for eight hours, on the first or second day (iirc). Then very early on, someone close to the police dept. told them that the cops had pretty much made up their minds that the Ramseys did it, and so the Ramseys lawyered up. Is that the truth, or is that a conveniently, after the fact, made up explanation? Dunno.

Re: leaving some evidence behind. There was some evidence: the boot print (explained away with something like the Ramseys cold have owned those boots and then disposed of them. Seems like it would have been easier to just wipe away the boot print instead of sneaking out of the house chock full o' cops to dispose of a pair of boots, in a dumpster, outside of the neighborhood search zone, but whatevs.

Also, the unidentified DNA in the underwear (explained away as Thai factory worker's DNA)

Unidentified DNA under JB's fingernails explained away as too little/too degraded/could have been there for six weeks.

Evidence that her body was wiped down. Could have been the Ramseys who did that or it could have been a criminal who'd done a similar crime or thought about it  a lot in advance. 

[Cherrio]

I think a few of the problems finding DNA would include, the obvious ineptness of the police.  The first day the crime scene techs said they were finished only working on a few areas.  IIRC, a guy named Mason on the D.A. side argued strenuously with TPTB to search the entire house, every nook and cranny.  Speaking of hiding the duct tape and rope, did they ever search the cars?   I don't remember ever hearing about their cars.

There were always other people in that home, so finding no DNA reeks of a very bad job.

There has been mention of Patsy's friends cleaning a lot while they were in the house that morning and afternoon.

  While I am not pro Ramsey, John Eller surfaced as a world class imbecile and jerk on day one. He was the one who decided he was not going to release JBR's body to her parents until they did what he wanted.  While he never actually did that (because he couldn't legally) I am sure the Ramsey's were done at that point cooperating in any normal way.    If someone did that to me, twenty years later it would make my blood boil.

[SonofaBiscuit]

Anyone know if the boot print matched John Ramsey's shoe size?  If he participated in a cover-up, I could see him leaving the print as proof of an intruder and then disposing of the boots, duct tape, paintbrush remnants, etc. before police were ever called.

It seems a reasonable explanation for the oversized spoon and glass of iced tea (plus tea bag) might be that Burke snuck downstairs with a flashlight in the middle of the night for a snack.  A kid isn't going to worry about grabbing the proper sized spoon or the correct way to make iced tea, I don't think.  

Maybe JB wet herself and just grabbed a clean pair of underwear nearby without really caring too much if they were a few sizes too big.  Might not have even been paying too much attention if she was sleepy, anyways.  Was JB's entire body wiped down?  I don't know, but if she wet herself, I imagine she wiped the urine off before changing clothes.   

The DNA "evidence" seems shady as fuck.  DNA on her long johns and underwear that match each other but don't match the multiple sources of DNA on the cord and garrote?  Multiple sources of DNA under her fingernails?  Hardly a smoking gun here.

In my mind, I can explain away the boot print, the big spoon, the tea bag, and the large underwear.  But if we're going with the intruder theory, I can't really come up with reasonable explanations for why the Ramsey's would call friends over when the kidnapping note threatened the death of their daughter, or why they were so damn uncooperative with the investigation, or why they lied about their son being asleep in bed when you can hear his voice on the 911 tape (did they ever change their story on this point?), or how an intruder managed to find the one broken window in the home when it was well concealed underground, or how that same intruder managed to climb through said broken window without disturbing the cobwebs in the corner, or why this same person would mosey around the house collecting office supplies to write multiple drafts of a kidnapping note when the family could arrive home at any moment, or why Patsy would go on to change her handwriting after the death of JB, or why Burke would act so incredibly suspicious when questioned about the pineapple, etc. etc. etc.  Ugh, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Edited September 23, 2016 by SonofaBiscuit

[choclatechip45]

It came out during the Grand Jury proceedings that Burke owned the hi tech boots. Apparently him and one of his friends either Doug Stine or Fleet White III also testified about it. 

Scroll down it is mentioned in 2000 interviews with Patsy and John that Lin Wood released

 http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

Edited September 23, 2016 by choclatechip45

[LGGirl]

I remember the Polly Klaas kidnapping case years ago.  Her dad, Marc Klass was immediately the prime suspect.  He didn't hesitate to talk to police, give them everything they wanted so he could clear himself in order to find the person who took her.   He wanted her found.  He wanted the animal that killed his daughter found.     

Ramseys have never acted like they wanted JonBenet found.  I don't care if they were the prime suspects.   If you know you didn't do it, you'd do anything to find your daughter's killer.   Stone walling the police doesn't get you there.

Plus if an intruder came into your house and murdered your child, wouldn't your sense of security be shaken?   He had money to make that home a fortress with electronic security and guards.  Did any of that happen?

[choclatechip45]

2 minutes ago, LGGirl said:

I remember the Polly Klaas kidnapping case years ago.  Her dad, Marc Klass was immediately the prime suspect.  He didn't hesitate to talk to police, give them everything they wanted so he could clear himself in order to find the person who took her.   He wanted her found.  He wanted the animal that killed his daughter found.     

Ramseys have never acted like they wanted JonBenet found.  I don't care if they were the prime suspects.   If you know you didn't do it, you'd do anything to find your daughter's killer.   Stone walling the police doesn't get you there.

Plus if an intruder came into your house and murdered your child, wouldn't your sense of security be shaken?   He had money to make that home a fortress with electronic security and guards.  Did any of that happen?

They were robbed in the Atlanta house in 2001....

No security alarms were on in the house. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by choclatechip45

[vibeology]

I've been thinking about this case ever since watching the Special. I'm not as well versed in this case. I was 11 when the crime occurred and while my parents were okay with me following every detail of OJ a few years earlier, I guess the death of a little girl was too much, and this was something we never talked about. I've learned some stuff over the years but there is still so much I didn't know.

I get that this show had a point of view, but it's one that mostly makes sense to me. I have a very hard time aligning an intruder with some of the biggest facts of this case. The ransom note is insane. I cannot think of a single reason an intruder would come to a house, find a sharpie, find a notepad, write out a three page ransom note then return the pen and paper to their original spots. If there is something you are needing to communicate like that, you'd prepare the note before you got there. What if you couldn't find a pen? Who would take that chance? That note screams someone covering up a death and no intruder would stick around after JB died to write it so it seems like it would have to come from someone living in the house. Plus the money thing was just too on the nose.

I am also totally baffled by the Ramsey family's behavior the morning of. On one hand, my expectation of people being rational goes out the window when their child is missing, but it all seems so odd to me. I might not search through the house on my own, but as soon as police got there, I'd want them to tear the house apart in case, somehow, my daughter was still there or the intruder was still there. I'm less bothered by calling friends over. Some people need those connections in a crisis.

The theory put forward in this doc makes sense to me. I don't know if they fought over the pineapple specifically, but the idea that kids fight so much rougher than they realize is very true. I remember as a child being one of four kids my babysitter "watched" and the only girl. The guys were around my age and we'd swing hockey sticks, pieces of wood, chair etc. at each other. We had no idea how much damage that stuff could do. There were hammers at a workbench in the basement where we played and we'd never touch those because we knew hammers could hurt but somehow we never put together the idea that a 2x4 could do the same or even more damage. We had split lips, black eyes, cuts and bruises all the time. I participated because that was how we were. Sometimes it would start as playing and then get dangerous without anyone realizing because kids do not have the ability to foresee the consequences to their actions the same way an adult would. I remember one kid throwing a tantrum (and he was like 8 or 9 so probably too old for tantrums but...) and throwing a hunk of wood at another kid and splitting his forehead open. I can easily believe any kid could lash out at a sibling with the flashlight not understanding how much damage could be done, let alone a kid who had issues the way Burke did.

But like others have said, it doesn't matter what I think. The police botched this from the very beginning and JonBenet will never get justice. That house should have been searched from top to bottom the moment police arrived on scene. Patsy and Burke should have been brought to the police station right away and someone should have been by John's side, waiting by the phone, the entire time. No guests should have been allowed in the house. It would be a very different matter if those things had been done. The scene would have been properly preserved and more evidence collected without the risk of cross contamination. It blows my mind how poorly this was handled.

[BitterApple]

Vibeology, you make some great points. If Burke is the killer, the cover-up only made things worse. As you noted, kids fight. It often gets rough and ends in injury. If they'd came out and said Burke hit JonBenet but never intended to kill her, would the public really have held it against him for the rest of his life? I think most people would've considered it a tragedy, but I don't think they'd peg Burke as the next Ted Bundy. The case would've been long forgotten by now and the family could've dealt with it and moved on. Instead they lived under a cloud of suspicion for twenty years. I wonder if John now regrets not coming clean in the beginning.

[Maharincess]

3 hours ago, Jel said:

The Ramseys' reluctance to talk to the police did come across as shady, you'd think a parents would be eager to give talk, blood/dna samples/submit handwriting for analysis/take lie detector tests, so they could be ruled out and the cops could get to work finding the person who did it.  But, and for what it's worth, they did provide all the samples theye were asked for and in the recent Dr. Phil interview, John said that initially they did talk to the police for eight hours, on the first or second day (iirc). Then very early on, someone close to the police dept. told them that the cops had pretty much made up their minds that the Ramseys did it, and so the Ramseys lawyered up. Is that the truth, or is that a conveniently, after the fact, made up explanation? Dunno.

Re: leaving some evidence behind. There was some evidence: the boot print (explained away with something like the Ramseys cold have owned those boots and then disposed of them. Seems like it would have been easier to just wipe away the boot print instead of sneaking out of the house chock full o' cops to dispose of a pair of boots, in a dumpster, outside of the neighborhood search zone, but whatevs.

Also, the unidentified DNA in the underwear (explained away as Thai factory worker's DNA)

Unidentified DNA under JB's fingernails explained away as too little/too degraded/could have been there for six weeks.

Evidence that her body was wiped down. Could have been the Ramseys who did that or it could have been a criminal who'd done a similar crime or thought about it  a lot in advance. 

I don't believe a word that man says. He could tell me the sky is blue and I'd have to look outside to make sure. 

[ghoulina]

4 hours ago, Jel said:

Re: leaving some evidence behind. There was some evidence: the boot print (explained away with something like the Ramseys cold have owned those boots and then disposed of them. Seems like it would have been easier to just wipe away the boot print instead of sneaking out of the house chock full o' cops to dispose of a pair of boots, in a dumpster, outside of the neighborhood search zone, but whatevs.

It's also possible that boot print came FROM a cop. There were soooo many people trampling through that place. And I belive Hi-Tec is/was a common cop brand. 

[choclatechip45]

30 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

It's also possible that boot print came FROM a cop. There were soooo many people trampling through that place. And I belive Hi-Tec is/was a common cop brand. 

I posted this already in this thread. Burke testified under oath in his grand jury testimony and so did one other person that he owned hi-Tec boots. 

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

[LGGirl]

2 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Vibeology, you make some great points. If Burke is the killer, the cover-up only made things worse. As you noted, kids fight. It often gets rough and ends in injury. If they'd came out and said Burke hit JonBenet but never intended to kill her, would the public really have held it against him for the rest of his life? I think most people would've considered it a tragedy, but I don't think they'd peg Burke as the next Ted Bundy. The case would've been long forgotten by now and the family could've dealt with it and moved on. Instead they lived under a cloud of suspicion for twenty years. I wonder if John now regrets not coming clean in the beginning.

I agree with you there but I believe it was more than an accidental whack in the head.  Patsy and Jon knew that and that's why they covered it up.