Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Covering up the murder, wouldn't necessarily show the heart of a psychopath, but rather the same kind of personality that value how things look above all else. A person would bleach her kid's hair and parade her though a myriad of beauty pageants. A person who lost one child, but wasn't going to lose another, so writes a ridiculous 2-3 page ransom not from a note pad in her home. A person who would hire a publicist for the funeral of her slain daughter.

Murdering out of passion or lying about a murder doesn't make you a serial killer.

I think that sounds pretty psychopathic to murder your injured but not dead child in order to cover up an injury. If they did that then it was only accidental in the sense it was accidentally on purpose. It wasn't just an innocent accident. I think one of the parents could have done it but if so they did it intentionally.

Where is an example of a kid that accidentally died and the parent staged a murder to cover it up? (which was Casey Anthony's defense - that Caylee accidentally drowned). Of course, she was almost certainly lying. It makes no sense. Nobody murders their child to cover up an accidental injury or even death, because if it was unintentional then they wouldn't jump to assuming the child was dead. It's just not the frame of mind you'd be in. There would have to be some kind of intentional wrongdoing. This also seems like a very elaborate cover up that could not have been conceived in a short time in the middle of the night. To me the elaborate nature of it lends credibility to the idea that the perpetrator had planned this, at least vaguely (by that I mean possibly had this in the back of their mind as a backup plan).

I think that a good part of why this case wasn't resolved early on is because the circumstances are so very bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A couple thoughts:

Dr Phil does NOT pay his guests and the brother wouldn't need the money, anyway.

The mother was a 2-3 time cancer survivor at that time and as she stated, she didn't care about a little bedwetting, or typical 5-6 yr old stuff. She understood the bigger picture in life. Even if she were covering for someone in the family, I can't see a mother resorting to sexual assault trauma to create a case.

Ok, so now that you've clarified that you're a "friend" I get why you're so defensive, but you honestly don't know any of this for sure. Most people who kill their kids aren't just psychos all the time, sadly. If the speculation is too hard for you, you should probably leave this thread.

I'm the PP you quoted here. Not sure if you are referring to me though. I'm not a friend and didn't state that I was. I'm not defensive, just stated my opinion. Maybe you need to leave cuz you don't seem to be following the posters in this thread.

Ok, well, your post is odd then. You speak like you know them, providing insight into her state of mind, yet you say you are NOT the poster claiming to know them. [/b]Not sure how you could have any idea what they did or didn't understand or think about life.

[b]

You know they have been interviews by media, right? The mother responded to crazy theories that t she was jealous/obsessed or angry about bed wetting or normal developmental independence. Conjecture about possible motives is all over the map- which was it, did she love or hate her, did she snap, etc. Watching her interviews, I see a woman defeated by grief, striving to remember the good. Not covering up, etc. That's myv opinion of her behaviour. Not going too argue about it; it's simply my opinion.

Other mums mentioned, Susan Smith, Casey Anthony- from the start I called bs on it all. I didnt with this.

Agree some details are so suspicious that it seems inner circle tho. But also I see some things perpetuated that are not factual. They were cleared by law enforcement but somehow this and the details around it aren't known or reported. They aren't in a "we are still watching you" state, they were cleared. Not "we don't have enough evidence" but cleared.

May the child and mother rest in peace. I'll definitely be watching Dr Phil in a month, but more to see how that boy grew up normally under such scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The information about the new DNA was given by the prosecutor when they stated that they had cleared the Ramseys. I can't remember exactly when this was, but I believe Patsy was already deceased.

You should read this - parents were actually indicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

It was announced on January 27, 2013, that a grand jury had found sufficient evidence to indict the parents in 1999 on charges of child abuse resulting in death. However, Alex Hunter, who was the District Attorney in 1999, refused to sign the indictment, saying that the evidence was insufficient.[43] This left the impression that the grand jury investigation had been inconclusive.[44]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Covering up the murder, wouldn't necessarily show the heart of a psychopath, but rather the same kind of personality that value how things look above all else. A person would bleach her kid's hair and parade her though a myriad of beauty pageants. A person who lost one child, but wasn't going to lose another, so writes a ridiculous 2-3 page ransom not from a note pad in her home. A person who would hire a publicist for the funeral of her slain daughter.

Murdering out of passion or lying about a murder doesn't make you a serial killer.

I think that sounds pretty psychopathic to murder your injured but not dead child in order to cover up an injury. If they did that then it was only accidental in the sense it was accidentally on purpose. It wasn't just an innocent accident. I think one of the parents could have done it but if so they did it intentionally.

Where is an example of a kid that accidentally died and the parent staged a murder to cover it up? (which was Casey Anthony's defense - that Caylee accidentally drowned). Of course, she was almost certainly lying. It makes no sense. Nobody murders their child to cover up an accidental injury or even death, because if it was unintentional then they wouldn't jump to assuming the child was dead. It's just not the frame of mind you'd be in. There would have to be some kind of intentional wrongdoing. This also seems like a very elaborate cover up that could not have been conceived in a short time in the middle of the night. To me the elaborate nature of it lends credibility to the idea that the perpetrator had planned this, at least vaguely (by that I mean possibly had this in the back of their mind as a backup plan).

A psychopath is someone without a conscious. Not all psychopaths murder--they are prone to violence. The Patsy Ramsey definitely falls into the category of sociopath: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

However, many parents have hurt their children out of mental illness, drug addition, frustration to the point where the child dies, then lies to authorities that it was an accident:
http://www.wonderslist.com/10-mothers-who-killed-their-kids/

Or kids die in due to negligence and the adult lies to cover it up:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/world/americas/canada-snake-deaths/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember at the time, they tested new underwear that had been made in China, as had JonBonets and found foreign DNA, so thought this unknown DNA was a contaminant. Later, It was tested for touch DNA, which is more sophisticated and this same male DNA was found on the sides of her pajama bottoms, leading to the conclusion that it was an intruders DNA.

I think it's more likely that an unidentified male working in a department store either folded those items to put on the shelf or touched them while out shopping for his own daughter. Or maybe a male folded and put them away at the Ramsey house. Who helped clean up the house for the Ramsey's Christmas party (I think on the 23rd?). Where did the articles of clothing come from? How long had JonBenet had them? I can totally see how an "unidentified male" could have had innocent contact with that clothing well before JonBenet was killed but felt too intimidated to come forward about it knowing that the touch DNA evidence would make them a prime suspect in the case...

It just seems too mild of evidence to be left at a brutal murder/sexual assault scene. Why wasn't the killer's touch DNA anywhere else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember at the time, they tested new underwear that had been made in China, as had JonBonets and found foreign DNA, so thought this unknown DNA was a contaminant. Later, It was tested for touch DNA, which is more sophisticated and this same male DNA was found on the sides of her pajama bottoms, leading to the conclusion that it was an intruders DNA.

I think it's more likely that an unidentified male working in a department store either folded those items to put on the shelf or touched them while out shopping for his own daughter. Or maybe a male folded and put them away at the Ramsey house. Who helped clean up the house for the Ramsey's Christmas party (I think on the 23rd?). Where did the articles of clothing come from? How long had JonBenet had them? I can totally see how an "unidentified male" could have had innocent contact with that clothing well before JonBenet was killed but felt too intimidated to come forward about it knowing that the touch DNA evidence would make them a prime suspect in the case...

It just seems too mild of evidence to be left at a brutal murder/sexual assault scene. Why wasn't the killer's touch DNA anywhere else?

can you link to this DNA info? I've googled and cannot find anything on it being on the sides of her pajamas, etc.

[Anonymous]

Yard sale and consignment shop clothing.....can you imagine all the "touch DNA" on those items?? Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember at the time, they tested new underwear that had been made in China, as had JonBonets and found foreign DNA, so thought this unknown DNA was a contaminant. Later, It was tested for touch DNA, which is more sophisticated and this same male DNA was found on the sides of her pajama bottoms, leading to the conclusion that it was an intruders DNA.

I think it's more likely that an unidentified male working in a department store either folded those items to put on the shelf or touched them while out shopping for his own daughter. Or maybe a male folded and put them away at the Ramsey house. Who helped clean up the house for the Ramsey's Christmas party (I think on the 23rd?). Where did the articles of clothing come from? How long had JonBenet had them? I can totally see how an "unidentified male" could have had innocent contact with that clothing well before JonBenet was killed but felt too intimidated to come forward about it knowing that the touch DNA evidence would make them a prime suspect in the case...

It just seems too mild of evidence to be left at a brutal murder/sexual assault scene. Why wasn't the killer's touch DNA anywhere else?

can you link to this DNA info? I've googled and cannot find anything on it being on the sides of her pajamas, etc.

I'm the pp who responded that the touch DNA maybe could have come from someone folding the clothes, etc. Other than this thread, I was not aware of this Touch DNA finding.

[Anonymous]

I can believe an intruder assaulted and killed her. But the ransom note.... just makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yard sale and consignment shop clothing.....can you imagine all the "touch DNA" on those items?? Yikes.

New clothes may contain material that is made, dyed, and stitched in different countries, with each containing various laws regarding acceptable levels of chemical use. Dye and formaldehyde resin, two common chemicals found in new clothing, can cause slightly inflamed, dry, itchy patches and rashes to a severe skin reaction. I'll take some touch DNA any day over formaldehyde.

[Anonymous]

John was molesting her for years, and the incontinence was related to this. Patsy wrote the note because in the moment she believed whatever story John made up about what happened. Sometime later she knew the whole truth, which ate away at her. She was in all likelihood a victim of childhood incest.

Ransom notes are never left at the crime scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]John was molesting her for years,[/b] and the incontinence was related to this. Patsy wrote the note because in the moment she believed whatever story John made up about what happened. Sometime later she knew the whole truth, which ate away at her. She was in all likelihood a victim of childhood incest.

Ransom notes are never left at the crime scene.

According to whom or what?

[Anonymous]

I would love to see a timeline of events. I want to know what time they left the party, what time they got home, what time JonBenet went to bed, what time her brother and parents went to bed, what time Patsy got up/discovered the ransom note and woke John up.

I also want to know what time their plane flight was scheduled for.

I've googled it but I can not find a decent time line of events. It seems like this killer was working within a pretty narrow time frame...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yard sale and consignment shop clothing.....can you imagine all the "touch DNA" on those items?? Yikes.

New clothes may contain material that is made, dyed, and stitched in different countries, with each containing various laws regarding acceptable levels of chemical use. Dye and formaldehyde resin, two common chemicals found in new clothing, can cause slightly inflamed, dry, itchy patches and rashes to a severe skin reaction. I'll take some touch DNA any day over formaldehyde.

No. What I was saying is that MANY of us buy and sell used clothes. If one of us put on used jogging clothes for example and went for a run and got attacked and killed. The police would find "touch DNA" on the clothes we were wearing - possibly from the person who donated the clothing, from the individuals sorting the clothing at the warehouse, from the clerks ringing the clothing up and putting it into the bag. And quite possible from the killer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yard sale and consignment shop clothing.....can you imagine all the "touch DNA" on those items?? Yikes.

New clothes may contain material that is made, dyed, and stitched in different countries, with each containing various laws regarding acceptable levels of chemical use. Dye and formaldehyde resin, two common chemicals found in new clothing, can cause slightly inflamed, dry, itchy patches and rashes to a severe skin reaction. I'll take some touch DNA any day over formaldehyde.

No. What I was saying is that MANY of us buy and sell used clothes. If one of us put on used jogging clothes for example and went for a run and got attacked and killed. The police would find "touch DNA" on the clothes we were wearing - possibly from the person who donated the clothing, from the individuals sorting the clothing at the warehouse, from the clerks ringing the clothing up and putting it into the bag. And quite possible from the killer.

Forget even "used" clothing. If you go into a store and buy something that has been tried on 4 times and then an employee or 2 had to remove it from the fitting room/fold it just imagine the DNA on a NEW piece of clothing... The person ringing it up, every customer that may have pulled it off a rack and felt the fabric, the person who initially puts new clothes on the store-room from the stock room. SO MANY PEOPLE TOUCH YOUR CLOTHES!