Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

You can google this - she died of strangulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

There is absolutely zero evidence in the autopsy report that she clawed at the ropes or struggled with her killer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwj5m6K-6a3PAhUlyoMKHTRUDHQ4ChAWCCgwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhosted.ap.org%2Fspecials%2Finteractives%2F_national%2Fjonbenet_ramsey%2Fjonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHmcSvA48jzO_cjZUGbAGJIKd8CuQ&bvm=bv.133700528,d.amc&cad=rja

Actually looks like there is disagreement between detective smit and Thomas on what came first. The autopsy says there are abrasions so can't tell where it conclusively concludes she didn't

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/03lrams.html

The report is clear. She had an abrasion around the ligature, but she did not have abrasions that ran across that ligature line. She wasn't clawing at the rope.

Don't want to argue, but it does seem like there is legit disagreement about whether or not strangulation came first, and there are reports elsewhere that she had her own skin under fingernails which led some to believe she clawed the rope.

I'm just not sure the report that I read from google that you linked to is definitive enough on that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were also claw marks on her neck (the size of her fingernails) and her own DNA was found under her fingernails, so she was not only alive at the time of her strangulation, but she was alert and fighting to get the rope off her neck. This was a terrible, horrific sex crime most likely perpetrated by an intruder.

Nope, this is no correct. She was brain dead before the strangulation.

Not that poster but there are conflicting reports. I've watched 3 separate specials and poked around online and some accounts say strangulation was first. And that as this PP said there is evidence she clawed at the ropes.

The whole pedophile ring theory I've been reading is intriguing as well.

There is absolutely zero evidence in the autopsy report that she clawed at the ropes or struggled with her killer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwj5m6K-6a3PAhUlyoMKHTRUDHQ4ChAWCCgwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhosted.ap.org%2Fspecials%2Finteractives%2F_national%2Fjonbenet_ramsey%2Fjonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHmcSvA48jzO_cjZUGbAGJIKd8CuQ&bvm=bv.133700528,d.amc&cad=rja

Actually looks like there is disagreement between detective smit and Thomas on what came first. The autopsy says there are abrasions so can't tell where it conclusively concludes she didn't

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/03lrams.html

The report is clear. She had an abrasion around the ligature, but she did not have abrasions that ran across that ligature line. She wasn't clawing at the rope.

Don't want to argue, but it does seem like there is legit disagreement about whether or not strangulation came first, and there are reports elsewhere that she had her own skin under fingernails which led some to believe she clawed the rope.

I'm just not sure the report that I read from google that you linked to is definitive enough on that.

I have never seen any report indicate that there was any skin from anyone under JonBenet's fingernails. If she was clawing at her neck you would expect that to have been noted in the autopsy report. And if it was noted in the report than the Pathologist Spitz would have mentioned that.

Those were not claw marks around her neck. She was brain dead when the ligature was applied.

Even if Spitz had mentioned it, I don't think CBS would've included it. CBS was so one-sided in wanting to present the evidence that Burke did it. I had heard there was DNA not belonging to any of the Ramseys underneath JB's fingernails. Why didn't CBS bring that up?

If you believe that JB was brain dead when she was strangled, then you have to believe that her own parents strangled her with a brutal garrote even though she still had a pulse and was alive.

[Anonymous]

"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

There's not always gobs of DNA left by perpetrators at crime scenes. Forensic Files will confirm it's not always easy to find.

[Anonymous]

Someday, if the killer were found, and (of course) it's some random stranger or service person or associate of the family, will the BDI/Ramsey fingerpointers then change their theory and still insist the family was aware/involved?

What would have to happen for people to know it is not the family who is involved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

This was very misleading in the CBS special. Another special highlighted the fact that THE SAME DNA was found on three different fabrics - longjohns, underwear, and something else. So that blows away CBS theory that the touch DNA was just a factory worker in China. Same dude was all three places at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

There's not always gobs of DNA left by perpetrators at crime scenes. Forensic Files will confirm it's not always easy to find.

There was another crime committed in the 90s where 3 little boys were murdered in the woods of a small Arkansas town. The supposed perpetrators were known as the West Memphis 3. There was zero DNA/forensic evidence linking them to the crime. They still were sentenced to life, and one of them to death. A few years ago, they found 1 tiny hair on a shoe lace used to tie one of the boys up. The tiny hair's DNA matched one of the boy's stepfathers. The West Memphis 3 were able to be freed because of this, and ultimately ended up taking an Alford Plea. Even though this crime was committed outside, you would still think there would be a lot more DNA tying the perpetrator to the crime. It came down to one hair on a shoelace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someday, if the killer were found, and (of course) it's some random stranger or service person or associate of the family, will the BDI/Ramsey fingerpointers then change their theory and still insist the family was aware/involved?

What would have to happen for people to know it is not the family who is involved?

What would it take for you to think its not an intruder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

This was very misleading in the CBS special. Another special highlighted the fact that THE SAME DNA was found on three different fabrics - longjohns, underwear, and something else. So that blows away CBS theory that the touch DNA was just a factory worker in China. Same dude was all three places at once.

It was touch DNA quite likely transferred from the brand new (contaminated) underwear to the long johns and her fingernails (when she pulled her pants up/down going potty)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The fact that the DNA that was found was present in such small amounts tells us that, in all likelihood, it was either the result of an indirect transfer or came from a very old contact. Think of all the many ways in which JonBenet might have touched or been touched by someone -- a teacher, a classmate, a casual acquaintance. Think also of all the ways an indirect contact could have been made -- via a water fountain, a toy, a fall on a sidewalk or a mound of dirt, etc., etc. Once this got on her hands it could easily have been transferred to any part of her body, and certainly to her panties and longjohns.

The exotic and painstaking methods used to extract partial strands of DNA from blood, or "touch" DNA from some fabric that might contain only a handful of skin cells are meaningful only if there is already a viable suspect or set of possible suspects to test. And if in fact a match is found, then that would certainly suggest that this person might have been in contact with the victim. Though a lawyer could certainly argue for an indirect, and thus meaningless, connection. In cases where semen is found, and DNA from the semen can be matched with a suspect, that of course is a very different story. But in the Ramsey case no semen was found. In fact the body had been very thoroughly wiped down.

In sum, the DNA evidence -- all of it -- means nothing. A real intruder would have left all sorts of signs of his presence, including gobs of DNA (unless he was wearing gloves)."

There's not always gobs of DNA left by perpetrators at crime scenes. Forensic Files will confirm it's not always easy to find.

There was another crime committed in the 90s where 3 little boys were murdered in the woods of a small Arkansas town. The supposed perpetrators were known as the West Memphis 3. There was zero DNA/forensic evidence linking them to the crime. They still were sentenced to life, and one of them to death. A few years ago, they found 1 tiny hair on a shoe lace used to tie one of the boys up. The tiny hair's DNA matched one of the boy's stepfathers. The West Memphis 3 were able to be freed because of this, and ultimately ended up taking an Alford Plea. Even though this crime was committed outside, you would still think there would be a lot more DNA tying the perpetrator to the crime. It came down to one hair on a shoelace.

This is close but not SUPER accurate. Terry Hobbs' hair was found on the lace but he has never been investigated nor charged as a suspect since presumably, his hair could be on Stevie's things as they lived together. The WM3 were not offered an Alford plea based on Terry's hair being found there but because none of their DNA was, AND there were issues with Misskelley's confession and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someday, if the killer were found, and (of course) it's some random stranger or service person or associate of the family, will the BDI/Ramsey fingerpointers then change their theory and still insist the family was aware/involved?

What would have to happen for people to know it is not the family who is involved?

What would it take for you to think its not an intruder?

Not the poster your posed this question to, but for me, I would love to find out the Ramsey's did it as it is so horrible to think of a family that not only lost their child but had to deal with these accusations for years and years. As someone else mentioned above, it's usually the simplest explanation. For me that is an intruder, given JonBenet's time in the spotlight as a pageant queen (an industry that attracts pedophiles), the family's poor boundaries, and the utter bumbling of the case by the police.

I see how it could be the Ramsey's though: I get that it could have been Burke and a cover up by the family. That also makes sense to me. But then picturing these parents setting up this gruesome scene and the evidence of recent sexual abuse (blood in the underwear, the vaginal abrasions, etc.), I just don't think that the leap from accidental cover up to staged violent sex abuse murder falls into the simplest explanation category.

I also don't buy the John was abusing her and Patsy got outraged. Of course I don't know for sure. I just don't get that sense. He had no history with this - so seems out of the blue and a leap to me.

The intruder theory - the house was so easy to get in to, and the evidence was so, so screwed up I don't think it took some criminal mastermind to do this.

[Anonymous]

Sounds as though Burke Ramsey is filing a lawsuit seeking 150 million in damages from the pathologist on the CBS documentary....

I wonder if this will open the door to further forensic testing?

[Anonymous]

My theory is a stranger came in the house while the Ramsey's were at the Whites House. Could have been there for hours waiting for them to come home Someone who has seen her at the pageants or even playing in the yard. He was probably a pedophile, who wrote the ransom note, while they were gone on Patsy's pad, to make it look like a kidnapping for ransom because he was obsessed with her and wanted to take her for himself. He probably would of killed her eventually somewhere else. Then something went wrong when he took her out of her bed and brought her downstairs. Either he got to excited and couldn't wait to molest her or she was making too much noise so he had to hit her over the head to shut her up, she was also probably trying to fight him off. That way nobody would hear her screams in the house. so he took her down to the basement where he probably already made the garrote while waiting for them to come home. So he could use it later. He then decided to molest and kill her with the garrote and fled the scene. It was a pedophile trying to abduct the little angel to to sexually abuse and eventually kill her. Someone who is sick and twisted in his mind so the ransom note could easily been written strangely by a crazy pedophile. I don't think any mother who loves their child as Patsy did, would cover it up by strangling her and sexually abuse her with the stick of the garrote. Not plausible. The detectives had a 1 track mind and wanted the killing solved immediately. They set their sites on Patsy and never really looked elsewhere. The pedophile was probably long gone out of Boulder after he committed the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My theory is a stranger came in the house while the Ramsey's were at the Whites House. Could have been there for hours waiting for them to come home Someone who has seen her at the pageants or even playing in the yard. He was probably a pedophile, who wrote the ransom note, while they were gone on Patsy's pad, to make it look like a kidnapping for ransom because he was obsessed with her and wanted to take her for himself. He probably would of killed her eventually somewhere else. Then something went wrong when he took her out of her bed and brought her downstairs. Either he got to excited and couldn't wait to molest her or she was making too much noise so he had to hit her over the head to shut her up, she was also probably trying to fight him off. That way nobody would hear her screams in the house. so he took her down to the basement where he probably already made the garrote while waiting for them to come home. So he could use it later. He then decided to molest and kill her with the garrote and fled the scene. It was a pedophile trying to abduct the little angel to to sexually abuse and eventually kill her. Someone who is sick and twisted in his mind so the ransom note could easily been written strangely by a crazy pedophile. I don't think any mother who loves their child as Patsy did, would cover it up by strangling her and sexually abuse her with the stick of the garrote. Not plausible. The detectives had a 1 track mind and wanted the killing solved immediately. They set their sites on Patsy and never really looked elsewhere. The pedophile was probably long gone out of Boulder after he committed the crime.

There is too much evidence against the intruder theory. Please read back through the thread.