Reply to 2024 JonBenet Documentary

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "2024 JonBenet Documentary"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Ambidextrous mom obviously wrote the bogus ransom note, so she was covering it up. And she would have been indicted had they not lawyered up immediately.

All the rest of this babble is nonsense.[/quote]

She would have been indicted? Sure. You know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

She actually WAS indicted, if you’ll recall. But prosecutors declined to take the case on. [/quote]

There wasn’t enough evidence, it was all circumstantial. But the PP seems to live in an alternate reality of how this should have played out immediately. But for the bungled crime scene which is always going to be an issue. It wasn’t b/c they “lawyered up” which is what any thinking person would do.[/quote]
 Which is why the prosecutors didn’t bring it to trial, you’re correct. But they were indicted. And I would bet that if they were poor nobodies with brown skin and a prior rap sheet of low level theft or low level drug charges, they’d have been fried. [/quote]

They were not indicted.[/quote]

Yes they were. It has been widely reported. Here is the first link that came up when I searched but there are dozens more.

https://www.courthousenews.com/indictment-of-jonbentramseys-parents-released/[/quote]
 It was recommended. That’s it. Read it.[/quote]

Yes, the grand jury handed down an indictment and the state declined to prosecute. You’re arguing semantics. The state did keep the grand jury recommendation a secret as best they could for a while, so it wasn’t widely known at first, but it happened. [/quote]

The were never officially indicted b/c the documents were never signed. Read your own links.[/quote]

Yes because they declined to do so. The grand jury still hears the evidence and recommended an indictment. The corrupt state decided not to do so. Again- semantics. [/quote]

And then they were exonerated and they said they had 1999 DNA evidence which was the best they had at the time. Which means they know they wouldn’t later with the improvements and new information. So your “indictment” is meaningless.[/quote]

Most experts laugh at this “DNA evidence”, though. Everything about this crime is a complete mess which is why the killer got away with it. I personally can’t make myself believe that someone broke into the house, tasered her and dragged her out of bed, got her to eat some pineapple in the kitchen, then hit her over the head, strangled her, assaulted her with some of the moms art supplies that they went to find, then afterwords decided to cover her mouth and bind her hands even though she was dead, then went to the dryer and got out a blanket to wrap her in, then went upstairs and tried a few times to write a ransom note, left it on the back stairs because they hoped the parents would come down the back stairs and not the main stairs,  and left absolutely no evidence behind except for some scant touch DNA on her underwear. If they were that messy, and took that long, and did that many things, there should have been oodles of hairs, clothing fibers, other touch DNA all over the body and the rest of the scene. Like why would the killer be so careful, in a plastic wetsuit and gloves basically in order to leave no trace on any of the murder weapons or on (or in) her body, but then was like actually I’ll use my bare hand now to touch her underwear before I leave. Oh and I’ll also get some fibers from the moms clothes to put on the duct tape and the rope around her neck. [/quote]

If you don’t have DNA evidence you have nothing. There is nothing directly connecting the parents to the crime.[/quote]

You’re right. There is nothing directly connecting them to the crime, it’s all circumstantial. Which is why we will never know. But also, not that this means crimes were prosecuted perfectly before dna evidence (in fact it was the opposite), you can absolutely convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt with no dna. [/quote]

But there is some DNA but unfortunately it doesn’t belong to anyone in the house. In JonBenet’s underpants of all places.[/quote]
My understanding was that this is incredibly small touch DNA, some (or all?) with only partial alleles to analyze. So hardly a smoking gun one way or another and some experts argue it could have come from incidental contact somewhere else- been transferred  to it, etc. [/quote]

On both the underpants and long johns. This has been stated over and over. It doesn’t support the coverup theory so people choose to ignore.[/quote]

I definitely don’t ignore it- it’s literally the only thing that gives me pause in a case that otherwise looks so obviously done by a family member. It’s the tiny amount of partial touch DNA vs a mountain of circumstantial evidence and it’s why neither the intruder theory nor the “Ramseys did it” theory make complete sense. You can’t explain away the DNA (or at least no one has very convincingly yet) and you can’t explain away aaaallll of the other stuff pointing towards the family. [/quote]

The stuff that points to the family is like: a 9 year old can totally pull this off and bedwetting is so unusual for sure there was SA. This just reads like someone who doesn’t have kids thinks this is all really normal and obvious. It’s not. And no normal mother, which Patsy was up until that point, [b]suddenly goes bonkers into this staging theory.[/b] You have to do a lot less mental gymnastics to think a local pedo did this. JB was a little celebrity in her town and and recently been on display at a Christmas parade. Take an unsecured house and some unknown DNA and it starts to make sense. It goes off the rails with trying to pin on a little boy.[/quote]

This is what I keep coming back to. If you are a mother, and in the middle of the night, find that your young child has killed your other young child, your first thought is to stage an elaborate cover up and stage a murder/torture scene with  your recently deceased child? WHAT? Any parent would be absolutely freaking out, calling 911-- no mother would let her baby out of her sight at that point. But you think she's going to put a garrotte around her neck, duct tape on her mouth, and stuff her in a closet?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I know there are sick people in this world, but that's absolutely psychopathic. Is there any evidence prior to this that Patsy was a psychopath?[/quote]

Right? So she sees JonBenet isn’t actually dead, instead of calling 911, decides to finish her off, slowly, with an elaborate garotte so that Burke doesn’t get in trouble for hitting her in the head? Like, what?[/quote]

The parents had no idea she’d been hit in the head when they/patsy found her. They saw her strangled to death with a ligature around her neck and staged it to look like an abduction.

The autopsy after the fact revealed that she’d fractured her skull. You know who knew she’d been hit over the head before the coroner report was released? Burke. When he was questioned by social services, and asked if he knew what happened to jonbenet, he said he knew she’d been killed and had asked his father where her body had been found. He stated that that a bad guy had  quietly carried her down to the basement and hit her over the head with a hammer or stabbed her. This was BEFORE anyone except the coroner knew about the skull fracture, which was not visible.  [/quote]

Then the fibers in the garotte don’t mean anything if Patsy didn’t make it or use it.[/quote]

Of course it means something. It means that Patsy handled all of the things her fibers were found on, even though she never left the main level after the police arrived the morning that jonbenet “went missing.” It’s actually impossible that it was an intruder if patsy’s fibers were found all over the ligature and staging elements. There is more evidence implicating patsy than Burke. The case against Burke is circumstantial but makes logical sense in the context of everything else.[/quote]

But Burke did it and didn’t leave a trace? Come on. Or you’re back to Patsy slowly and sadistically committed this heinous crime to cover up a much smaller one. Doesn’t work.[/quote]

Remember JB's body was cleaned.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? I’ve not heard that[/quote]

DP but a lot of different sources note that the body had been wiped down and cleaned after death (so no urine or feces on her which  usually happens when the person dies for example) [/quote]

Yes, wiped with a cloth. New underwear put on. [/quote]

The “new” underwear had blood, urine, and the male dna.[/quote]

Minuscule/ microscopic  traces and partial touch DNA, yes. If you took samples from the underwear you put on 5 minutes ago it would probably contain traces of urine too. And maybe even partial touch DNA from an unknown person that got transferred from your hands. [/quote]

You said “no” urine and as usual you’re wrong. And about the DNA too. You’re on quite a misinformation campaign here. Must be one of Bolder’s finest.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics