Who killed JonBenet Ramsay?

Rainbow wrote:Hi Aiyoyo

Re the polygraph,apparently they passed the private one Incidentally Patsy did say she would take 10 polygraphs if it meant the police would leave them aside and start looking for the real perp.

I am skeptical about private polygraph, no logic in that when the case is so public beamed worldwide.
Promising to do so but didnt deliver is something else - empty words mean nothing.

Re the DNA..I dont think it can be discounted so easily tbh as it matched in 3 places-the long johns,the panties and under her nails although there were considerably less markers in the fingernail DNA there were still enough to be entered into codis.Touch DNA is microscopic skin cells and are found where a person is likely to have touched something.She was put to bed in the long johns which were taken freshly laundered from the drawer...another reason for the DA being certain it is an intruders DNA.I dont know if they were removed or just pulled down,she didnt have tights on and the long johns were more like pyjama bottoms.

I have to agree with TB. More appropriate to term it 'another's person dna' rather than anything else because there was no evidence supporting an intruder. Trace dna obliged the law to declare them 'de-considered' (if there's such a term), meaning not prime focus, but hardly exonerated.

Exoneration applies when case is solved and perpetrator convicted and punished. Anything short of that is ramseys drawing the long straw in the interm. Logics dictate any objective law enforcers working on the case would not completely disregard the ramseys, if nothing else, than the fact no evidence supports intruder.

Your term of 'exoneration is just a technicality of the law' so to speak, and 'not exoneration in its true sense' per se, just like mccanns case. And, similar to the mccanns case, it is well documented that throughout the investigation process, investigators believed the parents were coupable.

Billyjo jenkins, JBR, and MBM case have similarities, in that the parent/s are suspected, and with passing time that has not changed in the eyes of the police or public (at least a vast majority of them).

Rainbow wrote:However they are no longer being treated as suspects but as victims although IF and its a big if further evidence arose that incriminated them they would of course be investigated further.

Rainbow wrote:However they are no longer being treated as suspects but as victims although IF and its a big if further evidence arose that incriminated them they would of course be investigated further.

aiyoyo wrote:

Rainbow wrote:However they are no longer being treated as suspects but as victims although IF and its a big if further evidence arose that incriminated them they would of course be investigated further.

Do you seriously think that investigators working on the case are now just going to be singled-mindedly pursuing one direction just because of the proclamation?

Do you naively believe the unerasble abundance circumstantial evidence on files against the ramseys are going to be ignored by investigators if they hope to crack the case?

You do realise public proclamation very often obliged by the law are not going to affect how police work an unsolved case. Anyone believing the police are not still looking at ramseys alongside other possibilities is not being objective, but the police are obligated to be that - objective I mean.

Rainbow wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Rainbow wrote:However they are no longer being treated as suspects but as victims although IF and its a big if further evidence arose that incriminated them they would of course be investigated further.

Do you seriously think that investigators working on the case are now just going to be singled-mindedly pursuing one direction just because of the proclamation?

Do you naively believe the unerasble abundance circumstantial evidence on files against the ramseys are going to be ignored by investigators if they hope to crack the case?

You do realise public proclamation very often obliged by the law are not going to affect how police work an unsolved case. Anyone believing the police are not still looking at ramseys alongside other possibilities is not being objective, but the police are obligated to be that - objective I mean.

Yes I do,they have had 14 years to investigate the Ramseys to no avail.

I dont believe for a mo. they wasted 14 yrears focusing soley on the ramseys. The ramseys might be primary focus but not the only one. I will give the police more credit than that as I dont believe every one on the team is green.

No not ignored but the DA stated that she was exonerating them on the DNA and OTHER EVIDENCE.

DA's proclamation is one thing, evidence on file another. Like you conceded they wont be ignored.
Police working the case will continue to study them together with other evidence , or any new materials to hand.
Their focus may vary in weight from time to time and at various time, but police will never ignore any evidence past or current for the simple reason even the newest discovery didnt lead them anywhere. So evidence against ramseys wasnt the only aspect that went no where.

They are no longer suspects though and are to be traeted as victims rather like DCI Roes announcement to Mr Bennett that he is not a suspect with regard to the fraud allegations.

It isnt fair of you to compare the two in the same light. There's simply no comparison between the two cases.
One is an investigation of a menacing allegation, pretty straight forward because evidence were presented for scrutiny and eliminated.

while that of the ramseys is of the murder of a little girl, a lot more complicated.

aiyoyo wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Rainbow wrote:However they are no longer being treated as suspects but as victims although IF and its a big if further evidence arose that incriminated them they would of course be investigated further.

Do you seriously think that investigators working on the case are now just going to be singled-mindedly pursuing one direction just because of the proclamation?

Do you naively believe the unerasble abundance circumstantial evidence on files against the ramseys are going to be ignored by investigators if they hope to crack the case?

You do realise public proclamation very often obliged by the law are not going to affect how police work an unsolved case. Anyone believing the police are not still looking at ramseys alongside other possibilities is not being objective, but the police are obligated to be that - objective I mean.

Yes I do,they have had 14 years to investigate the Ramseys to no avail.

I dont believe for a mo. they wasted 14 yrears focusing soley on the ramseys. The ramseys might be primary focus but not the only one. I will give the police more credit than that as I dont believe every one on the team is green.

No not ignored but the DA stated that she was exonerating them on the DNA and OTHER EVIDENCE.

DA's proclamation is one thing, evidence on file another. Like you conceded they wont be ignored.
Police working the case will continue to study them together with other evidence , or any new materials to hand.
Their focus may vary in weight from time to time and at various time, but police will never ignore any evidence past or current for the simple reason even the newest discovery didnt lead them anywhere. So evidence against ramseys wasnt the only aspect that went no where.

They are no longer suspects though and are to be traeted as victims rather like DCI Roes announcement to Mr Bennett that he is not a suspect with regard to the fraud allegations.

It isnt fair of you to compare the two in the same light. There's simply no comparison between the two cases.
One is an investigation of a menacing allegation, pretty straight forward because evidence were presented for scrutiny and eliminated.

while that of the ramseys is of the murder of a little girl, a lot more complicated.

aiyoyo wrote: Rainbow

The 'ransom note' nail it for me.
Handwriting expert put it down to her, and I believe that because of the length and errie contents.

That alone proves the ramseys had motive and reason for doing that. That together with the strong circumstantial against them I think the ramseys were guily of her murder.
The unexplainable trace dna doesnt change it for me, it just lucky break for her parents.

Any idea when was trace dna discovered on her?

aiyoyo wrote: Rainbow

The 'ransom note' nail it for me.
Handwriting expert put it down to her, and I believe that because of the length and errie contents.

That alone proves the ramseys had motive and reason for doing that. That together with the strong circumstantial against them I think the ramseys were guily of her murder.
The unexplainable trace dna doesnt change it for me, it just lucky break for her parents.

Any idea when was trace dna discovered on her?


No handwriting experts DIDNT put it down to her,she was neither ruled IN nor OUT and as I said on the scale she was a 4 or 4.5.

How did the Ramseys have motive and reason?

The DNA was found a couple years ago now I think.

Candyfloss: Thanks for posting that.

carly1979 wrote:rainbow as i posted i dont know who killed little jon benet but i just cant see why jon benets mum would have she adored that little girl or imo she wouldnt of spent so much money on pagents etc she always wanted a little girl from what i know

carly1979 wrote:rainbow as i posted i dont know who killed little jon benet but i just cant see why jon benets mum would have she adored that little girl or imo she wouldnt of spent so much money on pagents etc she always wanted a little girl from what i know

Rainbow wrote:

carly1979 wrote:rainbow as i posted i dont know who killed little jon benet but i just cant see why jon benets mum would have she adored that little girl or imo she wouldnt of spent so much money on pagents etc she always wanted a little girl from what i know

Hi Carly

I do agree although my opinion for many years was that the parents were responsible however the recently found DNA of an unknown male has given me pause for thought and doubt.Also Patsy had had cancer and I think she would have valued her time with her children too much to bump one off!! Unless it was an accident but then why not report it.........another strange case to be sure.

carly1979 wrote:rainbow as i posted i dont know who killed little jon benet but i just cant see why jon benets mum would have she adored that little girl or imo she wouldnt of spent so much money on pagents etc she always wanted a little girl from what i know

candyfloss wrote:

aiyoyo wrote: Rainbow

The 'ransom note' nail it for me.
Handwriting expert put it down to her, and I believe that because of the length and errie contents.

That alone proves the ramseys had motive and reason for doing that. That together with the strong circumstantial against them I think the ramseys were guily of her murder.
The unexplainable trace dna doesnt change it for me, it just lucky break for her parents.

Any idea when was trace dna discovered on her?

Letter from District Attorney-Ramsey Family Exonerated
On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case.[13][14] In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[15] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:

"This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.
... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

Rainbow wrote:

carly1979 wrote:rainbow as i posted i dont know who killed little jon benet but i just cant see why jon benets mum would have she adored that little girl or imo she wouldnt of spent so much money on pagents etc she always wanted a little girl from what i know

Hi Carly

I do agree although my opinion for many years was that the parents were responsible however the recently found DNA of an unknown male has given me pause for thought and doubt.Also Patsy had had cancer and I think she would have valued her time with her children too much to bump one off!! Unless it was an accident but then why not report it.........another strange case to be sure.

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

Rainbow wrote:It would have to have been some lashing out to have split her skull so severely and he was only a very slight child.It was said the blow was hard enough to have felled a 250 pound man.

Tony Bennett wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317866/Police-hope-quiz-JonBenet-Ramsays-brother-beauty-queen-murder-reopened.html#ixzz11TydNeEt

There was a nineteenth-century case which, at its time, was every bit as notorious as those of JonBenet Ramsey and Madeleine McCann.

The case has been written up in a book I read recently: 'The Suspicions of Mr Whicher', which is to be made into a film.

This gruesome case concerned a 3-year-old boy (Savile, I think his name was) found gruesomely murdered with his throat cut and his body stuffed into an outside privy of a wealthy Victorian family house at Roade, Wiltshire.

Inspector Whicher was one of the first-ever police detectives and his characteristics bore more than a passing resemblance to those of Goncalo Amaral.

The evidence, he suggested, turned on a missing blanket (!).

He arrested and charged the 14-year-old half-sister of the boy with the murder, but local magistrates threw the case out. He was then publicly ridiculed for jumping to conclusions and rushing in with too little evidence...rings a bell?

The father of these two had re-married and outrageously favoured the little boy over his two children from his first wife. His second wife treated the children of the first wife abominably, leading to a cauldron of seething resentment against the new wife.

Many years later, the 14-year-old half-sister made a full and frank confession to the nmurder, and she had indeed hidden the missing blanket. The only doubt was whether her brother might have been an accomplice. She said not.

So I by no means rule out the possibility of the 9-year-old brother, fed up to the back teeth with all the attention being focussed on JonBenet, lashing out at her on the night of Christmas Day/Boxing Day.

Whilst on this gruesome subject of intra-family murder, I wish to mention the case of Ben Needham. The morning Ben Needham vanished, his 19-year-old uncle, Stephen, had been playing with the toddler on his motorbike, at the front of the house. Ben's grandparents were sunning themselves in the garden. Ben's mother was working as a waitress in one of the main hotels on the island of Kos. After lunch at mid-day, Stephen rushed off on his motor-bike - and little Ben, who had again been playing on the motor-bike with Stephen after lunch, was enver seen again.

Did Stephen roar away with Ben also on the motor-bike?

It was a theory the Greek police pursued.

aiyoyo wrote:It's good they're re-opening it.

Is her brother consent needed to be able to interview him?
I wouldnt have thought so. More like procedure formality.

It means the police have not ruled out her family.