- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WTF happened to JonBenet?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:23 pm to beauchristopher
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:23 pm to beauchristopher
thats right, just above your post, he used the housekeepers testimony to the broken window. so i'll use the housekeepers testimony as well!!! mystery solved.
1
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:27 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
Basically just a coverup to avoid shame and embarrassment.
Well...they certainly didn't do a good job of that.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:29 pm to pleading the fifth
I've been following this story for a while, my theory:
The brother got up and wanted a snack, he keeps the flashlight in his room to play with at night and brings it around with him whenever he gets up after dark, mom made him a bowl of pineapples as she was still up watching tv(she still had on the same clothes the next morning that she wore to the party and only his and her fingerprints were on the spoon)...sister comes down and helps herself to one of his pineapples, he bops her in the head with the flashlight...mom and dad panic and stage the scene.
The brother got up and wanted a snack, he keeps the flashlight in his room to play with at night and brings it around with him whenever he gets up after dark, mom made him a bowl of pineapples as she was still up watching tv(she still had on the same clothes the next morning that she wore to the party and only his and her fingerprints were on the spoon)...sister comes down and helps herself to one of his pineapples, he bops her in the head with the flashlight...mom and dad panic and stage the scene.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:34 pm to Spilled Milk
Another good point about the mom. She was wearing the same clothes the next morning that she had on at the Christmas party. She hadn't taken them off the night before.
If they were all in bed, she wouldn't have been in the same clothes.
She never went to bed that night.
If they were all in bed, she wouldn't have been in the same clothes.
She never went to bed that night.
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:36 pm to PrimeTime Money
Of course she hadn't been to bed. Her son had killed her daughter, and she was busy writing fake ransom notes and helping her husband stage a crime scene. And probably getting real psyched up and rehearsing her 911 call.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:37 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
So just because there was some trace DNA, it does not prove anything at all.
Agreed. DNA on one item of clothing, while damning, is not conclusive. If you believe she wore those underwear for the first time and they were never washed and DNA remained on them.
But how do YOU explain that the SAME foreign DNA (male hispanic exclusive of any Ramsey family member) was found on TWO pieces of her clothing, both her leggings AND her underwear? As the Boulder DA said:
quote:
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
quote:
You just made that stuff completely up in your head. You don't know when the note was written specifically.
No I didn't. The note was written in the home. So either it was written as you inaccurately believe by The Ramseys, or as I correctly believe, by the intruder. To recap- if the Ramsey's did not randomly bind torture murder their own daughter it stands to reason that an intruder did (unless you believe in ghosts). And criminal psychological profiling is firmly established and the killer would fit a very specific profile of the torture-killer. If you want to educate yourself I would be pleased to refer you to books.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:38 pm to fatboydave
Family covered it up. Nothing points to this not happening.
Now, not sure who killed her, but it was a cover up.
Now, not sure who killed her, but it was a cover up.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:39 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Lsupimp
If this was an intruder that came in and killed her, why did the intruder only use items found in the house to carry out this crime?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:43 pm to Lsupimp
quote:For all we know, someone could have sneezed at the Christmas party and a few little specs of saliva could have landed on her hand.
Agreed. DNA on one item of clothing, while damning, is not conclusive. If you believe she wore those underwear for the first time and they were never washed and DNA remained on them.
But how do YOU explain that the SAME foreign DNA (male hispanic exclusive of any Ramsey family member) was found on TWO pieces of her clothing, both her leggings AND her underwear?
She then may have used the bathroom, and pulled down her leggings and underwear and transferred the DNA to both of those items.
There is DNA all around you. I bet you have some random person's DNA on you right now.
There are a million ways "trace" DNA can transfer from one person to another, even on several different pieces of clothing.
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:45 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
But how do YOU explain that the SAME foreign DNA (male hispanic exclusive of any Ramsey family member) was found on TWO pieces of her clothing, both her leggings AND her underwear? As the Boulder DA said:
If the parents are going through the trouble of staging a crime scene, how hard is it for John to plant the DNA? For example, all he had to do was take those clothes somewhere near their house, rub them on a toilet seat, and then bring them home and put them on his daughter. Hell he wouldnt even have to bring the clothes with him. Like it was stated earlier. DNA is everywhere, it's not hard to fake that.
The DNA evidence doesn't exonerate anyone in my opinion.
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:48 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
why did the intruder only use items found in the house to carry out this crime?
That's the point he cannot answer
A ninja came in, left his own handwriting evidence, but brought ZERO items with him to carry out his master plan
Pimp and the Ramseys would have us believe that some random pageant goer, just wandered up to the house to see if they could get in. And John just happened to leave this opening that he created for someone else to find. And then that person became MacGuyver and used random household tools to carry out the perfect murder
And never did it again
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:51 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
If this was an intruder that came in and killed her, why did the intruder only use items found in the house to carry out this crime?
So much misinformation. Just post after post of it.I can't keep up with it.
The duct tape and the nylon rope were never identified as coming from within the home. Only the wood (paintbrush) used for the garotte came from inside the home and part of it was never found(where did it go?). If someone inside the home committed the murder how come "the other half" of items used in the murder were no longer in the home?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:55 pm to Lsupimp
Where did the pineapple come from?
Why did the mom have the same clothes on the next morning that she was wearing the night before?
Why did the mom have the same clothes on the next morning that she was wearing the night before?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:56 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
If someone inside the home committed the murder how come "the other half" of items used in the murder were no longer in the home?
Well John did leave for an hour and a half between the time the cops showed up and before the body was "found".
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:57 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
For all we know, someone could have sneezed at the Christmas party and a few little specs of saliva could have landed on her hand.
quote:
rubbed it on a toilet
I'll keep politely correcting all this lazy misinformation for ten more minutes and then I have to leave. You guys are so mad at me for dispassionately placing fact above narrative that it's starting to get ugly anyway.
The DNA that was found (hispanic male) consisted of BLOOD EVIDENCE in THREE SEPARATE SPOTS on TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS OF CLOTHING (underwear and leggings). Ponder that.
(sorry for screaming-just not sure you guys are hearing this uber-critical fact).
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:58 pm to LST
quote:
The DNA evidence doesn't exonerate anyone in my opinion
Agreed. Touch DNA creates problems because the slightest bit of contact with a person can contaminate evidence.
Add to that John Ramsey missing for a couple of hours, the body being moved, the body being placed on the floor of a house full of people walking in and out all morning and the evidence being tested a decade after the crime.
Those are some distant dots to connect to say unknown male DNA = intruder committed crime.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 1:58 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
there's also the possibility that the family let this "intruder" in because they were pimping out their pageant queen for money
Why would they pimp out their daughter if they are millionaires? I think they were involved in a cover up, but this angle doesn't really make any sense
Posted on 9/19/16 at 2:00 pm to Lsupimp
quote:No, it was not blood.
The DNA that was found (hispanic male) consisted of BLOOD EVIDENCE in THREE SEPARATE SPOTS on TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS OF CLOTHING (underwear and leggings)
The Boulder police chief Mark Beckner said it was either sweat or saliva:
quote:
Beckner: "Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva."
Posted on 9/19/16 at 2:17 pm to caliegeaux
What is the name of this documentary everyone is watching?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 2:20 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
The DNA that was found (hispanic male) consisted of BLOOD EVIDENCE in THREE SEPARATE SPOTS on TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS OF CLOTHING (underwear and leggings). Ponder that.
Why would the intruder be bleeding?
Mmm maybe this mastermind intruder got some traces of blood from another and put it there too. This intruder, afterall, is swift. They are obviously too good to have left their own blood.
quote:
DNA evidence is almost always based on DNA extracted from identifiable human cells, e.g., blood cells, skin cells, saliva cells, sperm cells, etc. Such cells can be transferred from one person to another in all sorts of ways, both directly and indirectly. If one cannot either trace the circumstances by which the cells were transferred or identify their source, then the DNA evidence is essentially meaningless, since it could always have been transferred in a perfectly innocent manner. To make this point as forcefully as possible, I'll once again quote The Guardian, Jan 17, 2012, CSI Oxford: behind the scenes at Britain's top forensic lab: Rigour, continuity, integrity of procedure are all. . . Because the thing about DNA evidence, strong as it is, large as it looms in the public's imagination, is that it connects a human and an object. It doesn't prove when the two came into contact. Nor does it necessarily prove they were actually in direct contact at all. "It's not just the finding of the evidence," says Ros Hammond, a senior scientific adviser who has worked on many high-profile cases. "It's how did it get there, and can we rule out any other way it did so? And what does it mean?" (My emphasis) In the Ramsey case, the blood DNA that arguably played the crucial role in forestalling prosecution for so many years couldn't even be traced to a particular cell. No semen was found. No skin cells were found. No foreign cells of any kind were found. The fragments of foreign DNA had been mixed with the victim's blood, thus mixed with her DNA, and could be isolated only thanks to a recently developed, highly sophisticated and complex, methodology. No one had any idea where that DNA was from or how it could have gotten into her blood. Nevertheless, the Ramsey attorneys insisted this had to have originated from her attacker, and since no match was ever found (to this day), no DA felt safe in attempting an indictment. Over time, other bits of DNA from inside the victims fingernails were examined (this turned out to be contaminated and was ultimately discounted) and further testing of the blood DNA led to the production of 10 markers (there were originally only 9), which made it available for inclusion in the FBI's CODIS database. Team Ramsey then assured us it was only a matter of time before CODIS came up with a match. Of course as we know, almost 16 years after the murder, no match has been found.
quote:
Even if a match did somehow emerge, there were only 10 markers, while a complete set is 13, meaning that a prosecution based solely on a DNA match would have been impossible in any case. The prosecutor would still have to offer additional evidence that this person had been in the house on that particular night. But what evidence could he possibly present? That the suspect once owned HiTec boots? That he owned a Maglite? That his palm print was identical to that of Melinda Ramsey's? That someone once saw him carrying some rope in a bag? Also how could the prosecutor prove that the DNA hadn't been transferred to JonBenet indirectly, through some completely innocuous connection? I'll have more to say on this possibility presently. Even if his handwriting were matched to that of the note, a good lawyer would undoubtedly point to all the experts on record as convinced that Patsy and only Patsy could have written it. If Patsy hadn't written it after all, that meant the whole idea of using "experts" to identify handwriting was totally discredited. His lawyer would no doubt point to all the absurdities associated with the intruder theory that have never been explained: why would a kidnapper leave the body in the house; why would he go to the trouble of hiding it in a remote basement room; and why if he had no way of removing the body, would he leave a note behind even when it no longer could serve any purpose? Also, how did he get in and out, and why wasn't there more evidence of his presence than just some odd snippets of DNA?
And as I said, why were the cobwebs undisturbed?
So as far this new discovery of DNA..
quote:
I have always wondered if Team Ramsey, upon learning of the new collection technique realized that they were almost certain to find some touch DNA somewhere, which could then be attributed to the "intruder". I wonder who's idea it really was to do the touch DNA testing.
Any ways, why didn't this mastermind just take her clothes?
If they are the "perfect" intruder.. why would leave such trace of blood behind on such clothing? Yet go to great lengths to frame the family..
More comments
quote:
If you read more in this blog you'll learn why I'm not a fan of criminal profiling. It can be of use in identifying prospective suspects, yes. But not much use in actually solving a case, in my opinion, because there are just too many different ways to interpret what is said and what is done by anyone for any reason. Many people have attempted to profile the killer, of course, especially the Ramseys and their team, who seem to have at one time or another suspected just about everyone they knew. The bottom line, as I see it, is that no intruder theory makes sense. Once we realize the note was written on a notepad found in the house, then we are forced to the realization that this is something no intruder would have done. You can find explanations for many of the odd aspects of this case, such as the fact that the victim was never actually kidnapped, but you can't explain that note as something an intruder would have taken the time to write while in the house.
There's no way in my mind that the killer rendered her unconscious, then wandered the house looking for strangulation tools.
Perhaps he was there prior and just chillen? Sure..
I don't think he could've fashioned those knots and found the paintbrush in a murderous frenzy. Unless he was just chillen there to begin with.
And isn't it strange how the note only addresses John, constantly.. and refers to him using his "southern charm"
Just seems like a woman wrote that note.
According to most of the forensic experts consulted, the strangulation occurred anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours after the head blow. So your intruder would indeed have hung around for at least 45 minutes. Why?
This is the very part that leads me to believe something happened.. maybe an accident, maybe the brother got weird... and they later tried to frame this up.. Look at that.. That's way too much time to pass for an intruder. Come on.. Why go that great length when you aren't going to get caught? Just seems so unlikely. But if they are so smart, then why leave behind the clothes with your possible DNA?
Page 12 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News