Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Bob001]

Another case summary by a Denver reporter who always suspected the parents.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/14...murder-and-ramseys-still-look-guilty-as-hell/

 

[Henri McPhee]

Watch the show. The experts determined that there were NO taser marks, in part by actually tasing a cop. They concluded that the marks were made by a piece of a toy train set, as by Burke poking an apparently unconscious Jon-Benet to try to wake her up. And why would an adult need a taser to control a six-year-old anyway?

They also made the point that a taser doesn't knock anyone out. If she had been tased, she would have been screaming.

This is part of what was said about the JonBenet stun gun photos at the Dr. Stratbucker deposition, with Lin Wood asking the questions:

10 Q. Excuse me.

11 -- he has those photographs

12 authenticated as the crime scene and autopsy

13 photographs by the Boulder District Attorney's

14 office.

15 So Lou Smit, you will concede, has

16 got one heck of a lot better photograph of

17 JonBenet Ramsey than anything you've ever looked

18 at on the internet or these monochrome

19 photographs that you claim to have relied on in

20 this case. Can we agree on that, sir?

21 A. No, I won't agree to it. I have --

22 you may say that, but I have no way of proving

23 that.

24 Q. Why don't you go read the record

25 that was filed in the courthouse in Boulder

00076

1 County?

2 A. Well, I will be happy to.

 

[Bob001]

....
Cobwebs? Spiders rebuild those rapidly and determining the age of one seems dubious.

The door to my office gets little webs built on it in the corners. If you clean them off, they are back again very soon.

Their point was that cobwebs were visible in evidence photographs taken immediately after the crime in a position where an intruder would have had to disturb them.

 

[BStrong]

Watch the show. The experts determined that there were NO taser marks, in part by actually tasing a cop. They concluded that the marks were made by a piece of a toy train set, as by Burke poking an apparently unconscious Jon-Benet to try to wake her up. And why would an adult need a taser to control a six-year-old anyway?

They also made the point that a taser doesn't knock anyone out. If she had been tased, she would have been screaming.

It was a little creepy seeing the smile on Spitz's face during the tasing, and having been tased I agree wholeheartedly - when somebody is tased the reaction is immediate and dramatic.

 

[Segnosaur]

They concluded that her 10-year-old brother Burke smacked his sister with a Maglite -- he had previously hit her with a golf club -- hard enough to kill her, intentionally or accidentally.

Jonbenet was also strangled with a garrot, and if I remember correctly, the lack of blood from the headwound suggests the garrot may have been applied first. For the brother to have done it, he would have had to have strangled her first, then hit her. Something that most people would assume would be beyond the capacity of a young preteen boy.

Then parents John and Patsy set about furiously staging the scene and drafting a bogus ransom note to try save their son.

If they did, then they are somehow the most cold-blooded accomplices ever, being able to hold up after all the questioning.

Apparently the grand jury voted to indict the parents for the cover-up, but the prosecutor refused. Their conclusions are compelling.

The grand jury vote seems rather... strange. "You killed her but we can't prove it. So we recommend other charges".

4 people walked into that house, only 3 people woke up the next morning. No evidence of an intruder. John, Patsy or Burke had to be responsible. The actions of the parents screamed guilt to my LE buddies.

Actually there was plenty of evidence of an intruder.
- a boot impression not matching anyone in the house
- not finding the roll of tape used in the crime, which suggests the tape was taken by the intruder. (It wouldn't have been necessary to take the tape away if the crime was "staged".)
- Marks on the body suggesting the use of a taser, something the Ramseys did not have

This blogger proposes a theory of the crime where John Ramsey killed his daughter to cover up prior sexual abuse, and was in the process of staging the kidnapping when his wife inadvertently found his ransom note

The handwriting in the note did not match John Ramsey's writing.

Now, there are suggestions that the handwriting matched the mother's. There are several problems though:
- While there are are similarities, the match is not close enough to definitively say it was Patsy's. (Only to say she couldn't be ruled out.) The writing in the note would have matched many people
- The language on the note seems a little... bizarre. It uses phrases that seem to come from popular action movies at the time, something that a middle-aged couple wouldn't necessarily been familiar with
- To assume it was written after JonBenet's death would suggest the parents would be cold-blooded enough to be completely calm following the death.

The CBS experts didn't seem to think there was any proof of sexual abuse. They discounted the idea that someone could have entered or left through the (small) basement window because it had old cobwebs around the frame and broken panes that were not disturbed.

Even if you discount the window as the point of entry, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was an inside job.

- The Ramsey's had had some work done on the house. As a result, there were several additional house keys in circulation that were not in their possession. One of them could have been used by an intruder
- The Ramsey's may not have locked all of the doors, either before they left the house or before they went to bed. They were in a low crime neighborhood. (In fact, one of the policemen actually found one of the doors of the house was unlocked that morning.)

It should also be noted that the cobwebs don't automatically rule out the use of the window as an entry/exit point. Depending on the size of the intruder and/or the way they were oriented when they came in, they may have simply avoided touching the corner of the window.

So, what probably happened?

An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door. He waits for the family to come home, writing the ransom note when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, stuns JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she wakes up at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house). He takes her to the basement, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight, and leaves either through the window or a door.

 

[Bob001]

.....
An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door. He waits for the family to come home, writing the ransom note when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, stuns JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she wakes up at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house). He takes her to the basement, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight, and leaves either through the window or a door.

Watch the show. A lot of your questions were covered. The note itself is inherently implausible. How could a kidnapper be sure that he would find suitable pen and paper in the house and would have time to write a rambling, three-page letter (hardly a "note")? A real kidnapper typically would want to be quick, and would bring a short note ("Get $100,000 in small bills. Wait for call. NO COPS!"). The fact that the "kidnapper" claimed to represent "foreign factions" and wanted an amount that exactly equaled John's annual bonus sure raises some doubts. And what makes you think that the Ramseys didn't go to the movies?

And in video interviews with the police, little Burke -- who had a history of hostility toward his sister -- actually demonstrated how "someone" could have struck Jon-Benet. Not a confession, but sure more than a guess.

 

[Bob001]

Question (I don't know the answer): Did the Boulder police -- who had little experience with serious crimes -- call in the state police, or even ask for help from nearby Denver? Or did these small-town cops think they could do it all themselves?

 

[Segnosaur]

Watch the show. A lot of your questions were covered. The note itself is inherently implausible. How could a kidnapper be sure that he would find suitable pen and paper in the house...

I think pretty much everyone will have at least one pen and one piece of blank paper in the house.

Now, why the intruder would write a note at the scene rather than bring his own is unknown, but there are several possibilities:
- He may have been disorganized enough and forgot to bring it
- He may have brought one, but while waiting (and perhaps exploring the house, maybe seeing a pay stub from John Ramsey) decided to write a new one
- He might have decided to kidnap her without leaving a note (or had a plan to contact them later), and changed his plans once inside the house

...and would have time to write a rambling, three-page letter (hardly a "note")?

As I pointed out, the intruder would have broken in when the Ramseys were at the party. So, he could have had hours, both to explore the house, and write the note.

In fact that makes the most sense. After the killing, it is doubtful whether the perpetrator (whomever it may be) would have had the state of mind to compose ANY note.

A real kidnapper typically would want to be quick, and would bring a short note ("Get $100,000 in small bills. Wait for call. NO COPS!").

That's because the 'kidnapper' was probably not trying to abduct JonBenet for money. He goal was likely to punish the Ramseys for some slight (real or imagined) In other words, he wasn't a "real kidnapper".

The fact that the "kidnapper" claimed to represent "foreign factions"

Which sounds like an intruder trying to make themselves more important than they really are.

...and wanted an amount that exactly equaled John's annual bonus sure raises some doubts.

The amount of the Ransom ($118,000) is a little unusual. But there are a couple of possibilities about why that amount was used:
- The intruder had a lot of time to explore the house. He might have seen a pay stub with the bonus amount listed
- The amount ($118,000) may have actually translated to (I think) 100,000 pesos, so he may have had a plan to flee to mexico.

Furthermore, the Ramseys were worth millions. If the Ramseys were really trying to stage the kidnapping, why wouldn't they ask for a more reasonable figure, given their actual wealth?

And what makes you think that the Ramseys didn't go to the movies?

Having kids tends to change your social life.

Hey, maybe they did go to all the new movies. Maybe they were big clint eastwood fans, and saw the movie Speed (both possible sources of phrases in the ransom note). But those types of movies do tend to appeal more to a younger male demographic.

And in video interviews with the police, little Burke -- who had a history of hostility toward his sister -- actually demonstrated how "someone" could have struck Jon-Benet. Not a confession, but sure more than a guess.

Ah yes, the police interviews. Many have criticized the way they were done, asking leading questions. "How would X have happened". "See? they could be guilty of X!"

And here's something to keep in mind... Handwriting analysis ruled John out as the author, and suggested Patsy may have written the note (not enough to rule her out anyways.) During the 911 call, the operator asks if the note was signed, and she sounded like she didn't really know. If she was the author, why wouldn't she simply say "the note wasn't signed"?

 

[LTC8K6]

Their point was that cobwebs were visible in evidence photographs taken immediately after the crime in a position where an intruder would have had to disturb them.

Is the time of the crime established?

I am unaware of an established time where an intruder would have entered the house, though. If it was an intruder, he was in the house for a while, and could have come in via the window, but left via a door.

I think there is probably enough leeway in the time frame for a spider to have rebuilt a web.

 

[LTC8K6]

Have we ever seen the draft copy of the ransom note that was left in the house along with the final copy?

Not only did they write out a 2.5 page note, they apparently wrote a first draft.

Supposedly the writing on the draft note is "shaky"?

EDIT: Looks like the draft notes may have just been short attempts to start the ransom note.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.acandyrose.com/04112000thomas-pg73-74.htm

I didn't know that the ransom note kind of came from the middle of the pad, or that there might actually have been two attempts to start the note.

 

[William Parcher]

I think there is probably enough leeway in the time frame for a spider to have rebuilt a web.

I am somewhat interested in this case and only somewhat familiar with the evidence.

An expert witness could have made certain statements about the web(s) which could have been relevant. The term "cobweb" often refers to old and unused webs that have become dusty. But some people may use the term for any web, even a fresh one. I don't know anything about what was actually found concerning the webs. But an expert witness could possibly say something like "they absolutely were not created within the past 48 hours" or whatever. But still, the expert would need proper documentation (photo or physical) in order to make their claims.

 

[Segnosaur]

I am somewhat interested in this case and only somewhat familiar with the evidence.

An expert witness could have made certain statements about the web(s) which could have been relevant. The term "cobweb" often refers to old and unused webs that have become dusty. But some people may use the term for any web, even a fresh one. I don't know anything about what was actually found concerning the webs. But an expert witness could possibly say something like "they absolutely were not created within the past 48 hours" or whatever. But still, the expert would need proper documentation (photo or physical) in order to make their claims.

Even if an expert said "There isn't enough time for a spider to rebuild a web", you're still left with 2 possibilities:

- the intruder was careful enough/lucky enough to go in the window and not disturb any webs. The fact that those attempting to recreate the circumstances kept destroying the webs doesn't mean that all attempts to get in through a window will similarly destroy the webs. If you're skinny enough, or twist your body slightly, it might be possible to squeeze in through the window without touching the corners.

- The intruder got in and out through a door rather than the window, either because it was unlocked (as commonly happened), or by using one of the many keys that were given to various workmen

 

[BStrong]

I agree with nearly every word in Rolling Stone's critique of the show -- theatrical behaviour of the presenter-investigators, persistent patterns of confirmation bias, creative interpretation of noise on the phone call recording, peddling of statement analysis and profiling pseudo-science, and general irresponsibility. But I still think the show's overall theory very likely correct.

I read the RS article, and their beef with the audio recording seems to be that the current CBS conclusion mirrors that of the prior examination of the tape by another party, but that information was not conveyed to the viewer.

 

[bagels]

The handwriting in the note did not match John Ramsey's writing.

I know that's what the handwriting experts concluded, but if you're purposely trying to disguise your handwriting it seems like it would be significantly more difficult to definitely conclude someone didn't write something. Also the police strongly suspected Patsy early on so bias may have played a role. I would really need to listen to the handwriting expert's full analysis to be convinced it's impossible John wrote that note.

With that being said I am not attached to any specific theory, I find an intruder just as plausible.

 

[BStrong]

Even if an expert said "There isn't enough time for a spider to rebuild a web", you're still left with 2 possibilities:

- the intruder was careful enough/lucky enough to go in the window and not disturb any webs. The fact that those attempting to recreate the circumstances kept destroying the webs doesn't mean that all attempts to get in through a window will similarly destroy the webs. If you're skinny enough, or twist your body slightly, it might be possible to squeeze in through the window without touching the corners.

- The intruder got in and out through a door rather than the window, either because it was unlocked (as commonly happened), or by using one of the many keys that were given to various workmen

Or the most obvious answer, that there was no intruder.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Jonbenet was also strangled with a garrot, and if I remember correctly, the lack of blood from the headwound suggests the garrot may have been applied first. For the brother to have done it, he would have had to have strangled her first, then hit her. Something that most people would assume would be beyond the capacity of a young preteen boy. The CBS program believes the head wound was caused by the flashlight without bleeding and that the garrote was applied afterwards as part of the staging.


If they did, then they are somehow the most cold-blooded accomplices ever, being able to hold up after all the questioning. This happens frequently.


The grand jury vote seems rather... strange. "You killed her but we can't prove it. So we recommend other charges". The grand jury wanted to bring conspiracy charges against the parents because they believed the son killed Jonbenet.

Actually there was plenty of evidence of an intruder.
- a boot impression not matching anyone in the house...is not evidence of an intruder in the house only of someone outside the house.
- not finding the roll of tape used in the crime, which suggests the tape was taken by the intruder. (It wouldn't have been necessary to take the tape away if the crime was "staged".)
- Marks on the body suggesting the use of a taser, something the Ramseys did not have. CBS program states she was not tased and that the marks on her were from a model train track, whose "points" match exactly.

The handwriting in the note did not match John Ramsey's writing.

Now, there are suggestions that the handwriting matched the mother's. There are several problems though:
- While there are are similarities, the match is not close enough to definitively say it was Patsy's. (Only to say she couldn't be ruled out.) The writing in the note would have matched many people
- The language on the note seems a little... bizarre. It uses phrases that seem to come from popular action movies at the time, something that a middle-aged couple wouldn't necessarily been familiar with
- To assume it was written after JonBenet's death would suggest the parents would be cold-blooded enough to be completely calm following the death.

Even if you discount the window as the point of entry, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was an inside job.

- The Ramsey's had had some work done on the house. As a result, there were several additional house keys in circulation that were not in their possession. One of them could have been used by an intruder
- The Ramsey's may not have locked all of the doors, either before they left the house or before they went to bed. They were in a low crime neighborhood. (In fact, one of the policemen actually found one of the doors of the house was unlocked that morning.)

It should also be noted that the cobwebs don't automatically rule out the use of the window as an entry/exit point. Depending on the size of the intruder and/or the way they were oriented when they came in, they may have simply avoided touching the corner of the window. The CBS program demonstrates it would have been virtually impossible for an adult to enter through the window without disturbing the cobwebs.

So, what probably happened?

An intruder (possibly with a grudge against the Ramseys) breaks in when they are away, either through the window or an unlocked door. He waits for the family to come home, writing the ransom note when waiting. Family comes home and goes to bed. Intruder leaves the note on the stairs, stuns JonBenet and brings her downstairs. However, for some reason his plans change. (Perhaps she wakes up at an inopportune time, perhaps the stress of the situation gets to him, perhaps he realizes he can't get her out of the house). He takes her to the basement, starts to strangle her and hits her with the flashlight, and leaves either through the window or a door.

No stun gun...flashlight was found on the kitchen table.

The is very little evidence to even suggest an intruder and much evidence to suggest John and Patsy were responsible, at least for the cover up.

 

[Modified]

Yes, but someone (perhaps the coroner in writing his report), made a mistake. Bits of recognizable pineapple should not be found in the intestine. They might be found in the stomach, but the stomach reduces material to 1-2 mm before allowing it to pass into the duodenum: "Antropyloric contractions occur and the pylorus partially opens, causing a “sieving effect” in which liquids and small particles (< 1 to 2 mm) flow continuously from the stomach into the duodenum, whereas the indigestible particles greater in size than the pyloric opening are retropelled and retained in the stomach." DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00766.x Kong and Singh, "Disintegration of Solid Foods in Human Stomach."

Not forever though. Bits that the stomach can't break down will pass, obviously.

It could have been pineapple fiber or pineapple seeds.

 

[Segnosaur]

I know that's what the handwriting experts concluded, but if you're purposely trying to disguise your handwriting it seems like it would be significantly more difficult to definitely conclude someone didn't write something.

You're talking about a ransom note of almost 3 pages. If it were a short note (one or 2 lines) it might be possible to disguise your writing. But when you're approaching 3 pages, it makes it less likely for people to be able to disguise their writing.

I would really need to listen to the handwriting expert's full analysis to be convinced it's impossible John wrote that note.

I don't have access to a full analysis, but I've seen parts of the analysis from several analysts. Not one has suggested John's writing is a match. For Patsy, several have said "may be/may not be", at least one has said "definitely not".

 

[snoop_doxie]

CBS program states she was not tased and that the marks on her were from a model train track, whose "points" match exactly.

I have not seen or heard how the train track "points" could have left those marks.

Was she hit with the train tracks?

- a boot impression not matching anyone in the house...is not evidence of an intruder in the house only of someone outside the house.

I thought the boot impression was on the basement floor inside the house?

If not, that boot print could have been left by any one working on the outside of the house.