Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Segnosaur]

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.

First of all, the head is rather rich in blood vessels. Head wounds tend to bleed.

Secondly, the autopsy report showed hemoraging associated with the strangulation, implying that JonBonet was alive when the garrot was used. (At least that's my understanding.)

Now, in theory its possible that she was struck, then strangled while she was still alive but dying from the head wound. But if it were her parents, why would they not actually call a doctor in hopes of saving their daughter, rather than finishing her off?

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.

I don't doubt that there are cold blooded people around. But there's never been any evidence that the Ramseys have had problems before. If they were really so cold-blooded, why isn't there evidence of this from before the killing?

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.

I am unaware of any explanation about any theories the grand jury had about who actually killed JonBenet (whether it was the son or someone else.) If you have any evidence that the grand jury blamed the son, then lets see it.

(By the way, it should be noted that a grand jury is not a 'trial'. No real attempt is made to provide a "defense".)

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.

Actually yes it is evidence. Perhaps not 100% conclusive evidence. But if an intruder were involved, finding footprints would not be surprising.

- 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".)

I notice you ignored this particular point. Does that mean you accept that the absence of the roll of tape used on JonBonet is evidence of an intruder?

- 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.

So, the son was so angry, he first hit her with parts of his train track (without her running to her parents and saying "waah! I was hit!"), THEN he got out the flashlight and hit her with it.

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

Nobody knows exactly where the flashlight came from. The Ramseys aren't saying its theirs. It may have been from the intruder, or it may have been left there by one of the keystone cops. If its a coverup as you suggest, why would the Ramseys leave the weapon in plain sight?

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.

Actually there's plenty of evidence of an intruder... you just seem to want to discount or ignore it.

In order to assume "coverup", you have to assume that this relatively normal family is really a bunch of psychopaths (all of them), who go from innocuous to criminal masterminds at the drop of a hat.

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.

How do you define "virtually impossible"? How many tests did they do? Did they use smaller people who actually attempted to avoid the webs? Saying its "virtually impossible" to get in without disturbing the webs based on a couple of haphazard tests seems to be setting the bar a little low.

And again, what about the possibility of the intruder using one of many keys that were distributed to workmen? Or through an unlocked door (of which we know there was at least one).

Oh, and from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93419&page=1

Among the other photographs were pictures taken in the basement showing what could be a shoe scuff mark on a wall under a basement window, where an intruder could have entered. There was also one showing a suitcase propped up under the window, which could have been used to make it easier for the intruder to leave and indications that cobwebs around the window had been swept away.


(I don't have photos showing "cobwebs swept away", but ABC is a pretty reputable network.)

 

[BStrong]

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

Was she hit with the train tracks?




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.

The theory is that the two connecting points on a section of model train track that was present in the home may have been the source of the marks on her back - the idea was floated that someone may have poked her body with the object as a method to see if she would "wake up" after she had been struck in the head.

 

[Segnosaur]

- 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.

The boot print was indeed in the basement.

Now, it does not necessarily prove that there was an intruder. (The print could have been left by one of the people that was doing work around the house, or one of the keystone cops investigating the case.) At best its circumstantial. But it does add a little weight to the intruder theory.

 

[Jungle Jim]

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

Was she hit with the train tracks?

A stabbing motion with the a section of model train track. The two points at the end of a track section piercing the skin, causing what some people took to be the result of a taser.

 

[Segnosaur]

The theory is that the two connecting points on a section of model train track that was present in the home may have been the source of the marks on her back - the idea was floated that someone may have poked her body with the object as a method to see if she would "wake up" after she had been struck in the head.

Assuming it was the son trying to wake her up with part of his train set, you have 2 problems:

- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?

 

[Jungle Jim]

Segnosaur - I have pointed out a number of explanations provided by the CBS program. They seem reasonable. If you wish to have a more complete understanding of their point of view, I suggest you watch the show. They make a compelling case for the crime not being committed by an intruder.

 

[William Parcher]

Burke was not a normal and rational kid. He pooped in her bed and smeared feces on various things in her room. A real mental case with unexpected behavior.

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur - I have pointed out a number of explanations provided by the CBS program. They seem reasonable. If you wish to have a more complete understanding of their point of view, I suggest you watch the show. They make a compelling case for the crime not being committed by an intruder.

I do not have access to the documentary at this time. However, I have read up on the case (as well as watched a couple of documentaries), so I think I have a good idea of the details.

Between the details that have been given here, and the criticism of the CBS program provided in earlier references, it does sound like it would be a waste of time, based on the quality of arguments.

It should also be noted that this is a discussion forum. Usually its frowned upon when people use the excuse "Go watch this video". (Its expected for people to state things in their own words rather than relying on video sources.)

 

[BStrong]

Assuming it was the son trying to wake her up with part of his train set, you have 2 problems:

- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?

The train tracks were loose in the basement area along with other toy train gear.

I do not believe the kid decided "now I'll kill my sister" and went about committing the act.

This was a nine year old kid. He gets wound up, hits the sister, her reaction scares him, she won't move, maybe he tries to poke her with the track and she doesn't "wake up" he tries again.

Again, this is a kid, not an adult - he thinks like a kid and acts like a kid. I would not expect him to act as an adult would.

One thing is certain, the marks in question were not caused by a taser.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?

 

[Segnosaur]

- He would either have to have brought both the flashlight (or whatever weapon) and the train part with him when he killed JonBenet, or he would have to have hit her, then went to get the train part to come back and poke her. Seems like a rather strange set of events. Why not just poke her with the flashlight?

- The marks were on her face and back. That seems rather impractical if he were trying to wake her up. Why not marks in the same area of her body?

The train tracks were loose in the basement area along with other toy train gear.

But probably not with the flashlight (which may not have even belonged to the Ramseys.) Normally things like flashlights are kept in kitchen drawers, or workshops. Usually not in a children's toy room. So if he were so wound up, why would he go out of his way to go get a flashlight to hit her with? And why switch from the flashlight to the train set to try to "wake her up"?

Again, this is a kid, not an adult - he thinks like a kid and acts like a kid. I would not expect him to act as an adult would.

Yes, he was a kid. Yet remarkably managed to keep from cracking under police interrogation.

One thing is certain, the marks in question were not caused by a taser.

The fact that you keep saying that does not make it true.

An intruder bringing a stun gun to control a kid (even one as young as JonBenet) makes logical sense... kids can squirm, try to get away, etc. And if nothing else, it can be used as a torture device. A 9 year old boy, going out of his way to get a flashlight to hit his sister with, then going to get the train track to poke her with (on 2 totally separate parts of the body I might add) makes less sense.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?

Well, if the parents WERE involved, I can see them not taking her body out and hiding it since they might be detected during the body dump.

But yea, if it were some sort of conspiracy they certainly did a lot of things the hard way. They would simultaneously have to be criminal geniuses and incredibly stupid at the same time. Almost like a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

 

[Strawberry]

Well, if the parents WERE involved, I can see them not taking her body out and hiding it since they might be detected during the body dump.

But yea, if it were some sort of conspiracy they certainly did a lot of things the hard way. They would simultaneously have to be criminal geniuses and incredibly stupid at the same time. Almost like a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Why not just leave her body in the basement and report her missing in the morning then?

 

[bagels]

I don't know what to make of this case. A question for those who think the brother did it and the parents covered it up - why the big, long rambling ransom note and the garotte? Why not just take her out and hide her body somewhere and then smash a window and report her missing in the morning?

That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.

If they're both involved then the ransom note becomes more like a miscalculation. You could argue that Patsy didn't want to dump the girls body in some unmarked grave, so compromised between keeping the body and trying to throw off the investigators.

That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why not just leave her body in the basement and report her missing in the morning then?

Exactly.

People point out how "evil" the family is (smart enough to fool police in interviews, etc.) but then if they were guilty, they could have done a much better job at staging the break in.... leave a door open, have an explanation for the pineapple, etc.

 

[Strawberry]

That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.

If they're both involved then the ransom note becomes more like a miscalculation. You could argue that Patsy didn't want to dump the girls body in some unmarked grave, so compromised between keeping the body and trying to throw off the investigators.

That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.

The first option would make most sense, but the handwriting doesn't match John.

This case doesn't make any sense whether its the family or an intruder.

 

[Strawberry]

Exactly.

People point out how "evil" the family is (smart enough to fool police in interviews, etc.) but then if they were guilty, they could have done a much better job at staging the break in.... leave a door open, have an explanation for the pineapple, etc.

Exactly. I can see how anyone might over look the pineapple, but you don't need to be a criminal genius to work out that if someone is killed in the house and there's no visible sign of a break in, the family will be suspected.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's why the John did it but Mom didn't know theory makes a little more sense in regards to the ransom note - it was necessary to give John an excuse to leave the house and buy time to not immediately inform the police of the disappearance.

Except of course handwriting analysis has completely cleared John as the author of the note.

That they never thought writing a 20 minute ransom note on their own pen and paper would be suspicious is to me in itself suspicious. The whole case is strange.

Well what would truly be strange is that if this was an inside job, they would be smart enough to get rid of so much evidence (eliminating the roll of tape used on JonBonet, cleaning up any and all blood trace evidence), yet aren't smart enough to get rid of the writing pad/pen used on the note.

 

[Segnosaur]

This case doesn't make any sense whether its the family or an intruder.

Well I'd have to say that regardless of what theory, there will be elements that will always be in question. (Much like 9/11.)

With the intruder theory, the "strange" elements are more or less minor points... the pineapple, the entrance that was used (of which there were multiple possibilities), why the particular ransom amount. In many cases, we can suggest solutions, but we'll never be sure which is the correct one.

With the inside job theories (whether one of the parents killed her, or they're covering for their son), not only do you have the tiny little details that are strange, you also have significant issues with motive and abilities.

 

[bagels]

Well what would truly be strange is that if this was an inside job, they would be smart enough to get rid of so much evidence (eliminating the roll of tape used on JonBonet, cleaning up any and all blood trace evidence), yet aren't smart enough to get rid of the writing pad/pen used on the note.

That's what I meant, I'm suspicious that they didn't write it. But like everything else with this case, I lack enough information to feel comfortable forming a conclusion.