Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Segnosaur]

From what I understand, JonBenet's doctor found no evidence of any abuse. If it was happening, you'd expect some sort marks.

Not sexual abuse. Extreme harassment, including hitting her with a golf club....

Non-sexual abuse can leave marks too... bruises, perhaps broken bones. Yet nothing like that was reported by the doctor. Do you think the Ramseys told Burke "Don't hit JonBenet for the next week, OK? She has a doctors appointment on Friday".

So, Burke was some sort of evil monster, constantly abusing and hitting his sister, but the only 2 cases where there was any evidence was the golf club and the final murder.

 

[William Parcher]

The flashlight was in their home, it had no fingerprints on the item when tested.

That seems unusual to me. No fingerprints at all? Was it not examined for fibers? Any DNA swabbing? Were the batteries checked for fingerprints?

If this flashlight was brought and left by a murderous intruder it immediately becomes very important evidence. The Ramseys told the cops that it wasn't theirs. They must have noticed this foreign flashlight sitting on their kitchen counter right away. It would be one of the first things that the Ramseys would have pointed out to the police. "There is a big flashlight sitting in our kitchen which doesn't belong in this house!! It must belong to the kidnapper!!"

Is that what the Ramseys said to the cops right away?

 

[Segnosaur]

The flashlight was in their home, it had no fingerprints on the item when tested.

That seems unusual to me. No fingerprints at all? Was it not examined for fibers? Any DNA swabbing? Were the batteries checked for fingerprints?

Technically, I don't know if its correct to say that it had "no fingerprints". Its probably more accurate to say "It had no prints of value". It may have had partial prints that didn't have enough detail for analysis, but that somehow gets translated to "it had no prints and was wiped clean".

If this flashlight was brought and left by a murderous intruder it immediately becomes very important evidence. The Ramseys told the cops that it wasn't theirs. They must have noticed this foreign flashlight sitting on their kitchen counter right away. It would be one of the first things that the Ramseys would have pointed out to the police. "There is a big flashlight sitting in our kitchen which doesn't belong in this house!! It must belong to the kidnapper!!"
Is that what the Ramseys said to the cops right away?

From what I understand, the flashlight was initially noticed by police. Whether that is significant or not is debatable. (I'm sure those claiming "inside job" would probably come up with some sort of explanation... "They were just waiting for the right time!")

At this point, we don't know the significance of the flashlight. It may have been brought in by an intruder, and just left there when on the way out the door. If you believe the "inside job" theory, it was in the house all along. There are also allegations that it was just something one of the cops left (although many dispute that, suggesting all police equipment must be marked.)

We also don't know if the flashlight was the murder weapon or not. It is probably the most common theory (either used by an intruder, or one of the Ramseys), but there are other possibilities... For example, a baseball bat was found outside in the yard that had fibers matching carpeting from the house. Now that in itself is not proof (since the bat could have been left outside by one of the kids). Just one of the many mysteries of the case.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon031300.htm

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Which doesn't really help the "insider/staged" theory much. After all, the Ramseys were supposedly criminal masterminds, able to keep their cool under questioning by police, and smart enough to stage the break in.... Yet get confused over removing the tape?

Kept their cool under questioning by the police? They went to considerable effort to minimize their contacts with the police.

From what I understand, JonBenet's doctor found no evidence of any abuse. If it was happening, you'd expect some sort marks.

But every other doctor DID find evidence of prior sexual abuse.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

A few items that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread:
1) JonBenet suffered a severe head injury from being struck on the head by a hard object. Somewhere between 45 minutes and 2 hours later, she was strangled.
2) There apparently are no known other cases in the US in which both the victim's body and the ransom note were left in the house where the victim lived.
3) The Ramsey family lived in a large (4-story) house which, like most mansions, had an individualized layout.
4) JonBenet was re-dressed and covered after the strangulation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Which doesn't really help the "insider/staged" theory much. After all, the Ramseys were supposedly criminal masterminds, able to keep their cool under questioning by police, and smart enough to stage the break in.... Yet get confused over removing the tape?

Kept their cool under questioning by the police? They went to considerable effort to minimize their contacts with the police.

First of all, they actually had considerable contact with the police early in the investigation. It wasn't until AFTER the police took an adversarial role that they stopped cooperating, and even then they still maintained contacts with police that they trusted.

Secondly, despite their 'minimizing contacts', they still had themselves submitted to multiple days of 1 on 1 interviews. (Perhaps not as early as the cops wanted, but they still had their crack at them.)

Multiple days of intense questioning, and neither of them 'cracked'.

But every other doctor DID find evidence of prior sexual abuse.

Uhh.. proof? First I ever heard of that.

The only sexual abuse claim I've heard of is that possibly the murder penetrated her with a finger (and even that is not proven beyond doubt.) I have never heard of any claim or seen any evidence that there was any sort of long term history of sexual abuse.

 

[Segnosaur]

A few items that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread:
1) JonBenet suffered a severe head injury from being struck on the head by a hard object. Somewhere between 45 minutes and 2 hours later, she was strangled.

Do you have proof of that particular time line (the 45-2 hour difference between being hit and being strangled)? I've never seen any reports that have managed to come up with such a timeline.

2) There apparently are no known other cases in the US in which both the victim's body and the ransom note were left in the house where the victim lived.

That may or may not be true. But its hardly evidence of anything.

We've certainly seen cases where kidnappers leave notes and the children are found dead afterwards with little or no regard (the Lindberg baby for example).

3) The Ramsey family lived in a large (4-story) house which, like most mansions, had an individualized layout.

Being a large house means that an intruder has more ability to hide and work without being heard, since the basement was so far from the bedrooms.

Not sure how relevant the "individualized layout" is. Its still a house. A big house maybe, but its not like a maze where you expect to find cheese at the end. 5 minutes would probably be enough to orient any intruder to the house's layout, regardless of how unique it was.

4) JonBenet was re-dressed and covered after the strangulation.

Never heard anything about her being 're-dressed'. Got proof of that?

Now, her body was covered with a blanket. But, when a body is found that's been killed by someone known to the victim, the covering is usually careful and deliberate. The blanket covering JonBenet was just thrown over her randomly (with some of her limbs sticking out). Its more of a "I don't care about her, I just don't want to look at her" sort of thing. Granted, its not hard proof, but it is a strong trend in these sorts of cases.

 

[Vortigern99]

I've read pages 2 and 3 of this thread, and I've visited a few websites to re-acquaint myself with the facts of the case.

It occurs to me that the "Burke did it/the Ramsays covered it up" theorists are ignoring a key piece of evidence: namely, the DNA results found in 2008. From Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy's letter to John Ramsay:

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....​

The "Male DNA" was also found under JonBenet's fingernails, and did not match either of the Ramsay males. This is so clearly exculpatory on the Ramsays' part that I wonder how any reasonable person can cling to the notion that the Ramsays are/were guilty of the crime.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Do you have proof of that particular time line (the 45-2 hour difference between being hit and being strangled)? I've never seen any reports that have managed to come up with such a timeline.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html "We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain."

That may or may not be true. But its hardly evidence of anything.

We've certainly seen cases where kidnappers leave notes and the children are found dead afterwards with little or no regard (the Lindberg baby for example).

Not evidence of anything? IMHO, it adds weight to the belief that this was a murder that was afterwards made to look like a kidnapping. But perhaps the intruder was just really stupid and didn't think that the parents would search the house.

Being a large house means that an intruder has more ability to hide and work without being heard, since the basement was so far from the bedrooms.

Not sure how relevant the "individualized layout" is. Its still a house. A big house maybe, but its not like a maze where you expect to find cheese at the end. 5 minutes would probably be enough to orient any intruder to the house's layout, regardless of how unique it was.

It still required a large amount of time, which seems risky for a criminal. Then again, I'm not a criminal so maybe criminals wouldn't think like I do.

Never heard anything about her being 're-dressed'. Got proof of that?

Now, her body was covered with a blanket. But, when a body is found that's been killed by someone known to the victim, the covering is usually careful and deliberate. The blanket covering JonBenet was just thrown over her randomly (with some of her limbs sticking out). Its more of a "I don't care about her, I just don't want to look at her" sort of thing. Granted, its not hard proof, but it is a strong trend in these sorts of cases.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

Hard to come up with any other conclusion if she was molested with the paint brush handle but found wearing underpants and leggings.

 

[Segnosaur]

It occurs to me that the "Burke did it/the Ramsays covered it up" theorists are ignoring a key piece of evidence: namely, the DNA results found in 2008. From Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy's letter to John Ramsay:

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....​

The "Male DNA" was also found under JonBenet's fingernails, and did not match either of the Ramsay males. This is so clearly exculpatory on the Ramsays' part that I wonder how any reasonable person can cling to the notion that the Ramsays are/were guilty of the crime.

I think the reason why the DNA on the clothes is often ignored is due to 2 factors:
- Some tests were done on new/just out of the packaging, and it was found to have unknown male DNA on it too.
- It was done using tests that used a lower set of standards

The DNA under her fingernails should be a little harder to ignore. (Does anyone know whether the DNA under her fingernails was ever compared to that on her clothes?)

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Uhh.. proof? First I ever heard of that.

The only sexual abuse claim I've heard of is that possibly the murder penetrated her with a finger (and even that is not proven beyond doubt.) I have never heard of any claim or seen any evidence that there was any sort of long term history of sexual abuse.

What I was referring to was the finding that she had been sexually abused prior to the day of the murder. Taking from statements that a former Boulder police chief made to a college class.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html "Based on evidence of prior damage to her vagina and hymen, experts told us there was evidence of prior abuse. "

 

[Strawberry]

What I was referring to was the finding that she had been sexually abused prior to the day of the murder. Taking from statements that a former Boulder police chief made to a college class.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html "Based on evidence of prior damage to her vagina and hymen, experts told us there was evidence of prior abuse. "

Prior abuse is a bit ambiguous. Does he mean immediately prior to the murder, or prior to the night of the murder?

 

[Segnosaur]

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html "We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain."

Ok, looks like this originally came from reddit. But lets say that its right. (I don't have a reason to doubt it came from someone from the police.) Overall, I do think its strange that all this information is coming out only through an on-line interview with a policeman involved in the case. You would figure it would be something released through more official channels.

However, lets say there was a significant amount of time between the head wound and the strangulation. That does not exclude an intruder, since:
- I suspect there is a significant amount of leeway in these figures.
- The layout of the house would have let an intruder have a significant amount of time (even hours) in a location that was isolated enough so that he would remain undetected.

Re: The note found in the same house that the body was

That may or may not be true. But its hardly evidence of anything.

We've certainly seen cases where kidnappers leave notes and the children are found dead afterwards with little or no regard (the Lindberg baby for example).

Not evidence of anything? IMHO, it adds weight to the belief that this was a murder that was afterwards made to look like a kidnapping.

No, it doesn't.

As I pointed out before, there have been cases where a ransom note was found, and the victim was located a short distance from the property.

All that this (meaning the note and body found in the same house) suggests is that the intruder changed his plans while inside the house.

But perhaps the intruder was just really stupid and didn't think that the parents would search the house.

Why would an intruder care? This was not an attempted kidnapping for financial gain. It was likely a combination of a desire to harm the Ramseys for some slight (real or imagined), with a little bit of pedophilia or similar sexual issues thrown in. Once JonBenet was dead, what happened next was irrelevant.

Being a large house means that an intruder has more ability to hide and work without being heard, since the basement was so far from the bedrooms.

It still required a large amount of time, which seems risky for a criminal. Then again, I'm not a criminal so maybe criminals wouldn't think like I do.

It is risky. But its certainly not unprecidented. After all, Dennis Rader (the BTK Killer) waited around in the apartment of a victim.

Since we don't know who the intruder would have been, we really have no idea what his mental state was. Perhaps he enjoyed the risk as part of the anticipation. Perhaps he knew enough about the Ramsey's lifestyle and house to think the risks would be minimal.

Never heard anything about her being 're-dressed'. Got proof of that?

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

Hard to come up with any other conclusion if she was molested with the paint brush handle but found wearing underpants and leggings.

[/QUOTE]
When you said 're-dressed', I assume you meant the killer went and obtained a new outfit.

Overall, I don't think its surprising that the underpants were still on. First of all, whether there was any sort of sexual abuse or penetration (and if there was, what was used) is still unknown. Secondly, even if the killer did do some penetration, he would not have had to remove any of her clothes, only pulled them down (partly).

What I was referring to was the finding that she had been sexually abused prior to the day of the murder. Taking from statements that a former Boulder police chief made to a college class.

http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html "Based on evidence of prior damage to her vagina and hymen, experts told us there was evidence of prior abuse. "

There were also experts who have said that there was no evidence of prior abuse. For example, Richard Krugman of the Univerisity of Colorado. Even the FBI thought there was no evidence of prior abuse.

 

[Vortigern99]

I think the reason why the DNA on the clothes is often ignored is due to 2 factors:
- Some tests were done on new/just out of the packaging, and it was found to have unknown male DNA on it too.
- It was done using tests that used a lower set of standards

The DNA under her fingernails should be a little harder to ignore. (Does anyone know whether the DNA under her fingernails was ever compared to that on her clothes?)

Okay, but I mean no one is discussing these things, preferring instead to focus on irrelevant or low-yield minutiae such as conjecture as to when the deceased ate pineapple, and how a parent would/would not react on discovering a ransom note and/or body. We can all hypothesize on that stuff for decades, as has been done, with no solid conclusions drawn.

It seems to me the material evidence -- DNA of an unknown male under the deceased's fingernails -- entirely exculpates the brother. That it is being ignored raises questions about the biases of the "Burke did it" theorists.

 

[CORed]

First of all, do you have any proof that all (or even a significant majority) of police forces label items like flashlights? I can certainly see them doing so for things like guns/tasers, but a harmless and relatively low cost item like a flashlight would seem like unnecessary overkill for many police forces.

Secondly, this illustrates a major problem with the whole "insider theory"... the Ramseys are smart enough to realize "The flashlight may have evidence... we have to sterilize it", but somehow aren't smart enough to realize that it would also look suspicious to not dispose of the writing pad. Or if they are getting rid of evidence like the roll of tape, why not get rid of the flashlight while they're at it?


Still a problem, because the flashlight (if it indeed belonged to the Ramseys) would be in a different room that the train materials. You'd have to come up with a plausible scenario to explain how Burke would have had easy access to both. (Not to mention a scenario that would get her to the basement in the first place.)


Granted, Dr. Phil isn't exactly a paragon of moral virtue, but given some of the information presented by CBS (As described here) appears to be absolute bunk, I wouldn't exactly say CBS has the high ground either.

The 'stun gun' theory was originally put forward by Lou Smit, a retired police detective who was asked to investigate the case by the District Attourney. Smitt had a very solid reputation, having worked on many high profile cases. He should have adequate knowledge to identify the marks that would be left by a stun gun.

And stun guns can leave marks on the skin, perhaps not in all cases, but it does happen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12762539

Or: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/searching-the-stun-gun-theory/
Dr. Michael Dobersen, a stun gun expert and coroner for neighboring Arapahoe County, also believes the marks on JonBenet were left by a stun gun. To prove it, he used one on the skin of an anesthetized pig. "The marks are similar in size, shape and color and are a certain distance apart," he says.

Once again... evidence shows that JonBenet was still alive when the garrot was used. If Burke did hit JonBenet and contributed to her death, not only would the parents have to act to cover up the murder, they would have to strangle their still living daughter as part of the cover up, rather than actually getting her medical attention.

Well, it's somewhat plausible that the parents mistakenly believed JonBenet was dead when they put the garrote on her.

OTOH, the garrote is problematic for the notion that Burke killed her with a blow to the head, and the parents staged the murder scene and ransom note in an effort to cover it up. It seems like a ridiculous bit of overkill. Binding her with duct tape would be adequate to support a kidnap and murder by an intruder scenario.

I still tend to favor the notion that John, Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet (with Burke being the least likely of the three), but the garrote seems more like some sort of strange sexual abuse or torture gone wrong than window dressing for a coverup of death by a blow to the head.

 

[kwill]

There was a ransom note that threatened beheading & warned not to call the cops. The mom called the cops and didn't mention that she'd been threatened in this way. The cops arrived less than 10 minutes later and parked in front of the house.

I get that it was chaotic and utterly bizarre and horrifying ... but the failure of the parents to take that warning seriously enough to mention it is one of the things on the they're-lying pile for me.

 

[CORed]

Okay, but I mean no one is discussing these things, preferring instead to focus on irrelevant or low-yield minutiae such as conjecture as to when the deceased ate pineapple, and how a parent would/would not react on discovering a ransom note and/or body. We can all hypothesize on that stuff for decades, as has been done, with no solid conclusions drawn.

It seems to me the material evidence -- DNA of an unknown male under the deceased's fingernails -- entirely exculpates the brother. That it is being ignored raises questions about the biases of the "Burke did it" theorists.

The DNA evidence is certainly the bet evidence, in fact the only significant evidence in support of the murderer being somebody other than a family member. However, I don't find it conclusive.

It's clearly one of the strangest cases in recent history (if 20 years ago still counts as recent). The ransom note is perhaps the strangest part. It really doesn't make sense whether the killer was a family member or an intruder.

 

[Vortigern99]

There was a ransom note that threatened beheading & warned not to call the cops. The mom called the cops and didn't mention that she'd been threatened in this way. The cops arrived less than 10 minutes later and parked in front of the house.

I get that it was chaotic and utterly bizarre and horrifying ... but the failure of the parents to take that warning seriously enough to mention it is one of the things on the they're-lying pile for me.

But this is just conjecture based on your (understandably) limited subjective interpretation of what another person might have done under circumstances that are outside your experience.

More to the point, there was unknown male DNA under the deceased's fingernails. Would you care to address that in light of your favoring the Ramsays' involvement?

 

[Lerxst]

There was a ransom note that threatened beheading & warned not to call the cops. The mom called the cops and didn't mention that she'd been threatened in this way. The cops arrived less than 10 minutes later and parked in front of the house.

I get that it was chaotic and utterly bizarre and horrifying ... but the failure of the parents to take that warning seriously enough to mention it is one of the things on the they're-lying pile for me.

This isn't the movies. Ask yourself what you would do in the same situation. Threat or no threat I would call the police.

 

[Vortigern99]

The DNA evidence is certainly the bet evidence, in fact the only significant evidence in support of the murderer being somebody other than a family member. However, I don't find it conclusive.

It's clearly one of the strangest cases in recent history (if 20 years ago still counts as recent). The ransom note is perhaps the strangest part. It really doesn't make sense whether the killer was a family member or an intruder.

It's certainly the strongest evidence that the perpetrator was someone other than a family member. Compared to this physical, material evidence, any theories as to how or why one of the family members might have done it are weak.