Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Elagabalus]

... It is thought that Patsy did not change her clothes from the night before, because she was busy dealing with the tragedy that had occurred overnight. The fibers from her jacket were on the tape because she was involved.

She got hammered and slept in her clothes?

Tape rolls, in general, still have a little stickiness because the edge exposes both the tape film and the adhesive backing even when rolled up. Duct tape especially so because its fabric base tends to fray(on the edge).

...Lin Wood was hired early on and the Ramseys would only answer questions if the police sent them to their lawyer in writing. Would you do this if that had been your daughter? ...

Yes, with the entire MSM in a feeding frenzy and proclaiming that I'm the killer, Yes, I would (if I had the money). Would I do this if JBR was still missing? No.

Unfortunately, she was found dead. Now there is just a hostile Police Force and media onslaught to deal with. Remember 1996? Hard Copy? Stone Phillips and numerous other salacious "news" shows? I remember watching Larry King interviewing some correspondent from Newsweek or Time with the reporter boldly stating that an intruder could not have come into the house unless the intruder had "levitated" because there was snow everywhere and s/he would have left footprints.

That turned out to be not the case.

 

[Elagabalus]

If they understood the way the legal system works, I don't blame them for insulating themselves with lawyers whether guilty or innocent. Cos can often get a person to make incriminating statements even when innocent.
Edit: I am not passing judgement in this post if they are innocent or guilty, just addressing one point.

Same reason why lawyers on youtube tell you not to talk to the police and not to take a polygraph. Even if you are innocent.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The idea of someone getting a head wound and "waking up" hours later is extremely common in popular culture (even though it is not medically accurate). I can probably point to a dozen TV shows/movies that had characters knocked out, and a few hours later are walking around with nothing worse than a headache.

Once again, you seem to be falsely taking your own experiences/opinions, and extending them to include other people. The fact that you recognize that being knocked out for hours is usually fatal doesn't mean that others don't think differently.

I'll take this as a compliment - that I'm smarter than most people.

The ransom note was written and left before the murder, and before the abduction.

Evidence for this?

The original plan in my narrative was to remove JonBenet from the house. In such a scenario, a search of the house would have turned up nothing. The decision to kill JonBenet in the house was a change in plans. And after the murder, going back to pick up the ransom note may not have occurred to the killer, or he may not have cared.

This has been explained multiple times.

At no point did the killer think "I'll leave the corpse in the basement, and then write a ransom note and they'll never notice the body!".

The intruder was so smart, so talented, and so thorough that he left no trace that he had ever been in the house even though he spent several hours there, rummaging through the Ramseys' mail, writing a ransom note, and committing a murder, but found during the commission of the crime that he:
1) forgot to bring the ransom note;
2) forgot to think about how he was actually going to get JBR out of the house.
Is this correct?

Incidentally, the BTK killer was comfortable waiting in peoples' houses because he didn't care if he was discovered. He intended to kill everyone who was there anyway.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Likewise when a crime has so many indicators pointing to an inside job, it could just mean it was an inside job.

Do you have a cite? The autopsy report I have does not say any such thing. The ME does not speculate what might have caused the injury, AFAIK.

You should probably familiarize yourself with the RDI theories before you dismiss them so readily. It is thought that Patsy did not change her clothes from the night before, because she was busy dealing with the tragedy that had occurred overnight. The fibers from her jacket were on the tape because she was involved.

There were hardly any police available on the day of the murder, with whom did they sit down and answer questions?
Lin Wood was hired early on and the Ramseys would only answer questions if the police sent them to their lawyer in writing. Would you do this if that had been your daughter? As of 1/4/1997 when they went on CNN, they had not sat down with the police for formal interviews. They insulated themselves with lawyers.

Who are the police officers they spoke with and when was it?

This matter is explained by Jameson:

April 23rd, 1997
Ramsey Family Statement

MEDIA ADVISORY

Our clients, John and Patsy Ramsey, offered specifically to meet with the and Boulder police in a
formal interview on December 27, 1996 and again on January 18, 1997. Since then, we have made numerous

attempts to schedule interviews the Boulder Police Department. Yesterday at 4:00 p.m. the Boulder
Police Department canceled the separate interviews scheduled for today at 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.

We have forwarded the following letter today to the Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter.

Hal Haddon

Patrick Burke

April 23, 1997

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Alexander M. Hunter Boulder County District Attorney
Boulder County Justice Center
1777 Sixth Street
Boulder, CO 80306

Re: John and Patsy Ramsey

Dear Mr. Hunter:

By this letter, we express our profound dismay at yesterday's actions by the leadership of the Boulder

Police Department. After representatives of the Boulder Police with Department and your office
requested and agreed to a format for separate interviews of John Patsy Ramsey beginning at 9:30 a.m. today,
we were advised at approximately 4:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon that the interviews were canceled
because Boulder Police Department leadership no longer agreed to the format of the interviews -- despite
previous statements to the contrary.

When we received this information from your office yesterday, we offered to discuss any additional
matters which might facilitate the interviews but no one from the police department was willing to
even have that discussion. In view of the bizarre position of the police department, we then offered to
make Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey available this morning for separate interviews by Detective Lou Smit and any
member of the District Attorney's office who wished to attend. This offer was also declined.

This action is incomprehensible in light of the previous history of this issue. The Police Department,
directly and through a campaign of leaks and smears, has portrayed the Ramseys as unwilling to
grant police interviews or assist the investigation. Although we know this innuendo to be false, we have
avoided criticizing the police because we believed that it would only fuel a media war which would be
counterproductive to the overarching goal -- finding and prosecuting the killer of JonBenét Ramsey.
Yesterday's actions make further silence untenable.

HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RAMSEYS REGARDING TODAY'S INTERVIEWS

On Friday, April 11, 1997, John and Patsy Ramsey, with their attorneys, met with Peter Hofstrom of
your office and Tom Wickman of the Boulder Police Department. This meeting was held at Mr. Hofstrom's
request. The Ramseys were told at that meeting that they had been treated unfairly in the past and
that authorities wanted to put the investigation on a new track. They were told that "we need your help
to solve this crime." The Ramseys were asked to give interviews and continue their previous
cooperation. No conditions were placed on the manner in which the interviews would be conducted and, in fact, we
were invited to propose any conditions we considered reasonable. At that meeting, John Ramsey
immediately said that he would gladly meet with your representatives if it would help the effort to find his
daughter's killer.

The day after that meeting, Patsy Ramsey voluntarily provided a fourth handwriting sample. The
Ramseys also agreed to let authorities search their house again without a warrant; agreed to
destructive testing of materials located at their home; agreed to identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings; and
agreed to make themselves available for separate interviews on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, beginning at 9:30
a.m. The Ramseys agreed to answer any questions put to them by any investigator chosen by your office
or the Police Department. We requested that these interviews be of two hour durations, respectively, but
we were certainly flexible on time and your agencies voiced no objection to that time frame.

All the arrangements for these interviews had been made and agreed upon. John and Patsy were
anxious to participate, based on Mr. Hofstrom's representations that such interviews would assist in
apprehending the killer of their daughter. We cannot describe their anguish and disappointment when we were
forced to advise them that the police had reneged on the very interviews you earnestly requested on April 11.

PREVIOUS INTERVIEWS AND OFFERS

This episode is the latest in an inexplicable series of events which appear to be senseless efforts to
intimidate and smear the Ramseys without any valid investigative purpose. We can document that
both John and Patsy Ramsey were extensively interviewed by Boulder police, including detectives, on
December 26, 1996, the day JonBenet's body was discovered. John Ramsey answered more police
questions the next day. On doctors' directions, Patsy Ramsey was not interrogated on December 27.

What occurred next was the most insensitive and outrageous action in this case, at least to date:
Boulder police refused to release JonBenet's body for burial unless the Ramseys agreed to come to the police
station and submit to a hostile interrogation. We had to threaten legal action to obtain her release
for burial. This was the first in a series of insensitive and incomprehensible actions by the Boulder Police
Department leadership to destroy every sincere attempt to have an open and honest relationship of
trust with the Boulder Police Department.

After John and Patsy returned from the funeral, we offered to make them available for a joint
interview on January 18, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. We told the police that Patsy Ramsey was too ill to attend the
entire session but that John Ramsey would answer all questions put to him. The police declined this offer
and stated in writing that such an interview would not "be helpful" because "the time for interviewing John
and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of
our investigation has passed." The police countered with an offer that the Ramseys come to the police
station at 6 p.m. on a Friday night and subject themselves to inquisition for as long as "the nature and
quality of the information" warranted. That absurd suggestion was rejected, especially since the police did not
believe that the Ramseys possessed any "critical information."

Since that time, law enforcement authorities from several agencies have launched a cowardly smear
campaign against John and Patsy, fueled by leaks and smears attributable only to "sources." We will
no longer endure these tactics in silence. It is beyond comprehension that law enforcement authorities
prefer to leak information rather than interrogate the persons who they characterize as "suspects" in this
investigation.

It is apparent that the leadership of the Boulder Police Department lacks the objectivity and judgment

necessary to find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey. Mr. Hofstrom told John and Patsy that he wanted
their help to solve this crime. They remain willing to meet with Mr. Smit, Mr. Ainsworth or any other
members of your office to that end.

Sincerely,

Harold A. Haddon

Patrick Burke

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I would surmise that older people would have a much larger repertoire of movies they've watched than a 20 year old. Therefore they would have a much larger movie-phrase knowledge base. Dirty Harry was over 25 years old in 1996. Who do you think would be more likely to have seen it, a middle aged person or a 20 year old?

The Ramseys had a retractable movie screen in their master bedroom. I'm guessing that they watched movies from time to time.

http://www.people.com/article/jon-benet-ramsey-people-first-story-covers

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I would surmise that older people would have a much larger repertoire of movies they've watched than a 20 year old. Therefore they would have a much larger movie-phrase knowledge base. Dirty Harry was over 25 years old in 1996. Who do you think would be more likely to have seen it, a middle aged person or a 20 year old?

And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note? What 20-something man ever uses "and hence"?

 

[Henri McPhee]

And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note? What 20-something man ever uses "and hence"?

I don't think you have much practical experience in writing ransom notes. A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand. It's like people on the MacDonald case forums keep saying that "acid is groovy" is a sure sign of guilt by Jeff MacDonald when it is nothing of the sort.

Somebody is getting away with murder in the JonBenet case and it's Fleet and Priscilla White and Chris Wolf, and their associates. There is no evidence against the Ramseys, and Burke, apart from manufactured evidence and jumping to conclusions.

Patsy used the phrase 'and hence' in her Christmas card before the murder to Fleet And Priscilla White.

Detroit came close to the truth in an internet posting:

"EXACTLY. I was waiting for YOU TO SAY THAT. Patsy talked like that and FLEET KNEW IT. THAT`S WHY FLEET PUT THE PHRASE IN THE NOTE."

 

[Desert Fox]

While there are areas of the documentary that I am extremely cautious about, I think their arguments that the ransom letter is like nothing they have ever seen has value.

Whoever wrote it, I think it actually pretty intelligent and sophisticated actually.

 

[Cat Not Included]

I'll take this as a compliment - that I'm smarter than most people.



Evidence for this?



The intruder was so smart, so talented, and so thorough that he left no trace that he had ever been in the house even though he spent several hours there, rummaging through the Ramseys' mail, writing a ransom note, and committing a murder, but found during the commission of the crime that he:
1) forgot to bring the ransom note;
2) forgot to think about how he was actually going to get JBR out of the house.
Is this correct?

Incidentally, the BTK killer was comfortable waiting in peoples' houses because he didn't care if he was discovered. He intended to kill everyone who was there anyway.

Does that take talents and smarts? How much evidence was an intruder likely to leave?

So, the intruder shuffles some stuff around. Nobody is going to remember EXACTLY where every item is, especially in a house with kids that move things around without telling you.

Leaves some dirt or mud? Dirt or mud happens. How would you tell it apart from dirt left by the family (again, the KIDS) or guests or the many people entering the house to investigate?

DNA? It's not like there's a DNA tricorder. The intruder could sneeze all over the counter, but unless anyone specifically had a reason to check there, no one would ever know. And even if they did, would they have a way to sort it from all the other people that had been there?

Sherlock glancing at an out of place piece of lint and knowing exactly who the killer is doesn't happen in reality.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I don't think you have much practical experience in writing ransom notes.

Evidence for this claim?

A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand. It's like people on the MacDonald case forums keep saying that "acid is groovy" is a sure sign of guilt by Jeff MacDonald when it is nothing of the sort.

My point was that the wording of the ransom note contains phrases that are much more typical of women than of 20-something men. And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").

Somebody is getting away with murder in the JonBenet case and it's Fleet and Priscilla White and Chris Wolf, and their associates. There is no evidence against the Ramseys, and Burke, apart from manufactured evidence and jumping to conclusions.

Patsy used the phrase 'and hence' in her Christmas card before the murder to Fleet And Priscilla White.

Detroit came close to the truth in an internet posting:

"EXACTLY. I was waiting for YOU TO SAY THAT. Patsy talked like that and FLEET KNEW IT. THAT`S WHY FLEET PUT THE PHRASE IN THE NOTE."

You've argued both that Priscilla White must have written the note because it contains phrases that Patsy Ramsey claims that Priscilla White used in her presence and that Priscilla White must have written the note because it contains a phrase that Patsy Ramsey used in the presence of Priscilla White.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").

Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.

I can't tell whether this is sarcasm. I can't remember that last time that I heard or read "and hence". OK, "watching over" might be common, but not in the manner it was used in the rn: "The two gentlemen watching OVER her" as opposed to "The two gentlemen watching her". Used in the manner that "watching over" was used in the rn generally happens when the person doing the "watching over" is protective rather than guarding. (And that's not even getting into why the author found it necessary to specify that there were 2 entities "watching over her".)

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

A ransom note is almost invariably strange and difficult to understand.

Says who?

No law enforcement entity has ever seen a ransom note like the one in this case. "Most" ransom notes are short and to the point, not rambling and full of filler. Since the purpose of a ransom note is to obtain money, by nature it needs to be easy to understand, otherwise its sole purpose is defeated.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Does that take talents and smarts? How much evidence was an intruder likely to leave?

So, the intruder shuffles some stuff around. Nobody is going to remember EXACTLY where every item is, especially in a house with kids that move things around without telling you.

Leaves some dirt or mud? Dirt or mud happens. How would you tell it apart from dirt left by the family (again, the KIDS) or guests or the many people entering the house to investigate?

DNA? It's not like there's a DNA tricorder. The intruder could sneeze all over the counter, but unless anyone specifically had a reason to check there, no one would ever know. And even if they did, would they have a way to sort it from all the other people that had been there?

Sherlock glancing at an out of place piece of lint and knowing exactly who the killer is doesn't happen in reality.

How many cases of serious crimes do you know of in which the only evidence that the perpetrator even existed was that the crime was committed? Were any of these committed by common street criminals? Were any of them committed without some amount of planning? According to what I've read in the Amanda Knox threads, murderers always leave traces of themselves in the murder room.

 

[Segnosaur]

No law enforcement entity has ever seen a ransom note like the one in this case. "Most" ransom notes are short and to the point, not rambling and full of filler. Since the purpose of a ransom note is to obtain money, by nature it needs to be easy to understand, otherwise its sole purpose is defeated.

Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).

 

[BStrong]

Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).

Considering the batting average for successful kidnapping/ransom incidents in the United Sates over the past 100 years I'd take a swag that there is no such thing as an experienced kidnap/ransom artist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_in_the_United_States

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf

 

[Segnosaur]

The Ramseys had a retractable movie screen in their master bedroom. I'm guessing that they watched movies from time to time

Nobody questioned whether they watched movies. The issue was whether they (in particular Patsy Ramsey since her handwriting was the only one that could not have been ruled out as the author, even know it was far from a good match) watched the type of action movies (such as Speed, Ransom, and Dirty Harry) that were referenced in the note.

Movies like Speed and Dirty Harry appeal more to younger males. A far smaller portion middle age women like those types of movies.

So while they may have watched movies on their big movie screen, they were probably watching movies like Officer and a Gentleman (a movie that they had a poster for in the house, and one that would appeal more to a more mature demographic) than Speed and Dirty Harry.

Its such a simple argument. Not sure why it seems to be beyond you.

And what 20-something man use phrases like "Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache", "I advise you to be rested", or "I advise you not to provoke them" in a ransom note?

Simple, a 20 year old that has watched a lot of movies that are geared towards his particular demographic. I know I often quote lines from movies I've seen (although I don't always get the quotations completely accurate).

Its pretty widely assumed that phrases appearing in the note mimic phrases from various action movies very closely. The line "I advise you to be rested" was similar to a line in the movie Dirty Hairy.

Dirty Harry is a movie that appeals more to Young men than middle age women.

 

[Segnosaur]

How many cases of serious crimes do you know of in which the only evidence that the perpetrator even existed was that the crime was committed?

We've provided plenty of evidence that the unsub was an intruder. You just choose to pretend that it means something that it does not.

According to what I've read in the Amanda Knox threads, murderers always leave traces of themselves in the murder room.

Whether traces were left behind is irrelevant if the police are not actively searching for those traces. If the police are convinced that the Ramseys were involved, they won't be as intent on searching for evidence that points to an outsider. Plus, given the botched handling of the crime scene and the number of people, the killer could have left significant evidence behind but its relevance got lost due to contamination.

Did you know there were reports of an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket that was covering JonBenet? And reports of animal hair not matching anything in the house found on the tape covering her mouth?

From: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/253/1323/2567726/
Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF ¶ 183; PSMF ¶ 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF ¶ 183; PSMF ¶ 183.) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF ¶ 184; PSMF ¶ 184.)
...
a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF ¶79; PSMF ¶79.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF ¶ 80; PSMF ¶ 180.)

 

[Segnosaur]

And phrases that are more familiar to people who attend Christian churches than people who don't (e.g., "and hence", "watching over").

Are you serious? "And hence" and "watching over" are utterly mundane phrases that are used by twenty-something men, and indeed every other category of standard English speaker the world over, every second of the day.

Oh, but didn't you know? If TellyKNeasuss never uses the phrase or hears other people using it, it never happens. His experience is the only one that matters. His anecdotes apply to everyone in the world.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Most ransom notes are probably written by people who's main goal is financial (often written by people who are experienced).

In the JonBenet ramsey case, it is assumed (by, for example, former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas) that the kidnapping/murder was not done by an experienced professional with money as the goal. It was a personal cause crime, done by a younger male with the primary goal of causing harm. (If they actually managed to get money, it would probably be a bonus for them.) How the ransom note was worded reflects that... much of it was done to try to inflate the ego and reputation of the unsub (with talk of "foreign factions" and the like).

Is this the same John Douglas who wrote "So where was all the blood?
Did Patsy clean it up? And if she did, what did she do with the numerous towels and other cleaning supplies she would have needed? Did she take the car out in the middle of the night and dump them somewhere? It would be virtually impossible to clean up as much blood as would gush from a head wound of this nature and not leave traces that crime scene specialists and/or luminol would pick up.
In all of my years of investigative experience, I have never witnessed a crime scene in which the blood from a violent act could be covered up or eliminated completely." when the coroner's report stated that there was no external head wound?