Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Segnosaur]

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.

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.

Ah yes, a pointless nitpick by someone who wants to deflect from the main point of a post.

Ok, most kidnappers are probably caught. So what? The main point was that the goal of the unsub in this case was causing harm... not financial gain.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

The only "evidence" that you've provided of an intruder is that there must have been an intruder because there was a murder.

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.

That the police didn't find any traces is proof that they weren't looking for traces?

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.)

Yes, I was aware of that hair, and I am also aware that it was determined not to be a pubic hair. And that the DNA test showed that it came from someone in JBR's mother's family.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

It's beyond me why you think that no one over the age of 30 watches these movies. What it boils down to is that you're making a completely unsubstantiated assumption simply because it provides "evidence" for your scenario.

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).

You're making assumptions strictly based on your own personal experience.

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.

How widely is it assumed?

In "Dirty Harry", the ransom note says "she dies" rather than "she will die.". Same with the JBR ransom note. In "Dirty Harry", the girl was already dead. In the case of JBR?

 

[Segnosaur]

If you can't come up with a plausible narrative how something could have happened (such as how 9/11 was an inside job, or one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet) then by default you should accept the alternative (that an intruder was involved), regardless of whatever biases you might have.

I disagree very strongly with that; you seem to be saying "If you don't know, then you must accept any alternative explanation". That's the whole foundation of a lot of really bad thinking. "I don't know what caused the noise, therefore ghost".

Fine, if you want to nitpick, I should have said:
f you can't come up with a plausible narrative how something could have happened (such as how 9/11 was an inside job, or one of the Ramseys killed JonBenet) then by default you should accept the alternative (that an intruder was involved), regardless of whatever biases you might have, As long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

When going counter to a widely understood and accepted explanation, I think there's some obligation to provide a plausible narrative. But not so much when no one else knows exactly what happened either.

Even if nobody knows exactly what happened, it should still be possible to construct a narrative. Heck, the unknowns may actually HELP since a possible explanation doesn't have to be perfect and leaves some wiggle room..

And on a side note, is it actually hard to come up with a plausible narrative?

Well, nobody here has posted any sort of plausible narrative for an insider theory, either for the "Burke did it" or the "Parents did it" theories.

We did get one poster saying "One was given in the documentary", but for some reason they chose not to share it with us here. Another poster pointed to one given in an online article, but that particular reference didn't exactly cover all the evidence, and left out items of significance.

I don't have any opinion on the case either way, but it doesn't seem terribly implausible. Let's say...kid's mother loses it at her and bashes her/throws her, something. Panics, thinks kid is dead and stashes the kid in the basement. Decides to try to make it look like a kidnapping. Writes note. Tries to make it look like kid was deliberately murdered/kidnapped. Makes a quick run outside to throw away tape somewhere.

Likely? Eh, beats me. Rational? Probably not particularly, but again, neither is killing a kid in the first place. Plausible? I think it probably is.

Ok, that's a start. But somewhere along there you have to explain things like the marks on the body, what the role of the father was (was he a participant, or was he kept in the dark)? And what was she hit with. the Flashlight or Some other item? And what would be the cause of the initial anger by Patsy?

Ok, then, lets say you actually come up with a narrative, you then have to look at probabilities. The Outsider theory has gotten criticized because certain people think "its bizarre". Fine, some elements do seem weird. But then, if you are claiming "insider" you have to look up all the things that are bizarre with that theory...
- That a parent that has shown no sign of abusing their kid all of a sudden snaps? , and even shows a willingness to strangle and sexually molest her as part of the cover up? (Yes, parents kill their children, but that type of snapping would be very bizarre indeed)
- That a middle age woman would write a note that referenced various action movies, despite the target audience being young men?
- That a parent would kill their child and leave them covered with a blanket, when statistically most cases where people kill love ones they tend to be more careful with wrapping the body.
- That a mother who is so prone to panic that she'd feel the need to molest her daughter would somehow manage to stand up to hours of police questioning without once slipping up?
- that the mother, so prone to panic over killing the daughter, would have the mental capacity to sit down and compose a ransom note, considering most people would be rather frazzled at that point.

So, as strange as certain elements of the "invader theory" are, once you start trying to build an "insider theory" you end up with just as many if not more strange things.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.


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.

It's just as credible to argue that people tend to watch movies from their own generation. Men who were 20-something in 1996 were either not yet born when "Dirty Harry" was released or would have been too young to know or remember it (and far too young to have actually seen it). "Dirty Harry" was from the Ramsey's generation; in fact, JR was a 20-something man when it was released.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

non-intimate cohabitation and DNA transfer

Edit: Patsy's sister Pam told Steve Thomas that JonBenet played hard, always had dirt under her fingernails, and wouldn't let you trim them. That makes it even less surprising that she would have collected random DNA under her fingernails.

WayneK,

I am not sure. There was one study (Nakanishi, Legal Medicine 5 (2003) S194–S197) on the effect of the environment on obtaining DNA from nails. Wet soil gave the highest degradation rate, and the authors speculated that nucleases from bacteria were the cause. However, IIUC only self DNA was studied, and the degradation rates in this experiment were very slow.

I am still reviewing the literature. However here is a quote from Matte et al. (Forensic Sciences International, Genetics, 2012): "Additionally it is important to note that of individuals who cohabited non-intimately, their household members were excluded as the source of the foreign DNA profiles detected, which suggests that sharing a household environment and common household items is not likely to result in the transfer of DNA beneath the fingernails and that it is unlikely that casual contact, for example a handshake, will result in foreign DNA under the fingernails. This supports the inference that intimate and close physical contact with someone or with a foreign body fluid is required for fingernails to retain foreign DNA."

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

Does it take talent and smarts to not only leave no trace behind but also be completely confident that you aren't leaving any trace behind? After all, the intruder left behind the ransom note, the notepad, the pen, and the strangulation device; 4 items which the intruder handled that he could have taken with him without any problem but felt no qualms about leaving behind. If the flashlight was used, that would make 5 items. He also went to the trouble of putting JBR's underpants and leggings back on and covering her with a blanket, all things that were absolutely unnecessary and would have provided some risk of leaving a trace behind if he hadn't taken any precautions. To me, to have done all this and been confident of leaving no evidence behind reflects some amount of forethought.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

.
- That a parent that has shown no sign of abusing their kid all of a sudden snaps? , and even shows a willingness to strangle and sexually molest her as part of the cover up? (Yes, parents kill their children, but that type of snapping would be very bizarre indeed)

As I stated in another post, a childhood friend of mine showed no signs of abusing his wife, to the point that even after he killed her his wife's sister continued to make a point of what a great husband he had been for her sister. But one day he did "snap" and kill her.

- That a middle age woman would write a note that referenced various action movies, despite the target audience being young men?

A groundless assertion. There is no justification for assuming that someone who wasn't even born when these movies were made would be more likely to have seen them then someone who would have been a teenager when they were released. And even were it valid, it provides no evidence that she didn't see the movies. Young men are more likely to drive fast then middle aged men are. I'm middle aged and I've gotten 2 speeding tickets in the last 2 years.

- That a parent would kill their child and leave them covered with a blanket, when statistically most cases where people kill love ones they tend to be more careful with wrapping the body.

Seems a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? Though it isn't a particularly accurate. According to John Ramsey, "Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm." and "It was like an Indian papoose."

How many murderers cover the victim at all (except to hide the body)?

- That a mother who is so prone to panic that she'd feel the need to molest her daughter would somehow manage to stand up to hours of police questioning without once slipping up?

Strawman argument. An insider theory does not require PR to have molested JBR.

- that the mother, so prone to panic over killing the daughter, would have the mental capacity to sit down and compose a ransom note, considering most people would be rather frazzled at that point.

Where does this "prone to panic" come from?

As I stated in another post, this is the only known case where the victim's body and the ransom note were both left in the house in which the victim lived. This means that your scenario involves something with such a low probability of happening that it had in fact never happened before. But you toss out other scenarios because they require something "bizarre" (at least in your opinion).

 

[DragonLady]

Does it take talent and smarts to not only leave no trace behind but also be completely confident that you aren't leaving any trace behind? After all, the intruder left behind the ransom note, the notepad, the pen, and the strangulation device; 4 items which the intruder handled that he could have taken with him without any problem but felt no qualms about leaving behind. If the flashlight was used, that would make 5 items. He also went to the trouble of putting JBR's underpants and leggings back on and covering her with a blanket, all things that were absolutely unnecessary and would have provided some risk of leaving a trace behind if he hadn't taken any precautions. To me, to have done all this and been confident of leaving no evidence behind reflects some amount of forethought.

As I pointed out upstream, there have been intruders who have lived in houses, alongside their occupants, for months.

If the intruder was someone who had spent a lot of previous time in the house, it's possible fingerprints were found but eliminated because they belonged to someone who had been granted access in the past.

 

[Desert Fox]

WayneK,

I am not sure. There was one study (Nakanishi, Legal Medicine 5 (2003) S194–S197) on the effect of the environment on obtaining DNA from nails. Wet soil gave the highest degradation rate, and the authors speculated that nucleases from bacteria were the cause. However, IIUC only self DNA was studied, and the degradation rates in this experiment were very slow.

I am still reviewing the literature. However here is a quote from Matte et al. (Forensic Sciences International, Genetics, 2012): "Additionally it is important to note that of individuals who cohabited non-intimately, their household members were excluded as the source of the foreign DNA profiles detected, which suggests that sharing a household environment and common household items is not likely to result in the transfer of DNA beneath the fingernails and that it is unlikely that casual contact, for example a handshake, will result in foreign DNA under the fingernails. This supports the inference that intimate and close physical contact with someone or with a foreign body fluid is required for fingernails to retain foreign DNA."

Kids often have sticky hands. . . .I don't know what is involved in that but it makes me think it might be more likely for DNA to get transferred including under nails.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

As I pointed out upstream, there have been intruders who have lived in houses, alongside their occupants, for months.

If the intruder was someone who had spent a lot of previous time in the house, it's possible fingerprints were found but eliminated because they belonged to someone who had been granted access in the past.

The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes. Segnosaur contends this guy was an intruder who was an unsophisticated 20-ish male who watched action movies. This unsub was stupid when it is necessary to explain unlikely acts (such as leaving the notepad and pen behind) and "tidy" for replacing the items where he found them, yet "confident" because he did not leave a trace of himself, even though he rifled through documents to locate paystubs the Ramseys left out, (but not bank statements, because you see the Ramseys only left out some private information.)

He had hours to wander around the house, hours to wait after cracking her in the skull, at least 1/2 hour to write the ransom note, not including the practice notes. But he did not have enough time to retrieve the ransom note he no longer needed, even though it was a huge clue about him.

He knew John Ramsey well because "allusions are made to JR's background" but not well enough to know he had millions. He had a vendetta against JR, but he'd rather torture and murder the girl because he had "curiosity/compulsion about the female body."

He was dumb enough to screw up what was originally a kidnapping, even though his original plan was to take her out of the house. He had a desire to torture JBR but not kill her. His stupidity kept him from realizing she would not wake up, but he garroted her anyway, because... why not? At the same time, he was clever enough not to get caught after he screwed up the kidnapping and left a dead body in the house and a ransom note the likes of which had never been seen in a kidnapping in history.

When you have to go to these lengths to force the puzzle pieces to fit, I say you are working on the wrong puzzle.

 

[Elagabalus]

The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes. Segnosaur contends this guy was an intruder who was an unsophisticated 20-ish male who watched action movies. This unsub was stupid when it is necessary to explain unlikely acts (such as leaving the notepad and pen behind) and "tidy" for replacing the items where he found them, yet "confident" because he did not leave a trace of himself, even though he rifled through documents to locate paystubs the Ramseys left out, (but not bank statements, because you see the Ramseys only left out some private information.)

He had hours to wander around the house, hours to wait after cracking her in the skull, at least 1/2 hour to write the ransom note, not including the practice notes. But he did not have enough time to retrieve the ransom note he no longer needed, even though it was a huge clue about him.

He knew John Ramsey well because "allusions are made to JR's background" but not well enough to know he had millions. He had a vendetta against JR, but he'd rather torture and murder the girl because he had "curiosity/compulsion about the female body."

He was dumb enough to screw up what was originally a kidnapping, even though his original plan was to take her out of the house. He had a desire to torture JBR but not kill her. His stupidity kept him from realizing she would not wake up, but he garroted her anyway, because... why not? At the same time, he was clever enough not to get caught after he screwed up the kidnapping and left a dead body in the house and a ransom note the likes of which had never been seen in a kidnapping in history.

When you have to go to these lengths to force the puzzle pieces to fit, I say you are working on the wrong puzzle.

Or the wrong assumptions.


Here's the overview of the options from websleuths in all its glory:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461/December 26

They even quote a certain Henrietta McPhee on one page.

John Douglas doesn't think it was a kidnapping.

 

[Hard Cheese]

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.

If they had a screen in their bedroom why would they only be watching movies that Patsy liked? Surely John would get to choose as well, they might well watch a fair number of action movies, whether Patsy liked them or not.

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

I would put it to you that a large proportion of men from 15-60 would enjoy both Speed and Dirty Harry, and probably more women than you give credit for. Clint Eastwood has the reputation as having a lot of sex appeal for women.

Anyway, Dirty Harry is a classic of the genre. If you're a movie buff in general you are likely to be familiar with all kinds of films across all kinds of genres. I would even put it to you that a movie involving kidnapping would be, for someone not used to writing ransom notes (i.e. 99.99% of the population), their only point of reference for the kidnapping process. So if you had to make a ransom note up on the spot, your only source of information (or the first thing that comes into your head) may be what you can recall from a movie.

 

[DragonLady]

The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes.

I disagree, because I think the timeline/narrative is a bit backwards.

I suspect the intruder was someone close enough to the family that his fingerprints would not be suspicious, anywhere. I suspect he probably had a key, and used it.

I think he cooked up the idea to kidnap the little girl, let himself into the house, found the paper and wrote the note.
Then he went looking for her; but I think the plan went awry when she found HIM. He was already jumpy and on edge, so he freaked and clocked her with something -possibly the flashlight, especially if he was using it to navigate the household.
He realized he'd lost his note, the little girl was unconscious, he had no clue what to do next and really muddied the water just trying to figure out how to get back to the original plan.
I think he molested her, then decided that things were just FUBAR, so he killed her, tossed a blanket over her and ran for the hills.

Terrible thing is: the muddy waters have made it impossible at this point to really determine who or exactly how it was done at this stage. No matter who we offer up, there will always be room for reasonable doubt.

In the meantime the killer is likely still out there, and quite possibly has made other victims -or will before it's all over.

 

[Hard Cheese]

I suspect the intruder was someone close enough to the family that his fingerprints would not be suspicious, anywhere. I suspect he probably had a key, and used it.

That would be a pretty short suspect list, wouldn't it? Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

There is an interesting opinion about this on the internet:

"In "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas, he writes about the spelling errors in the ransom note in the Lindberg kidnapping case. Example: We have warned you note to make anyding public also notify the police now you have to take consequences--
There, most of the errors he attributes to the writer not being a native english speaker. Getting the difficult words correct, he attributes to the writer using a dictionary for them.
We've speculated in the past that Z was a true crime buff. Perhaps he had read the Lindberg notes and took a similar approach. Deliberately misspelling easy words, but getting the difficult ones correct."

 

[Henri McPhee]

That would be a pretty short suspect list, wouldn't it? Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?

This matter of a key has been explained by Patsy in the past. Fleet and Priscilla White used a key to get into the Ramsey house:

Fleet and Priscilla White were given a key to the Boulder Ramsey house. This is part of a transcript from the Patsy Ramsey interview with the Boulder police in 1997:

"PRCoughing, response unknown) Excuse me. Uh, my cleaning lady had a key, Linda. The Barnhills I believe actually gave two keys, because I had given her one and she couldn’t find it. I think I gave them another one? Uh, Barbara Fernie had one at one time, I’m not sure. I think I might have gotten that back from her. Priscilla had one I believe. Uh ...

ST: Does Priscilla still have that key?

PR: I don’t know. I can’t remember. It seems like I gave it to her before we went to the lake, because she was going to have a lot of house guest and I thought if she wanted to, you know, use the house for any reason she could have the key.

ST: What is the status of the key or keys that you gave the Barnhills?

PR: The status right now?

ST: Yeah. Have you gotten those back?

PR: I haven’t, no, I don’t know where they are. I don’t know what the status is of those?

ST: Would it be inaccurate if the Barnhills were saying that they returned the key to you? Could that be possible?

PR: Um, it could be possible I guess. I don’t remember, and I think, I think I gave it to them and the intent was if I got, anybody got locked out of the house they would have a key. So I don’t, I mean, it wasn’t like, you know, keep this for two days and then give it back to me or something, you know."

 

[Azrael 5]

Isn't the ransom note the most dumbest thing?
What killer/s hang around to write a three page essay asking for ransom and also why bother not kidnapping the child dead or not?
Whoever killed her that to me is the strange part.

 

[BStrong]

Ah yes, a pointless nitpick by someone who wants to deflect from the main point of a post.

Ok, most kidnappers are probably caught. So what? The main point was that the goal of the unsub in this case was causing harm... not financial gain.

It establishes that kidnapping as a rule is the purview of the amateur or the deviant, not the garden variety bad actor.

Kidnapping comes up in certain other types of situations too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-c...napped-new-york-woman-admits-killing-the-boy/

My .02 remains the same as it was in my first post - plausible explanation provided in the CBS documentary.

The crime was a horrible confluence of bad decision making by everyone involved, and there's no popular fiction master villain anywhere in the mix.

 

[DragonLady]

Who was known to have a key to their house, and if so, how did they get it?

Apparently there were a bunch of keys floating around. I don't know if they knew this particular individual had one, and maybe he didn't. I just think it's possible he either found a spare key, or was given one at some point.

I think he was someone who was in the house often enough (whether anyone knew he was there or not) that he was comfortable wandering around touching things, and that he was close enough to the family that his prints were strewn in enough places they didn't stand out.

Someone like an extended family member, an occasional babysitter, a temporary or seasonal worker -someone who was known to the family, and had at least occasional legitimate access.