Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

Venom said:
I enjoyed this article by Joe Nickell from 2017.

He summarizes his case that Burke may have been the killer. Maybe an accident.
Click to expand...
Given the fact that she was strangled with a garrote (while still alive), that seems rather strange for a kind of Burke's age to try.

It should also be noted that at least some of the evidence for the claim given in that article was that "The Ramseys were not acting normal". But this was a 2nd/3rd hand account (done in part by the police, who had been bungling the case from the beginning). And, according to the profiling books I read on the case, you can't tell much from people's reactions in a high-stress situation like a kidnapping. (Different people will react differently.)
 
The case was lost in the first few hours and it can never be recovered, imo.
Click to expand...
I agree that the case was badly bungled by the police at the start... letting family/friends wander the house, etc. And it may have caused the investigation to be sidetracked.

But lets play some alternate history... Lets say the cops did a proper search of the house before hand (and found the body themselves.) And they properly cleared the house immediately to prevent contamination. Would that have gotten them any closer to finding the killer?

Part of the problem was not lack of evidence, but too much evidence that was hard to interpret. But with it being the family home, you were always going to have issues with the family's finger prints and other evidence basically being everywhere. And some of the stuff they found that actually might be useful in tracking down a killer (such as DNA evidence) was actually collected, but they haven't linked it to anyone.

There is a very good chance that even if the cops had acted competently, the case would still be unsolved.
 
Segnosaur said:
Given the fact that she was strangled with a garrote (while still alive), that seems rather strange for a kind of Burke's age to try.

It should also be noted that at least some of the evidence for the claim given in that article was that "The Ramseys were not acting normal". But this was a 2nd/3rd hand account (done in part by the police, who had been bungling the case from the beginning). And, according to the profiling books I read on the case, you can't tell much from people's reactions in a high-stress situation like a kidnapping. (Different people will react differently.)
Click to expand...

Was it determined that she was killed by strangulation while alive?

Nickell argues that Burke may have hit her with the Maglite.
 
Venom said:
Given the fact that she was strangled with a garrote (while still alive), that seems rather strange for a kind of Burke's age to try.

It should also be noted that at least some of the evidence for the claim given in that article was that "The Ramseys were not acting normal". But this was a 2nd/3rd hand account (done in part by the police, who had been bungling the case from the beginning). And, according to the profiling books I read on the case, you can't tell much from people's reactions in a high-stress situation like a kidnapping. (Different people will react differently.)
Click to expand...
Was it determined that she was killed by strangulation while alive?
Click to expand...
Yes, and no.

The autopsy reports suggest she was strangled while alive (as opposed to the garrote being applied later, as some sort of crime staging.) It is likely that she was strangled first and then hit with the flashlight later (based on a lack of blood involved with the wound). Although the exact sequence of events can't be determined concluseively, that's the most likely scenario (plus, we know she was alive when strangled, even if she was hit first.)

Nickell argues that Burke may have hit her with the Maglite.
Click to expand...
Yes he does. But he spends a significant amount of time talking about strangulation as a form of sexual play, suggesting that Burke lured Jon Bonet to the basement in order to engage in that activity. (He didn't provide any proof that Burke had engaged in that activity, or that he even knew what it was... just that "some kids had done it".)

So, for that to have been the case, Burke would have 1) had to have known about the activity, 2) knew how to fashion a garrote, and afterwords 3) managed to avoid doing anything to reveal his crime in the many years since the murder, and 4) both parents would have been both willing and able to cover for him. You're expecting all this to have been done by a kid under 10 and 2 parents who had just lost their daughter.
 
The case is still alive!

Twenty-five years after JonBenet Ramsey was killed, police say DNA hasn’t been ruled out to help solve the case.

https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/clevel...-testing-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-investigation

Boulder police have been working closely with state investigators on “future DNA advancements,” the department said in a statement Monday addressing the anniversary of JonBenet’s death.

“As the Department continues to use new technology to enhance the investigation, it is actively reviewing genetic DNA testing processes to see if those can be applied to this case moving forward,” it said.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Just maybe?
 
Unfortunately that article is a bit short on the details of how new DNA testing might help. It just suggests that online genealogy sites might be used like they have in some other cases.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Unfortunately that article is a bit short on the details of how new DNA testing might help. It just suggests that online genealogy sites might be used like they have in some other cases.
Click to expand...

Modern methods of DNA testing can identify a lot of phenotypical information and even familial relationships. It's possible to narrow the pool significantly, to the point where all but a couple could be eliminated.

It's not cheap, but if any case were to go that way, it would be JBR.
 
pgwenthold said:
Modern methods of DNA testing can identify a lot of phenotypical information and even familial relationships. It's possible to narrow the pool significantly, to the point where all but a couple could be eliminated.

It's not cheap, but if any case were to go that way, it would be JBR.
Click to expand...


Of course there's a potential problem from the get-go, if it were the factual truth that the Ramsey family were the perpetrators rather than an external intruder: finding Ramsey DNA on JonBenet (or indeed many of the items connected to her murder) would be inconclusive at best, and useless at worst, owing to the fact that her family obviously had regular intimate contact with her, and because all of the items originated within the Ramsey house. Plus of course we have John Ramsey himself contaminating the scene and holding JonBenet's body tightly.

On the other hand, if advances in the sensitivity and quality of DNA typing were to enable investigators to find DNA which wasn't that of any Ramsey family member, and which (by virtue of where and upon what it was found) had to have been linked to the murder.... that would obviously be a huge progression in the case. And if they were able to match that DNA with an individual (or someone familially linked to an individual), where that individual had the means and opportunity to have carried out the crime... that would of course be a bombshell moment in the case.


Incidentally, given that these specialised techniques and processes are pretty expensive (as you said), I wonder whether John Ramsey might jump at the chance to fund any new analysis? Or not...?
 
LondonJohn said:
On the other hand, if advances in the sensitivity and quality of DNA typing were to enable investigators to find DNA which wasn't that of any Ramsey family member, and which (by virtue of where and upon what it was found) had to have been linked to the murder.... that would obviously be a huge progression in the case.
Click to expand...
That happened 18 years ago.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
That happened 18 years ago.
Click to expand...


I know they found DNA back then.... but for it to be of use to the investigation, it would have to be shown pretty conclusively to be either 1) directly linked to the assault/murder, or 2) the DNA of someone who a) had no reason to have had their DNA present on the body or the associated items and b) had the means and opportunity to have carried out the assault/murder.
 
Y chromosomal Short Tandem Repeats

If they still exist, her fingernails should be swabbed one more time, but YSTR typing should be performed.
 
Still Remembered. Still Open. Still Ongoing.

Just caught this on YouTube. From 60 Minutes Australia, July 24,2022.

The breakthrough new DNA evidence that could find JonBenét Ramsey's killer | 60 Minutes Australia


More of an update than anything truly new.
 
Samson said:
Someone who stalked the pageants?
Only viable solution.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not.

But it does remind me of something a friend of mine told me years ago. She'd gone to a jeweler at a shopping mall to get her grandmother's wedding ring resized so she could wear it. As she was there a child beauty pageant was going on in the concourse. The sight of all the little girls in heavy makeup and frilly dresses was creepy enough, but she was literally nauseated by all the lone adult men intently watching from the edge of the audience.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
OK then. The father is trying to get DNA tested using more modern methods. The local police refuse to co-operate. He has appealed to the State to force them to release it
Click to expand...

A DNA sample that allows a complete profile for genetic genealogy is about the only thing that could solve this case.

The perpetrator probably died long before it became routine to collect CODIS profiles from convicts.
 
Kestrel said:
A DNA sample that allows a complete profile for genetic genealogy is about the only thing that could solve this case.

The perpetrator probably died long before it became routine to collect CODIS profiles from convicts.
Click to expand...

If you watch the show, you'll see that's what's being proposed. Th expert that does such matching claims a very thigh success rate.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Maybe. Maybe not.

But it does remind me of something a friend of mine told me years ago. She'd gone to a jeweler at a shopping mall to get her grandmother's wedding ring resized so she could wear it. As she was there a child beauty pageant was going on in the concourse. The sight of all the little girls in heavy makeup and frilly dresses was creepy enough, but she was literally nauseated by all the lone adult men intently watching from the edge of the audience.
Click to expand...
Ok.
So someone not aware of this child being paraded did this crime?
You and I find this vanishingly unlikely because statistical clustering is unreliable.
Thank you for pointing out how this child came to be murdered.
 
Samson said:
Ok.
So someone not aware of this child being paraded did this crime?
You and I find this vanishingly unlikely because statistical clustering is unreliable.
Thank you for pointing out how this child came to be murdered.
Click to expand...

How did you get any of the above from what I wrote?
 
Another 60 Minutes Australia piece on the case. This time about the fact that the evidence is finally being turned over to an FBI cold case team. I was glad to learn that the Boulder Police chief had "retired or demoted" the detectives involved in the original investigation before opening the case to outside investigation. The fact that the investigators ignored the DNA evidence clearing the family and the other incident that took place nine months later just a few kilometers away - the sexual assault of another girl who knew JonBenét and had appeared in some of the same shows she did - is just shockingly incompetent.

 
confirmation bias

Mr. Ramsey was quoted: "There's nothing more dangerous than a police department that's made up its mind, because they are totally excluding anything that conflicts with that conclusion," he noted.

Every newly minted police detective needs to hear this.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Another 60 Minutes Australia piece on the case. This time about the fact that the evidence is finally being turned over to an FBI cold case team. I was glad to learn that the Boulder Police chief had "retired or demoted" the detectives involved in the original investigation before opening the case to outside investigation. The fact that the investigators ignored the DNA evidence clearing the family and the other incident that took place nine months later just a few kilometers away - the sexual assault of another girl who knew JonBenét and had appeared in some of the same shows she did - is just shockingly incompetent.

Click to expand...

News article here:
JonBenét Ramsey's Killer Could Finally Be Revealed 27 Years After Young Girl Was Strangled to Death in Her Basement

Maybe it's not too late for a definitive answer?
 
The vagaries of memory

wasapi said:
\

Interesting article. I recall a paramedic claim that when she looked across the body at John Ramsey, she knew he did it, and he knew she busted him.

Sad.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing that claim from her. I also remember that John responded to it by saying that she had treated him well on the day that JonBenet's body was discovered (I don't have a citation handy). This could be after-the-fact re-remembering on the part of the paramedic.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the whole house should have been cleared of people the moment that it became obvious that she was missing. That her father found her body should never have happened.
 
The Greater Fool said:
If that is her claim then I have to wonder when she started reading minds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sounds to me like an ex post facto judgement in response to the "it was the father" bandwagon - a seized opportunity to say "I knew it all along!".

But even if she did immediately assume his guilt, so what? What does one person's inexpert opinion matter?
 
Foster Zygote said:
Yeah, it sounds to me like an ex post facto judgement in response to the "it was the father" bandwagon - a seized opportunity to say "I knew it all along!".

But even if she did immediately assume his guilt, so what? What does one person's inexpert opinion matter?
Click to expand...

Yes. Even called to give testimony concerning the child's death, I'm sure her mind reading ability would not be a part. Wouldn't it be considered 'hearsay'?
 
fingernail and underwear DNA

"The DNA found matched the sample found under her fingernails. The DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family." HubPages. I am not sure that the statement about matching is true, but if it is, it is significant.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
"The DNA found matched the sample found under her fingernails. The DNA did not match anyone in the Ramsey family." HubPages. I am not sure that the statement about matching is true, but if it is, it is significant.
Click to expand...

There are lots of other details in this article that I have never heard before. Though, most of what I know has come from the various TV documentaries.
 
DNA from the panties; hair

In 1999 a reporter for the Denver Post wrote, "But the most powerful evidence pointing to a killer outside the Ramsey family was a stain of body fluid inside the dead girl's panties. The stain carried DNA that police can't link to anyone...Much supposed evidence in the murder has been leaked by anonymous sources; there's no independent way to verify if the leaked information is true, or subject to different interpretations, until the case goes to trial...Other evidence pointing toward some outside intruder includes an unidentified pubic hair found on the blanket wrapping JonBene�t's body; a Hi-Tec hiking-boot print discovered near the body that hasn't been matched to any family or friends; a broken window in the basement where JonBene�t's body was found; and an unidentified palm print on a door by the girl's body."

The relationship between a stain and a DNA sample is never "implicit," to use Professor Peter Gill's words. Other article have said that this DNA was sub-source. If this DNA did in fact arise from a stain, then its evidentiary value is greater. I do not know whether the hair mentioned above was tested for DNA or not. At Reddit, it was argued that it was not a pubic hair and that DNA testing was done. The article makes a good point about most of the information as of 1999 having come from leaks.

"There are no do-overs in crime scene processing. “You only get one chance to do it right,” says Joseph Giacalone, a professor in the Department of Law & Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Giacalone, a former New York police sergeant who has worked on hundreds of murder, suicide and missing-person cases, says that securing a crime scene and properly collecting and storing evidence is crucial for prosecuting a court case." link.
 
Last edited:
Joe Berlinger, who did a documentary on the West Memphis Three, made a documentary that rebuts the case against the Ramsey family. The Hollywood Reporter interviewed him: "Most specifically, I had access to all of Lou Smit’s [files]...I think the Boulder Police acted quite shamefully in feeding false and misleading information to the press."

ScreenRant discussed the documentary, writing, "DNA on her clothes matched DNA that was found beneath her fingernails, but it was not matched with any known individual." This is not the first time I have seen this claim, but if it is true, it is very significant IMO. ScreenRant also wrote, "An intruder was attempting to assault a sleeping child in her home, but was caught by the mother who chased him out. The suspect was never caught, but officials thought that he had broken into the house while they were out and waited for them to go to sleep." Yikes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom