Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[DragonLady]

I've always thought this was probably done by an intruder who was hiding in the house -and possibly had been for a while, like Edward Coneys.

The house was huge, the family had lots of people in and out so were unlikely to notice if small things were moved around or be suspicious if food was disappearing.

I suspect the little girl simply bumped into him, and he killed her.

 

[DragonLady]

In fact, a quick Google shows it happens far more often than I ever thought:
http://listverse.com/2015/03/31/10-creepy-stories-of-intruders-hiding-in-peoples-homes/

 

[Segnosaur]

As I've pointed out before... the killings were thought to be a personal cause... someone who had some sort of reason (real or imagined) to specifically target the Ramseys. He would have had at least some knowledge of the family.

Then the Ramseys were poor judges of character? They had someone who was close enough to them to know what their Christmas and vacation plans were who wanted their daughter to die a slow, painful death?

You don't have to know someone very close to know what they're doing for christmas. I talk about that sort of thing all the time to friends and coworkers. "Hey, you sticking around for christmas? Nah, I'm going to visit parents". Many people aren't really that secretive.

If the killer knew the Ramsey's plans, why did he choose a night when they were getting home late and getting up early?

Why not?

Seriously, this is kind of like the choice of staircase to put the ransom note on... something must be selected, so picking one day over another doesn't really prove/disprove anything.

I should point out that there were advantages in picking that day.... being out at a party for so long means he'd have guaranteed time alone in the house. (Not all days would give that advantage.) And the family was leaving town soon... so, waiting until the return would cause anticipation.

Yup, pretty much. After all, we know that Jack the Ripper dissected his victims in the middle of the street, whereas he could have just killed them and slipped away. Why? Because he had a compulsion to do so. BTK stayed around his victims, even depositing semen at the crime scene, and then taunted police with letters. Why? again, he had a compulsion to do so.

Both of them were serial killers.

The same mentality applies in this case however.

I've read plenty of "true crime" books. Several by former FBI agents. Many of the same things that drive your average serial killer also drive people who kill single people. Also, its possible for a serial killer (or possible serial killer) to stop for some reason totally unrelated to the crime (arrested for some other reason, moved to another city, etc.)

In addition, only a few of BTK's murders involved breaking in before they returned home...

But they do show that it is quite possible for someone with psychopathic tendencies to wait for their victims inside their home.

...and in those cases he had been conducting surveillance on them so that he had a good idea of when they would return.

And, as I pointed out, the killer of JonBenet may have also had similar knowledge (not necessarily from long term sureilance but from familiarity with the family.)

Whomever the murderer of JonBenet is, they did not have a financial motive. It was not a random thing. He had both a desire to harm the Ramseys and a rather sick desire to torture JonBenet. Simply stabbing her and running away would not have achieved that goal.

That's one explanation. There are other plausible explanations.

Except of course nobody (and especially not you) has ever given any sort of narration that would justify any of those other explanations.

Re: John Ramsey keeping pay stubs hidden from kids...

You really think there are an army of 9 year olds running around bragging about their parent's income?

I don't recall mentioning anything about an army.

If you're thinking "the father has to worry about kids talking about his income" then you must think the problem is common enough to be a concern.

Which evidence does your scenario fit? There is no conclusive evidence of an intruder.

There is. You just like to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I can't hear you!"

The evidence that I've discussed are items that everyone appears to agree lean towards a Ramsey involvement.

No, they don't.

At best, they are irelevant. Or have explanations that have multiple explanations, many of which favor the intruder theory.

I've made counter-arguments to arguments posted pointing to others' involvement.

Most of your counter-arguments have involved taking your own experiences (such as "hey I always get a house tour during parties") and incorrectly assuming that those such experiences apply to everyone. They do not.

There have been a number of ideas posted in books and on the Internet about how the murder could have been accomplished by 1 or more of the Ramseys.

This is a discussion forum. Its expected for posters to state things in their own words.

The theory in the link in Elagabalus' post is not contradicted by any evidence.

The link provided in Elagabalus (I assume you mean post 209) certainly does not provide a complete narrative. It doesn't discuss (for example) the missing roll of tape.

Furthermore, the article makes rather bizarre leaps of logic...
- the tombsone says "december 25" so they must know when she was killed... Uh, no. They probably felt it necessary to put some date on there, and might as well pick the day when you last saw her (and the day she would be happy at christmas)

If the killer wasn't afraid to leave the notepad and the pen, why would he worry about taking the roll of tape?

Its the killer's tape. Why not take it?

The fact that its missing (meaning someone had to deliberatly walk out of the house with it, carrying it somewhere) is meaningful.

(Incidentally, the tape that was over JBR's mouth contained fibers of the same color and composition as the jacket that PR wore the night before and the morning after).

It was the house the Ramseys lived in. Why wouldn't you expect to fibers from other household members around?

So far you haven't posted any affirmative evidence, only that your theory can't be disproven by what we know. Which means that it's not impossible that you are correct. It's also not impossible that you are wrong.

It is most likely that I am correct. The reason?
- It would seem very bizarre for a woman who is largely viewed as a loving/doting mother, to suddenly snap, and not only punish her daughter for the bedwetting (something she's used to dealing with), but also to strangle her and/or violate her sexually. People tend not to do that.
- It would have also been bizarre for them not to get medical attention first.
- It would be very bizarre for a person, having just killed their daughter, to actually have the presence of mind to actually sit down and compose a ransom note. Most people would be far too agitated
- It would be very bizarre for people who didn't care about leaving the notepad behind, to suddenly decide "lets remove the tape roll", since leaving the tape roll behind would not necessarily lead to any suspicion
- It would be very bizarre for someone who is supposedly so prone to anger (Patsy, when she first strikes JonBenet because of betwetting) to mange not to crack after multiple days of intensive interviews

By all accounts the Ramseys were decent parents... None of John's other kids have ever stated that he was abusive, JonBenet's doctor certainly didn't see any bruises or any signs of physical abuse. And now you expect people's personalities to just turn on a dime.

 

[WayneK]

Keep in mind that the '45 minutes' claim seems to come from an on-line "forum" hosted by the former chief of police. While the natural tendency is to believe someone with his background, he was not speaking in an official government capacity, nor were his comments subject to any sort of verification. .

The estimate of 45 minutes to two hours was given to investigators by Dr Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist for Philadeplphia Children's Hospital (per James Kolar's book "Foreign Faction").

 

[Jungle Jim]

How does that follow?

I watch over a hundred movies a year. I'm certainly a "movie buff". But there are genres (such as slasher movies) that I don't go anywhere near. Being a "movie buff" does not mean that you watch each and every movie that ever comes out.

The movie posters show they like movies for people with more mature tastes. The phrases in the note were from more straight-up action movies that appeal to a younger/male demographic.

You seem to be certain about the Ramsey's taste in film. Did you happen to discuss films with either John or Patsy?

I am simply stating that as movie buffs, they may be familiar with the (quite popular) films referenced in the ransom note.

 

[Caper]

On both. From 3 different men, none of whom was one of the family or friends who gave DNA samples. If the DNA is related to the murder, then there would have had to have been at least 3 men involved.

Wait? What are you talking about? How can you possibly draw that conclusion. The possibilities are.

1. All three DNA profiles were involved.
2. 2 out of 3 of the DNA profiles were involved. One profile found their way on her clothing.
3. 1 out of 3 profiles were involved. Two profiles found their way on her clothing.
4. All three DNA profiles found their way on her clothing and none were involved in the crime.
5. There were more then 3 men involved, but only 3 left their DNA profiles.

All are possibilities, but to me 3 or 4 is most likely. The fact you think only 1 is a possibility says something about your reasoning skills. Or I'm missing something.

 

[WayneK]

All are possibilities, but to me 3 or 4 is most likely. The fact you think only 1 is a possibility says something about your reasoning skills. Or I'm missing something.

I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.

 

[Segnosaur]

The movie posters show they like movies for people with more mature tastes. The phrases in the note were from more straight-up action movies that appeal to a younger/male demographic.

You seem to be certain about the Ramsey's taste in film.

No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.

 

[Caper]

I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.

I would say surely that would be the case. It's probably very hard to 1) avoid getting DNA on yourself and 2) Kill someone in that manner and avoid leaving any DNA.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You don't have to know someone very close to know what they're doing for christmas. I talk about that sort of thing all the time to friends and coworkers. "Hey, you sticking around for christmas? Nah, I'm going to visit parents". Many people aren't really that secretive.

There's a difference between knowing that someone is going to visit someone else on Christmas and knowing what time they are going to return.

Seriously, this is kind of like the choice of staircase to put the ransom note on... something must be selected, so picking one day over another doesn't really prove/disprove anything.

It does lend credence to the belief that the killer knew the Ramseys very well.

But they do show that it is quite possible for someone with psychopathic tendencies to wait for their victims inside their home.

But can you cite a case in which the killer wouldn't have known what time they would return? And how many were similar - spending a minimum of 45 minutes to kill a child while the parents slept?

Except of course nobody (and especially not you) has ever given any sort of narration that would justify any of those other explanations.

Do you seriously believe this?

At best, they are irelevant. Or have explanations that have multiple explanations, many of which favor the intruder theory.

I see no explanations that favor the intruder theory. Only your belief that parents would never kill their own children.

This is a discussion forum. Its expected for posters to state things in their own words.

No, we are free to cite other's statements as long as we attribute them. I don't have a theory.

Furthermore, the article makes rather bizarre leaps of logic...
- the tombsone says "december 25" so they must know when she was killed... Uh, no. They probably felt it necessary to put some date on there, and might as well pick the day when you last saw her (and the day she would be happy at christmas)

Which doesn't change the fact that the author's theory is consistent with the evidence.

Its the killer's tape. Why not take it?

Evidence that it was the killer's tape?

It was the house the Ramseys lived in. Why wouldn't you expect to fibers from other household members around?

We are to surmise that the killer carried the tape around in his hands and put it down here and there, and at least 1 place where there were fibers from PR's jacket?

It is most likely that I am correct. The reason?
- It would seem very bizarre for a woman who is largely viewed as a loving/doting mother, to suddenly snap, and not only punish her daughter for the bedwetting (something she's used to dealing with), but also to strangle her and/or violate her sexually. People tend not to do that.

It would seem very bizarre for someone to hide in a house not knowing when his intended victim would come home and then spend a minimum of 45 minutes killing the victim when there was a risk that his presence would be discovered when he could have killed the victim. The fact is that far more children are killed by their parents than by psychopathic stalkers.

- It would have also been bizarre for them not to get medical attention first.

See above.

- It would be very bizarre for a person, having just killed their daughter, to actually have the presence of mind to actually sit down and compose a ransom note. Most people would be far too agitated

See above.

- It would be very bizarre for someone who is supposedly so prone to anger (Patsy, when she first strikes JonBenet because of betwetting) to mange not to crack after multiple days of intensive interviews

Exactly when did these "multiple days of intensive interviews" happen?

By all accounts the Ramseys were decent parents... None of John's other kids have ever stated that he was abusive, JonBenet's doctor certainly didn't see any bruises or any signs of physical abuse. And now you expect people's personalities to just turn on a dime.

One of my best friends growing up killed his wife and then himself last month. His wife's sister posted in both his online obituary and his Facebook page what a great husband he had been for her sister and how great a friend he had been for her.

Even the BTK killer left traces of his presence, both DNA and evidence of break-ins. It was only because the police didn't have a DNA sample from him that it took so long to catch him.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.

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?

 

[Jungle Jim]

No, I'm not certain. I'm stating probabilities.

Maybe they are big action movie fans. Maybe John had a tattoo of Dirty Harry on his buttocks and Patsy went to the video store and rented action movies every night.

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

Without any sort of proof that the Ramseys liked the action genre, their status as "movie buffs" doesn't necessarily lend any sort of credibility to the note being written by Patsy than me being a movie buff means that I've watched the latest Friday the 13th film.

So you think the intruder who had a personal vendetta against John Ramsey was a 20 year old?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The blow would not have immediately killed her, they were in a part of the house that provided significant privacy, and the killer still had a desire to torture/inflict suffering. Why would he want to "get the heck out of dodge"?

You seem to be looking at this as if the killing were the only goal. It wasn't. Satisfying his twisted desires was.

Hitting someone in the head so hard as to render them unconscious seems like a very bizarre thing to do if the object was to torture them to death. Sticking around to torture an unconscious person seems like a very bizarre thing to do. One would think that the killer would have realized after around 10 minutes that JBR had been gravely injured. Going to the trouble of fashioning a garotte to strangle someone who is unconscious and near death seems like a very bizarre thing to do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

substrate controls

Presumably you meant to say "not any of the Ramseys" rather than "not JonBenet". The DNA also didn't match any of their friends' DNA.

My understanding is that the DNA was mixed in with JB's blood, but that it hasn't been established that it was from someone else's blood, only that it came from some sort of fluid that came from someone else.

TellyKNeasuss,

If one identifies blood and independently finds DNA, there is a good chance that the DNA individualizes the blood. The only exception to this can arise in old blood stains. One way that the connection between the blood and the DNA might be made stronger is if they forensic team had performed substrate controls on an area near the stain. However, it is my understanding that substrate controls are not routinely done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some but not all may be there innocently

I agree with your conclusion but according to Kolar they found the DNA of 6 unidentified people (5 male, 1 female). This certainly strengthens the likelihood that at least some of the DNA is unrelated to the crime.

WayneK,

Some of the DNA is probably unrelated to the crime. That is why I have been focusing on the DNA underneath the fingernails; there is data which suggests that DNA transfer does not happen there frequently. I also think that the DNA in the blood drop is worth examining because we have a probable source for this DNA.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

TellyKNeasuss,

If one identifies blood and independently finds DNA, there is a good chance that the DNA individualizes the blood. The only exception to this can arise in old blood stains. One way that the connection between the blood and the DNA might be made stronger is if they forensic team had performed substrate controls on an area near the stain. However, it is my understanding that substrate controls are not routinely done.

According to Mark Beckner, there was too little material to determine the source but the Colorado Bureau of Investigation technician thought that it was sweat or saliva. It's easy to envision a killer becoming really sweaty doing something like this and dripping perspiration. On the other hand, we don't know of anything that the killer did that would have posed a high risk of getting cut.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Wait? What are you talking about? How can you possibly draw that conclusion.

It was an intentional exageration. The point is that if one were to concede that some of the DNA has an innocent explanation then one would have to concede that all of the DNA could have an innocent explanation. Either all of the DNA is related to the crime or else the DNA does not provide conclusive evidence of an intruder.

 

[Desert Fox]

Some of the DNA is probably unrelated to the crime. That is why I have been focusing on the DNA underneath the fingernails; there is data which suggests that DNA transfer does not happen there frequently. I also think that the DNA in the blood drop is worth examining because we have a probable source for this DNA.

I think we still need to look at other evidence and that ransom note is really strange. It does seem to be written by somebody with [At least] reasonably good writing skills. Certain parts seem to be written with the art of somebody who is trying to say nothing while seeming to say a lot. Other parts seem pretty familiar in style.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Then why did s/he write a 3-page ransom note when the child was already dead? How did s/he silence JBR where she was taken, in the bedroom? Why did s/he place an extra nightgown next to the child (which just happened to be JBR's favorite one)? Why did s/he come with no tools for the job. The ransom note was written on Patsy's notepad, with Patsy's pen and the garrote was made from Patsy's paintbrush.

Indeed, why write a ransom note at all? It wouldn't make sense for an intruder to write a ransom note to make it seem like there had been an intruder.

 

[Segnosaur]

But, on average action movies tend to appeal to a different demographic than John and Patsy. Its certainly not conclusive, but if everything else was equal, and there were 2 suspects, one of which was a middle age white woman and the other was a 20 year old white male, usually the 20 year old male would know more about action movies like Dirty Harry. Thus, if the ransom note referenced action movies, a 20 year old male would be the more likely suspect.

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?

First of all, go back and what I wrote... I posted that a 20 year old male would be more likely to see an action movie than a middle age woman. Gender is important here... If it were 2 men (one 20, one middle age) the middle age one would be more likely to see a decades-old action movie like Dirty Harry. But if its a 20 year old male and a middle age female, i don't think you can say that the older woman would be more likely to see the decades-old action movie, since demographically those movies still appeal to men.

More importantly, the movie Dirty Harry was not the only action movie that appears to be referenced in the note. Both Speed and Ransom (both which were released only a year or 2 before the murder) both seem to be referenced. And those 2 movies definitely would appeal more to someone in their 20s at the time. (And with those movies you can't claim "well they are older movies so older people would be more likely to know them".)