• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom