Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Jungle Jim]

Okay, but I mean no one is discussing these things, preferring instead to focus on irrelevant or low-yield minutiae such as conjecture as to when the deceased ate pineapple, and how a parent would/would not react on discovering a ransom note and/or body. We can all hypothesize on that stuff for decades, as has been done, with no solid conclusions drawn.

It seems to me the material evidence -- DNA of an unknown male under the deceased's fingernails -- entirely exculpates the brother. That it is being ignored raises questions about the biases of the "Burke did it" theorists.

If you believe the theory of "touch DNA" that has been discussed up thread, then DNA under the fingernails can be explained thusly:

"The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."--from a 2006 48-Hours program http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Ok, looks like this originally came from reddit. But lets say that its right. (I don't have a reason to doubt it came from someone from the police.) Overall, I do think its strange that all this information is coming out only through an on-line interview with a policeman involved in the case. You would figure it would be something released through more official channels.

Mark Beckner is a former police chief in Boulder who was involved in the murder investigation though he didn't become involved until several months after it happened. His answers were to students in a college class, and he thought that his answers would only be seen by the students in the class. He had them removed when he found out that anyone could read them; however, the Denver Post (and apparently some others) downloaded the page before it was taken down.

However, lets say there was a significant amount of time between the head wound and the strangulation. That does not exclude an intruder, since:
- I suspect there is a significant amount of leeway in these figures.

One could suspect anything about any data and thus arrive at whatever conclusion one wants to.

- The layout of the house would have let an intruder have a significant amount of time (even hours) in a location that was isolated enough so that he would remain undetected.

Still, it seems like a risk, and what for? If the object was just to commit a murder, why take so long. Of course, this assumes that criminals think logically.

All that this (meaning the note and body found in the same house) suggests is that the intruder changed his plans while inside the house.

He changed his mind but left the ransom note? Again, that seems like an unnecessary risk.

When you said 're-dressed', I assume you meant the killer went and obtained a new outfit.

Overall, I don't think its surprising that the underpants were still on. First of all, whether there was any sort of sexual abuse or penetration (and if there was, what was used) is still unknown. Secondly, even if the killer did do some penetration, he would not have had to remove any of her clothes, only pulled them down (partly).

But why bother? Did he suddenly feel guilty?

There were also experts who have said that there was no evidence of prior abuse. For example, Richard Krugman of the Univerisity of Colorado. Even the FBI thought there was no evidence of prior abuse.

The ex-police chief said that "experts" found evidence of prior abuse. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.

If there was a smoking gun, the case would have been solved a long time ago.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Mark Beckner is a former police chief in Boulder who was involved in the murder investigation though he didn't become involved until several months after it happened. His answers were to students in a college class, and he thought that his answers would only be seen by the students in the class. He had them removed when he found out that anyone could read them; however, the Denver Post (and apparently some others) downloaded the page before it was taken down.

This is not true. Beckner did an AMA on reddit (ask me anything). I was there and asked him questions in real time. He went into great detail about his thoughts on the case. Several hours later the entire thread was removed. We figured he received a letter from Lin Wood.

 

[Vortigern99]

If you believe the theory of "touch DNA" that has been discussed up thread, then DNA under the fingernails can be explained thusly:

"The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails."--from a 2006 48-Hours program http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/

Exactly! What you neglect to include here is that the male DNA does not match that of her father or brother. So, with all that in mind, it is absolutely exculpatory for all family members.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Exactly! What you neglect to include here is that the male DNA does not match that of her father or brother. So, with all that in mind, it is absolutely exculpatory for all family members.

Since I haven't been murdered, does that mean that it is impossible for me to have anyone else's DNA on me or my clothing?

Is it possible that she got the DNA under her fingernails (my understanding is that it was only 2 nails) from her underpants?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

This is not true. Beckner did an AMA on reddit (ask me anything). I was there and asked him questions in real time. He went into great detail about his thoughts on the case. Several hours later the entire thread was removed. We figured he received a letter from Lin Wood.

What is the exact story? Who was the AMA open to? Anyone registered on reddit? Was I just wrong about it being for a college class? What I read is that he did not know that the AMA would be readable by anyone other than the participants and therefore had it taken down when he found out otherwise.

 

[Segnosaur]

Mark Beckner is a former police chief in Boulder who was involved in the murder investigation...

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a strange way for information about the case to be released to the public.

By the way, when you read his analysis, keep in mind that he was involved with a police force that were generally seen as being hostile to the Ramseys.

- The layout of the house would have let an intruder have a significant amount of time (even hours) in a location that was isolated enough so that he would remain undetected.

Still, it seems like a risk, and what for? If the object was just to commit a murder, why take so long.[/quote]
But the object was not just to "commit a murder". The object was likely to make the Ramseys suffer as much as possible, as well as to satisfy whatever urges (however twisted) he may have had.

After all, its the same thing that drives many killers... why did Jack the Ripper spend time dissecting prostitutes on the street (risking detection) when he could have just stabbed them and run away?

Of course, this assumes that criminals think logically.

Well, they think logically to a certain point... "I have a desire that I must satisfy", whether that desire is. In the case of the killer of JonBenet, he likely had a desire to cause suffering. That was the goal.

He changed his mind but left the ransom note? Again, that seems like an unnecessary risk.

Why would he bother going back to retrieve the note? JonBenet was dead, and it wouldn't have mattered any whether the note was found or not. Most of the evidence that he would have left (whatever DNA, fingerprints, etc.) would still be there. So why bother going back for a note that probably won't make any difference to your own personal outcome?

Overall, I don't think its surprising that the underpants were still on. First of all, whether there was any sort of sexual abuse or penetration (and if there was, what was used) is still unknown. Secondly, even if the killer did do some penetration, he would not have had to remove any of her clothes, only pulled them down (partly).

But why bother? Did he suddenly feel guilty?

He wouldn't have had to manually pull the pants back on... the elastic would have had them snap back into place.

The ex-police chief said that "experts" found evidence of prior abuse. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.

Yes. Your source was involved with a police force that was biased against the Ramseys. The other side includes the FBI.

Which set of experts makes more sense to listen to?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Yes, AMA's are readable by everyone. You cannot post unless you are logged in, but anyone can read, unless it is a private thread. If he is claiming he didn't know, I think maybe he just was not familiar with reddit and really didn't understand or he is in SMA mode.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

FWIW, Kolar did an AMA too.

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay, but I mean no one is discussing these things, preferring instead to focus on irrelevant or low-yield minutiae such as conjecture as to when the deceased ate pineapple, and how a parent would/would not react on discovering a ransom note and/or body. We can all hypothesize on that stuff for decades, as has been done, with no solid conclusions drawn.

It seems to me the material evidence -- DNA of an unknown male under the deceased's fingernails -- entirely exculpates the brother. That it is being ignored raises questions about the biases of the "Burke did it" theorists.

Bah! If we let ourselves get bogged down in facts, then what fun would we have here?

Now, I do think that the DNA isn't 100% conclusive proof, since we have no context (e.g. how much was found?) In theory it could have been from contact with someone at the party. So, maybe the DNA is only 99% proof. Its a pretty small chance that it wasn't from her attacker, but it does exist. (The thing is, there's not really anything against it being an intruder, so that 99% is pretty safe.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Since I haven't been murdered, does that mean that it is impossible for me to have anyone else's DNA on me or my clothing?

DNA is not permanent... people wash their hands/clothes. I think DNA is also broken down by sunlight and various chemicals.

How long after contact is important. A sample taken from JonBenet is relevant because it would have been recent contact with the killer.

Is it possible that she got the DNA under her fingernails (my understanding is that it was only 2 nails) from her underpants?

I don't think so. You're talking about touch dna transfered to another area. Plus, from what I understand, they had very little to work with for the clothing samples (they used a lower threshold for testing). ON the other hand, they got more from the sample under the nails (enough to determine the sex of the attacker).

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The ex-police chief said that "experts" found evidence of prior abuse. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.

Several experts claim there is no definitive abuse. Her hymen was intact and the inflammation was likely from the crime itself. There was no way to put a time stamp on the inflammation. Her pediatrician said he saw her for vaginitis but that there was no evidence of abuse that he saw. For little girls, vaginitis is often caused by bubble bath or other soaps or poor wiping or a host of other possibilities. It is a sensitive area that is prone to germs.

Like much of the evidence or lack of evidence in this case, it is just not definitive.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes, AMA's are readable by everyone. You cannot post unless you are logged in, but anyone can read, unless it is a private thread. If he is claiming he didn't know, I think maybe he just was not familiar with reddit and really didn't understand or he is in SMA mode.

They are readable by anyone, but who can actually participate? Anyone? Any reddit user? People who register for the AMA? A select group of people (e.g., a college class)? I am not a reddit user and really don't know much about it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a strange way for information about the case to be released to the public.

He is retired and was speaking as a private citizen. He neither needed nor received authorization.

But the object was not just to "commit a murder". The object was likely to make the Ramseys suffer as much as possible, as well as to satisfy whatever urges (however twisted) he may have had.

And he could make the Ramseys suffer more by staying in the house for an hour or 2 and using their very own pen and notepad to write a lengthy fake ransom note? All the while managing to remove all traces of himself (except possibly a few very small DNA traces)?

Why would he bother going back to retrieve the note? JonBenet was dead, and it wouldn't have mattered any whether the note was found or not. Most of the evidence that he would have left (whatever DNA, fingerprints, etc.) would still be there. So why bother going back for a note that probably won't make any difference to your own personal outcome?

So he left the ransom note because he thought it would hurt the Ramseys even more to know that the killer had wanted it to look like a kidnapping? And that was worth the risk of leaving fingerprints or DNA or handwriting features that might give away his identity?

He wouldn't have had to manually pull the pants back on... the elastic would have had them snap back into place.

Really?

 

[banquetbear]

The ex-police chief said that "experts" found evidence of prior abuse. I guess it depends on who you want to believe.

...they found evidence of "prior abuse" but didn't manage to arrest anyone on charges of that prior abuse? Those police were incompetent.

There apparently are no known other cases in the US in which both the victim's body and the ransom note were left in the house where the victim lived.

This sounds remarkably like "Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse."

 

[banquetbear]

...holy crap. I just watched a 40 second extract from the show from the "hand writing" expert.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-shocking-evidence-8826222

Holy crap that was bad. Was the rest of the show as "over the top" and as dramatic as that? Appealing to the crowds like "How many people write their q's with the number 8? I don't." is just flat out bad and unscientific. The versions of the q they animated don't even look like the q in the writing or the ransom note.

Some information on Cina Wong:

In stark contrast to Epstein, Wong has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, been an apprentice to an ABFDE certified document examiner, or worked in a crime lab. (Wong Dep. at 87-112.) She does, however, claim nearly ten years of experience in the field. (Pl's Br. In Opp. To Defs.' Mot. In Limine [87] at 9.) She, however, is not a member of the ABFDE, the sole recognized organization for accreditation of qualified forensic document examiners. Although she is the former vice president of the National Association of Document Examiners ("NADE"), (PSDMF 12), defendants note that this organization does not meet ABFDE certification requirements, has no permanent office and has no membership requirements other than the payment of a fee. (Defs.' Mot. In Limine [68] at 6.) Wong, herself, admits that NADE does not require specialized training or experience for its certification. (Wong Dep. at 87-89.) Finally, even Epstein, plaintiffs other expert, testified that Wong is not qualified to render opinions in this case. (Epstein Dep. at 32-33.) Accordingly, the Court concludes Ms. Wong is not qualified to provide reliable handwriting analysis in this case. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Ms. Wong and the Court does not consider Ms. Wong's testimony in its analysis of defendants' summary judgment motion.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/253/1323/2567726/

She didn't even examine the original note. She got her copy from The National Enquirer.

Since that case Ms Wong may well have gotten appropriate qualifications. But if CBS were actually "looking for the truth" there are no shortage of experts they could have used on the show. To use one as tainted as Wong just boggles the mind. Wong has already been shown to "not be qualified" on a case involving the Ramseys before. To use her here shows a lack of due diligence on the part of CBS and IMHO makes their exposure to a lawsuit even greater.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

...they found evidence of "prior abuse" but didn't manage to arrest anyone on charges of that prior abuse? Those police were incompetent.

Why? Evidence doesn't last forever.

This sounds remarkably like "Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse."

Literally, yes. As definitive proof, yes. As an indicator that there is something very peculiar about this case, maybe not so much.

 

[Vortigern99]

...they found evidence of "prior abuse" but didn't manage to arrest anyone on charges of that prior abuse? Those police were incompetent.

This sounds remarkably like "Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse."

They didn't find evidence of prior abuse; they found inconclusive evidence consistent with vaginitis. The poster you quoted is not providing all the information; you may wish to look into the matter yourself rather than relying on an ultra-brief summary of complex information.

 

[banquetbear]

They didn't find evidence of prior abuse; they found inconclusive evidence consistent with vaginitis. The poster you quoted is not providing all the information; you may wish to look into the matter yourself rather than relying on an ultra-brief summary of complex information.

...I'm well aware the poster I quoted isn't providing all the information. If you hadn't guessed: my response was "sarcastic." If the police had found evidence of prior abuse then the investigation would have proceeded in a very different direction. The investigation didn't head in that direction: and the only "evidence" of abuse that we have is a couple of sentences from a Reddit AMA, which isn't really evidence of anything at all.

 

[banquetbear]

Why? Evidence doesn't last forever.

...that evidence was of course found at the time, correct? Yet they did nothing with it?

Literally, yes. As definitive proof, yes. As an indicator that there is something very peculiar about this case, maybe not so much.

There may or may not be other cases in the US where "the victim's body and the ransom note were left in the house where the victim lived." But this is evidence of nothing at all really. It never happened before? Well now it has. And now that it has happened what exactly do you think that means?