Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Vortigern99]

...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.

Ah, thanks and apologies. It's so easy to mistake sincerity for sarcasm on ye olde intertoobz, and vice versa.

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

It's true that there are differences of medical opinion about any prior sexual abuse of JonBenet. Her own doctor never saw any evidence of sexual abuse and there were frequent visits to him over the years. There is no evidence that if it did happen that it was done by any Ramsey. It's a bit like the medical evidence in the Jeffrey MacDonald case and the widely differing medical opinions in the MacDonald case psychiatric testimony.

I would have thought as a layman that if she had been taken to a child sex party by Chris Wolf, or Fleet White, and then murdered, that some sort of sexual abuse would have been involved in that.

This is a bit of background to this matter from the internet:

"Other Supporting Evidence
Melinda Ramsey stated: "I'm John Ramsey's daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them." Internet poster Margoo has observed that "Melinda is an adult and a nurse. If she had been abused by her father, she'd say so, especially with the murder of her step-sister and any potential link to familial abuse."

FBI Assessment. "The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)"

 

[Henri McPhee]

When the Ramsey Grand Jury was arranged to supposedly convict the Ramseys the Boulder Police Department suddenly realized they had no evidence against the Ramseys. In the nick of time the hair and fiber department at the FBI 'found' four red fibers on the duct tape. That pleased Steve Thomas when the news came through. It was just the same in the Jeffrey MacDonald gross miscarriage of justice case when the FBI 'found' MacDonald pajama fibers on the murder weapon for the trickster lawyers Murtagh and Blackburn to sway the jury with an FBI reconstruction.

There is a good posting on the internet about all this from Autumn in 2007:

"Hiya Indigo...:0)
Even if the jackets were completely different that still doesn't discount the fact that there were ONLY FOUR FIBERS that ever linked Patsy to the crime and they were found ON THE DUCT TAPE ONLY.... S. Thomas says NOTHING AT ALL about finding any of those fibers entwined in the cord around JonBenet's neck.... That means the BORG facts on Patsy's jacket fibers being found entwined in the cord around JonBenet's neck according to S. Thomas is false information.... ONLY FOUR FIBERS found were linked to Patsy....

BTW: Even if the jackets were bought in different stores they were most likely made out of the same type of acrylic clothing fibers and they were both red, black and gray....

Basically the physical evidence against Patsy as told by S. Thomas that could be used against her in court was....

Four red acrylic fibers....

She suffered until the day she died under an umbrella of suspicion, because of FOUR red acrylic fibers found on the duct tape.... That is disgusting....

The BPD's own experts scored Patsy very low on the handwriting and only Borgs and RDI theorists say Patsy matched the linguistics of the note....

I am shocked that Thomas thought he could convict Patsy on four fibers that were found in a house that she owned.... If it wasn't so tragic it would laughable....

There were several fibers that were never sourced including some dark blue cotton fibers consistent with those of a towel or washcloth found on JonBenet's genital area and light brown unknown fibers were found on the clothing she was found in.... That means someone else had to be there.... The Ramsey's couldn't have thought to throw out all their towels too....

Could the BORGs please explain to us how Patsy brutally murdered JonBenet and only left four fibers on the duct tape and nothing else..."

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

Apparently you are not aware that there are unsolved crimes. Evidence that a crime was committed does not necessarily mean that there's evidence of who committed the crime.

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?

I think that the ex-chief was trying to make a point about how strange it was for an intruder to have left a ransom note and also to have left the body where it was likely to be found before the ransom was paid. Either the intruder was stupid or the ransom note was meant to be a diversion.

 

[William Parcher]

The police (once they realized that it was a crime scene) would have done a complete search of the house, in fine detail, in the search for evidence. No tape roll was found.

If he hid it, he hid it in another dimension.

You have been calling these guys Keystone Cops. You know what that means, right? Now they are being called thorough with fine detail.

Could a Ramsey have hidden a roll of tape inside the house and have it not be found? Oh hell yes. Am I insisting that that is what happened? Oh hell no.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Apparently you are not aware that there are unsolved crimes. Evidence that a crime was committed does not necessarily mean that there's evidence of who committed the crime.

I think that the ex-chief was trying to make a point about how strange it was for an intruder to have left a ransom note and also to have left the body where it was likely to be found before the ransom was paid. Either the intruder was stupid or the ransom note was meant to be a diversion.

Beckner said publicly in 2015 that the Boulder Police Department were short staffed over Christmas and that the initial investigation was bungled. Beckner still seems to be aggrieved that the Boulder DA's office seemed to have told the BPD to go easy on the Ramseys. I don't like the way Henry Lee became involved, who to my mind is as bad at forensic fraud as the FBI lab.

The Boulder police were very thorough about looking for any hidden roll of tape. They even went on to the roof of the house in their search.

My own theory is that the ransom note was a diversion. It meant that the Boulder police fell into a trap of not investigating the back garden, or any escape route for intruders, for about eight hours which might have provided forensic evidence, particularly if dogs had been called. Fleet White used to live in a house a couple of doors down and he must have known about any back paths from the back garden.

There is no evidence against Burke. I would have thought Burke has an easy win in any lawsuit against CBS, particularly if Wong was used to provide the handwriting evidence and there is a competent and just judge.

There is a newspaper article from the Boulder Daily Camera March 16 1997 by Clay Evans about alleged sexual abuse in the Ramsey family:

Ramsey doctors: No history of abuse
By CLAY EVANS
Camera Staff Writer

March 16, 1997

"JonBenet Ramsey's family has provided the district attorney a psychiatrist's videotaped interview with the girl's 10-year-old brother, a pediatrician's records and other information that they contend indicates the family has no history of sexual abuse, a source says.

The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

"Police could not have obtained those things on their own, because they don't have subpoena power," said a source. "All that was completely voluntary on the part of the family."

The Ramseys' investigators also have conducted exhaustive interviews with family members, friends and people from deep in the past of JonBenet's mother, Patsy. But thus far, they have failed to turn up any evidence of past abuse of the murdered 6-year-old or her mother, the source said.

Police have been similarly stymied, according to sources.

Neither police nor District Attorney Alex Hunter would comment on what information the family has provided or the status of the investigation regarding past sexual abuse of JonBenet. Some close to the Ramseys say they were asked about abuse during police questioning. John and Patsy Ramsey have not yet agreed to be interviewed by police.

JonBenet's body was discovered in the basement of her family's University Hill home by John Ramsey and a friend on Dec. 26, about eight hours after her mother found a three-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return. A coroner's examination found that she had been struck on the head, strangled with a cord and sexually assaulted before she died.

Police still have not named any suspects in the case, but two weeks ago ruled out John Ramsey's two children by a previous marriage, John Andrew Ramsey, 20, and Melinda Ramsey, 26.

The taped interview of Burke Ramsey demonstrates that the boy has not been molested and is unaware of any abuse of his sister, a source said. In addition, records from Beuf show no indication of abuse, the source said.

Investigators have invested hundreds of hours pursuing the sexual abuse angle, scouring the nation for any evidence that JonBenet, her two half-sisters - Melinda and Elizabeth, 22, who was killed in a 1992 car accident - or Patsy Ramsey were ever molested.

They've gone so far as to query reporters about what they know and exhumed a 5-year-old autopsy report on Elizabeth. (Police have since said Elizabeth's death has no implications in the JonBenet case.)

Besides the more obvious ramifications of possible past sexual abuse of JonBenet, investigators have tried to determine whether Patsy may have been abused in the past. Some have theorized that such a history could have created a psychological complex allowing her to deny the abuse of her daughter, or even to pen a false ransom note.

Two groups of handwriting experts, one from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the other hired by the Ramsey family, have concluded that John Ramsey did not write a ransom note found in the case, but that they cannot exclude the possibility that Patsy Ramsey did. Investigators for the family, however, called that possibility "highly unlikely."

While a coroner's report found JonBenet had been sexually assaulted before she was killed, "experts" have differed widely as to whether the evidence supports previous or chronic abuse. The coroner's report found "chronic inflammation and epithelial erosion" in the girl's vagina, leading Dr. Cyril Wecht, coroner of Allegheny County, Pa., to conclude that there was abuse at least two days before her death.

But others say anyone who hasn't examined the actual tissue couldn't reach a reliable conclusion.

"Poor hygiene can cause chronic inflammation," Dr. Joan Slook, a pediatrician with the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told the Daily Camera. "Some little girls can have asymptomatic bladder infections that can cause irritation in the vagina."

At the same time, other experts caution that sexual abuse of young children does not necessarily leave evidence easily detected in routine pediatric examinations. The abuse could consist of oral or manual contact, or the perpetrator may convince or force the child to touch his or her genitals instead.

JonBenet's vagina was not penetrated, sources say, but there were "bruises" or marks in her genital area.

"Signs of physical abuse are pretty obvious when you see bruises or fractures or abrasions," said Dr. Richard Krugman, dean of the University of Colorado Medical School in Denver and former director of the Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. But "children can be sexually abused and have perfectly normal exams."

Far more important in determining a history of abuse are the child's statements, followed by his or her demeanor and behavior, experts say.

That's why Ramsey family representatives think the videotape of Burke Ramsey is significant: The interview clearly shows that the boy has not been abused and that he has no knowledge of any unusual problems with his sister, a source said. He also is full of praise and love for his parents, said the source.

"If you ask if perpetrators of sexual abuse are likely to abuse only same-sex or opposite sex children, some are and some aren't," Krugman said. "Some will sexually abuse all children."

Siblings and parents may well be aware that abuse of a child is occurring, he said, "but not always."

 

[Segnosaur]

You have been calling these guys Keystone Cops. You know what that means, right?

Yes I do.

I applied the "keystone cops" label for a couple of reasons... their failure to secure the crime scene early when it was assumed to be a kidnapping, their leaking of information to the press, etc.

Now they are being called thorough with fine detail.

Yes I am.

Once the nature of the crime became apparent, they did do a complete search through the house. Even if the cops were incompetent, they still should have been smart enough to recognize what a roll of tape looks like, and to figure out the various places it could have been hidden.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

And you should consider that, speaking as a "private citizen" in a forum where the information he was conveying was not vetted or checked for accuracy, his comments should be viewed with more skepticism than if they were presented in an official capacity.

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

The goal was to both make the Ramseys suffer and to satisfy some of his more darker urges. Staying in the house longer doesn't necessarily make the parents suffer more, but he probably felt it was necessary to carry out his plan.

Get in the house early when the parents were away so you can find a good hiding spot. If nobody is around, then your chances of being found don't increase. Keep the child in the house because trying to remove her was found to be too risky, and just killing her immediately and fleeing wouldn't have satisfied his baser urges.

...and using their very own pen and notepad to write a lengthy fake ransom note?

Again, we don't know why he wrote the note while in the house... whether he simply forgot to bring one, whether he decided to rewrite it (perhaps after seeing one of John's pay stubs and thinking "$118k? that sounds like a good amount to ask for!"), whether he thought it would be a good countermeasure (they won't be able to track the paper!). There are many plausible explanations.

We also don't know how "fake" it actually was. He likely didn't have a purely financial motive. Whether he actually planned to get JonBenet out of the house and left the note to taunt the family, or whether he thought he could actually get some money from them is unknown.

We do know that the note was likely written prior to the murder (for example, while the family was still out at the party.)

All the while managing to remove all traces of himself (except possibly a few very small DNA traces)?

Again, I'm not sure what exactly you'd expect them to find. Simply wearing gloves would eliminate fingerprints. And you're not exactly going to find DNA smeared over all surfaces.

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?

No, I never said that. He left the note because he felt it simply wasn't worth the effort to go back and retrieve it.

Prior to the murder, he might have planned to take JonBenet out of the house (in which case the note would have been a way to hurt the Ramseys). Once JonBenet was dead, the note was irrelevant.

And that was worth the risk of leaving fingerprints or DNA or handwriting features that might give away his identity?

Gloves would have eliminated fingerprints. As for DNA, you're talking about a crime from 20 years ago... I doubt touch DNA was on the minds of most criminals. There's also the possibility that he just forgot to take the note.... after the killing, he probably would have been a bit frantic (not in an "Oh god, what did I do", but more in a "I actually did it!" state of mind).

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

Really?

You know, when I'm lounging around the house in a pair of sweat pants and my testicles get itchy, I can scratch them without removing my pants/underwear, or even pulling them down. Just stick my and down the front of the pants and go to town. (Now I dare you to get that image out of your mind!) When I'm done, just take my hand out and the elastic snaps everything back into place.

The same method could have been used on JonBenet... no need to remove or even pull down underwear. No need to 'redress' her because she was probably never undressed to begin with.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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/

I have seen several sources that state that the DNA under the fingernails did not match the DNA on the underpants.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ah, thanks and apologies. It's so easy to mistake sincerity for sarcasm on ye olde intertoobz, and vice versa.

Is that a real apology or a sarcastic apology?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fingernail DNA; long-john DNA

I have seen several sources that state that the DNA under the fingernails did not match the DNA on the underpants.

The DNA on the left and right fingernails may not match the other DNA, but neither of the Ramsey males are included, from what I can gather. Multiple studies have been done on DNA underneath the fingernails (Gill, Misleading DNA evidence, pp. 43-46; pp. 68-80). The numbers vary quite a bit, but between 5-20% of the time foreign (non-self) DNA was observed, excluding intimate partners. On the basis of casework and also using controlled studies of scratching, one can conclude that scratching increased the chances of finding non-self DNA to about 35%. Only one of the studies used YSTR technology, from what I can gather, but I have not yet reviewed the very recent literature.

Having the reports themselves would certainly help to ascertain which DNA samples did or did not match. I have found two citations which assert that the DNA on the panties did match the DNA on the long johns. link1, link2 I have only found a small number of citations in the forensic DNA literature, to DNA found on clothing, and non-self DNA can indeed be found on clothing. However, my preliminary opinion is that the presence of several instances of foreign DNA (especially underneath the fingernails) is sufficient to make it difficult to believe that John or Burke is guilty BARD. MOO.

 

[BStrong]

Many of the posts in this thread are good examples of why LEO's don't engage in discussions about investigations with lay persons.

I'll leave further comment to the good ladies and gentlemen of the 101st Chairborne Investigators Guild.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The DNA on the left and right fingernails may not match the other DNA, but neither of the Ramsey males are included, from what I can gather. Multiple studies have been done on DNA underneath the fingernails (Gill, Misleading DNA evidence, pp. 43-46; pp. 68-80). The numbers vary quite a bit, but between 5-20% of the time foreign (non-self) DNA was observed, excluding intimate partners. On the basis of casework and also using controlled studies of scratching, one can conclude that scratching increased the chances of finding non-self DNA to about 35%. Only one of the studies used YSTR technology, from what I can gather, but I have not yet reviewed the very recent literature.

Having the reports themselves would certainly help to ascertain which DNA samples did or did not match. I have found two citations which assert that the DNA on the panties did match the DNA on the long johns. link1, link2 I have only found a small number of citations in the forensic DNA literature, to DNA found on clothing, and non-self DNA can indeed be found on clothing. However, my preliminary opinion is that the presence of several instances of foreign DNA (especially underneath the fingernails) is sufficient to make it difficult to believe that John or Burke is guilty BARD. MOO.

My understanding is that the DNA under her fingernails came from 2 males, neither of whom was the person who left DNA on her underpants, and 1 female. Given that you conclude that the presence of DNA on her fingertips could only have come from a murderer, does not your reasoning imply that there had to have been multiple participants?

 

[Bob001]

The DNA on the left and right fingernails may not match the other DNA, but neither of the Ramsey males are included, from what I can gather.
....

Is there a link to a reliable report about all this DNA? Question: What kinds of DNA testing were available in 1996, and how reliable were they? Apparently the Ramseys entertained in their home frequently, especially around the holidays. How likely is it that Jon-Benet could have picked up such DNA from ordinary contact (hugs, handling their stuff etc.) with guests? And how long could it remain on her hands after washing, baths etc.?

 

[Samson]

Many of the posts in this thread are good examples of why LEO's don't engage in discussions about investigations with lay persons.

I'll leave further comment to the good ladies and gentlemen of the 101st Chairborne Investigators Guild.

Police are lay persons in many areas of crime they purport to be solving. There are hundreds of instances on this forum alone. Most crimes that are solved are straightforward it seems.
This is pretty obviously a case of an intruder that is unsolved, as this thread shows, and the narrative of the parents' cover up is implausible and utterly absurd.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

quick DNA thoughts

Is there a link to a reliable report about all this DNA? Question: What kinds of DNA testing were available in 1996, and how reliable were they? Apparently the Ramseys entertained in their home frequently, especially around the holidays. How likely is it that Jon-Benet could have picked up such DNA from ordinary contact (hugs, handling their stuff etc.) with guests? And how long could it remain on her hands after washing, baths etc.?

Bob001,
I have been looking in a cursory manner for primary DNA data, but I have not found it. Generally, the ability to amplify small amounts of DNA has improved a great deal in the last twenty years.* Off the top of my head, I think that Y chromosomal (YSTR) testing is at least ten years old but not twenty. Casual DNA from other people found on one's hands is a documented phenomenon. IIRC DNA on fingernails persists for hours or days, due to some of the factors you listed.
EDT
*I am an interested consumer of information on DNA forensics, but I am not a DNA forensic scientist.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

YSTR DNA

My understanding is that the DNA under her fingernails came from 2 males, neither of whom was the person who left DNA on her underpants, and 1 female. Given that you conclude that the presence of DNA on her fingertips could only have come from a murderer, does not your reasoning imply that there had to have been multiple participants?

TellyKNeasuss,

I am not sure whether the two fingernail samples gave the same profile or two different profiles. IMO it is probable that the DNA from the fingernails came from the attack, but I would not say that I am certain of it. You make a good point about two attackers, and it is worth considering. If the nails could be retested with Y chromosomal profiling, that might be helpful. But after so long a time, there might not be usable Y-chromosomal DNA, even if it existed once.

 

[kwill]

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/

Thanks for that article. What is the original source of the information about DNA under her nails? ETA: Sorry, I see above that others have already asked this question.

 

[William Parcher]

If she does have the killer's DNA under her fingernails then we might presume that she wasn't knocked out with the blow to the head as a first contact. If the DNA came from her clawing at an attacker then she isn't unconscious at that moment. FWIW

 

[Bob001]

...
This is pretty obviously a case of an intruder that is unsolved, as this thread shows, and the narrative of the parents' cover up is implausible and utterly absurd.

More absurd than the notion of a stranger drafting a three-page ransom note at the scene with Patsy's pen and paper in what strongly resembles her handwriting, and hiding the body of the "kidnap" victim in a hard-to-find corner of the basement, and leaving no physical evidence of a break-in or of his presence anywhere? More absurd than that?