Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Ampulla of Vater]

IIRC, Fleet White became suspicious of John Ramsey sometime after the funeral. He realized that John probably knew the body was in the wine cellar because he yelled out before he turned the light on. Fleet had checked that room briefly when they made an earlier round of checking. Fleet didn't turn on the light and couldn't see anything in the windowless, dark room.

In return, John began pointing the finger at the Whites. The Whites have been cooperative with the police and cleared of any involvement in the death of JBR.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

In particularly, the shoe print evidence is very iffy. AFAIK, it was not possible to narrow the date range for the print, so there are all sorts of possibilities. As I mentioned in another post, there is even the possibility that Burke Ramsey owned Hi-Tech shoes (perhaps not at the time of the murder). And there is the possibility of contamination: reportedly, Hi-Tech shoes were popular amongst police officers.

Multiple news agencies reported in 2002 that Burke Ramsey had indeed owned Hi-Tec shoes. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that he made the shoe print.

 

[Segnosaur]

Handwriting analysis aside, there are a number of interesting things related to the ransom note:
- the demanded ransom matched John Ramsey's bonus

Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs
- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee at his office)
- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)

The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.

- while the salutation was "Mr. Ramsey", in the body of the note Mr. Ramsey is addressed as "john" and in increasing frequency as the note progresses and takes on a more personal tone

- allusions are made to Mr. Ramsey's background (e.g., "use your southern common sense")[/quote]
Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.

- the note expressed a concern for Mr. Ramsey's welfare ("the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be well-rested")
- the note specifically stated that JonBenet would be killed if the Ramseys talk to anyone ("If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.") but the Ramseys allowed a number of friends to come to their house

Those particular phrases were similar to phrases in a couple of popular action movies out at the time. Since those type of movies tend to appeal more to young men than middle-aged housewives, it rather points away from the Ramseys and towards an outside intruder.

- the author returned the notepad to the drawer after writing the ransom note
- the ransom was to be paid on the vague "tomorrow" rather than on a specific day

Neither one of these is particularly relevant.

- the note was left on the back staircase rather than in a generic place that someone who didn't know the family's habits could be sure that it was found

Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs

This seems like a very weak/unlikely explanation. The payslip would have to have been lying around in plain view, and if so, that fact would have been picked up by the police. I can't imagine the killer rummaging around through drawers looking for payslips, when, as you say, they could simply name any amount they wanted.

Anyway, your point is simply speculation. I don't know if the police located any such payslips with $118,000 written on them (or even looked for them).

- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee at his office)

Who would have access "at his office" to that sort of information? Don't know about you, but at my office no-one would have any access to another employees financial records. Even in a small company, you'd imagine that would be limited to a very small number of staff, and presumably they'd have been checked out. And besides, if they had that access to John's financial data, they'd know that he was worth more than one bonus payment of $118K.

The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.

If you ask me, looking at the images/video of their house (granted not extensively), I wouldn't pick that they were worth millions. It doesn't look very luxurious to me. I don't buy the payslip or the mexican pesos explanations, the one that makes most sense to me is a subconscious slip, or an effort to make it look like the kidnapper had knowledge of the family

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

I just wanted to make a few comments / questions -

The study on DNA under fingernails, has there ever been studies involving children? They have different operating rules than adults. They may touch each other more often and/or may handle toys which other children have handled.

With regard to the clothing, I would be curious to investigate the probable genetic origin of the dna on the clothing and the country of manufacture.

Even if Burke did commit the crime and his father helped conceal whatever happened (the mother is dead), I would prefer to let sleeping does lie and not try to take anybody to court. I think though that Burke is stupid for suing CBS.

The one item I hated was the phone call evidence. I don't know how many here are familiar with ghost voices where they try to pull it out of static from a TV / radio signal and/or just background noises. That si what it seemed to me to be.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs

I still fail to see that anyone committing a crime in an inhabited house would spend more than the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. It's hard to believe that anyone spent the time rummaging through the house to find financial information and on top of that was so careful that no one ever noticed that anything had been rummaged through.

- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee)

We don't know who, if anyone, outside the Ramsey family knew the size of the bonus.

- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)

Something like? And why not round it to, say, $120,000?

The amount of money asked for is certainly a curiosity, but that in itself does not implicate the Ramseys. They were worth millions. Asking for such a small amount (and one that would raise suspicions) seems like a very strange thing to do.

Nothing proves anything. Otherwise this case would have been solved and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you're right that it a strange amount, one that raises suspicisons. Such as that the author knew the size of the bonus.

Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.

Believed by who?

Neither one of these is particularly relevant.

I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen. Nor would have an intruder had any reason to care whether the notepad was left out or not (unless he was so embarrassed about forgetting to bring the note with him that he didn't want to be found out).

Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.

You've claimed that the intruder was unhurried, so why all of a sudden is the intruder worrying about convenience?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA on fingernails of children

I just wanted to make a few comments / questions -

The study on DNA under fingernails, has there ever been studies involving children? They have different operating rules than adults. They may touch each other more often and/or may handle toys which other children have handled.

Desert Fox,

I don't recall seeing a study on children. However, I would say that overall, there have been more studies on DNA on fingernails than on some other subjects. Upthread I linked to a BBC report on contamination involving fingernails, so we cannot discount this possibility entirely.

 

[LTC8K6]

No. No DNA or prints from the flashlight. I do not know if the train tracks were checked, as that theory came out much later.

That makes little sense.

How were the marks explained initially? There must have been some suggested explanation for the marks. They are quite obvious and unusual.

 

[Elagabalus]

This site was mentioned in the JFK thread and I noticed he had written about JBR as well. So for what it's worth here it is:

http://dyingwords.net/who-really-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/

I'm assuming that it is NOT the actual ransom note since the monetary figure is not spelled out?

 

[Drewbot]

Re: the $118,000.00 amount.

The letter was written to make it seem like it was directed at John. This way he could be the one to make the delivery while Patsy and Burke went to stay at a friend's house.

 

[Caper]

I think that any scenario involving the family is stupid. First, there's no way both parents conspired to murder their kid, that would just not happen with this family. An accidental death, a parent snaps, disciplines, whatever. That's a possibility. But that scenario would require the other parent to agree to keep quiet and do so under all that police in media pressure. The innocent party IMO, would never be able to do that. The son, that's a bit ridiculous, first it would be pretty hard to outright murder a kid in the first place for a 10 year old, especially instantly, the parent surely would have sought medical help. Second, he was 10. The FAR easier cover-up is they were playing and she fell..... even in panic, I can't imagine they go for a murder ransom scenario; especially one that requires actual kidnapping.

Also, wasn't there unknown DNA found in the girls underwear or fingernails?

 

[Segnosaur]

No. No DNA or prints from the flashlight. I do not know if the train tracks were checked, as that theory came out much later.

That makes little sense.

How were the marks explained initially? There must have been some suggested explanation for the marks. They are quite obvious and unusual.

From what I understand, the marks were initially ignored, overlooked or considered irrelevant. It was a special investigator that was brought in (Lou Smit, a retired detective who was fairly well regarded) who first brought up the idea that they were made by a hand taser. (This was supported by at least one pathologist who was able to recreate the marks.)

As the other poster mentioned, the idea that the marks came from part of a train set came much much later. (Not even sure if the Ramseys even had the same train set by the time they thought to make the connection, or whether they did their measurements by looking at similar train sets.)

 

[Henri McPhee]

IIRC, Fleet White became suspicious of John Ramsey sometime after the funeral. He realized that John probably knew the body was in the wine cellar because he yelled out before he turned the light on. Fleet had checked that room briefly when they made an earlier round of checking. Fleet didn't turn on the light and couldn't see anything in the windowless, dark room.

In return, John began pointing the finger at the Whites. The Whites have been cooperative with the police and cleared of any involvement in the death of JBR.

That's not absolutely correct. Right from the start Fleet White demanded to be cleared, even though he was a suspect along with Chris Wolf and Santa Bill. Mark Beckner of the Boulder Police Department, and his lousy detectives, immediately agreed to Fleet's demands and the Boulder DA's office eventually complied saying it would be possible to unclear Fleet White later on.

If the Boulder Police Department and the FBI don't have the detective skills to detects the real culprits in the JonBenet Ramsey case then they should not attempt to accuse innocent people like the Ramseys, and Burke, and arrange a media campaign with CBS to present fabricated evidence. It was just the same in the Jeffrey MacDonald case gross miscarriage of justice. The Whites have always refused to answer questions. They should confess to their crimes.

There is some background to this from a Boulder Daily Camera article in 2014:

"Fleet and Priscilla White exonerated in death of JonBenet Ramsey — for third time
Boulder police chief says Ramseys' friends never were suspects

By Charlie Brennan, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 01/23/2014 01:50:46 PM MST | UPDATED: 3 YEARS AGO

Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet
Fleet White is seen in a Boulder courtroom last October during a hearing in a lawsuit seeking the release of the secret indictment of JonBenet Ramsey's parents. On Thursday, the Whites were exonerated of any invovlement in JonBenet's death for the third time. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
RELATED STORIES
Fleet and Priscilla White ask judge to compel Boulder police to release records
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey exoneration statement by DA
Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death
Judge to release indictment in JonBenet Ramsey case
Camera reporter sues Boulder DA seeking release of Ramsey indictment
JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute
A Boulder couple who were in John and Patsy Ramsey's home the day JonBenet Ramsey's body was discovered in the family's basement 17 years ago were officially exonerated Thursday in the notorious murder case — for the third time.

The latest public exoneration of Fleet and Priscilla White came from the Boulder Police Department, and it prompted some head-scratching from one legal analyst.

Denver defense attorney Dan Recht, who has followed the Ramsey saga closely, was surprised to see the Whites being offered another exoneration in the case.

"I know of absolutely no precedent for anyone ever being officially exonerated three times in one case," Recht said. "I'm wondering out loud what the motivation is for the chief of police to issue a third exoneration."

Recht also said, "In addition, one wonders why the Whites would want to have their names brought to national attention, once again, in association with this case."

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner released a statement Thursday noting that "innocent community members" had been the target of speculation throughout the investigation into JonBenet's murder, and had suffered as a result. Fleet and Priscilla White, he said, are among them.

"The Boulder Police Department recognizes the suffering the Whites have endured as a result of the accusations made against the White family during the course of the investigation," Beckner's statement said.

"The Boulder Police Department investigators have always considered the White family to only be witnesses in this case."

Beckner's statement also noted that "the Boulder Police Department has never considered the White family to be suspects in the case," adding, "We wish to express our gratitude for the White family's cooperation and contributions in regard to the investigation of JonBenet's death."

JonBenet Ramsey
JonBenet Ramsey (Daily Camera file photo)
In an emailed statement to the Daily Camera, Fleet White said, "We greatly appreciate Chief Beckner and the Boulder Police Department making this statement on behalf of our family.

"Along with the recent release of the 1998-99 Boulder grand jury indictments of John and Patsy Ramsey, we are hopeful Chief Beckner's statement today will further improve the public's understanding of the investigation of JonBenet's death."

Whites first cleared by police in 1997

The Whites' first public exoneration came when the case was still being feverishly worked by numerous department detectives as well as outside experts tapped by the Boulder County District Attorney's Office, and was in the constant glare of both national and international media attention.

In April 1997, then-Boulder police Chief Tom Koby said in a prepared statement: "They (the Whites) are considered key witnesses. The Boulder Police Department appreciates the full cooperation they have received from the Whites since the beginning of their investigation. I feel this response is necessary due to the inaccurate portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. White in certain media publications."

Additionally, the Whites also were cleared in September 2008 by then-District Attorney Mary Lacy. In a letter to the Whites she authored Sept. 12, 2008, Lacy stated, "I am writing to reaffirm that you are not suspects in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.

"My office has been solely responsible for this case since December 2002," Lacy's letter added. "Since that date, I am not aware of any person associated with this office making any comment referring to any member of the Fleet White family as a suspect in this murder or otherwise suggesting any change to the conclusion in Chief Koby's statement that you are only key witnesses."

Beckner did not return calls Thursday seeking comment on the latest exoneration.

Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett said Thursday, "The Boulder police announced that the Whites were not suspects in April of 1997.

"As as far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed since then with regard to the Whites as suspects. I don't think they are suspects, and I know the police department doesn't think they are suspects."

Fleet and Prescilla White, as photographed in 2008 after receiving a letter from then-District Attorney Mary Lacy saying they were never suspects in
Fleet and Prescilla White, as photographed in 2008 after receiving a letter from then-District Attorney Mary Lacy saying they were never suspects in JonBenet Ramsey's death. (Helen H. Richardson / The Denver Post)
JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the family's basement Dec. 26, 1996, about eight hours after Patsy Ramsey called 911 to report the child missing and that she had discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the 6-year-old's safe return.

Fleet White was with John Ramsey when JonBenet's father found the girl's body in a little-used room of the family's basement, while a lone detective, Patsy Ramsey and other visitors remained upstairs.

The Ramseys had summoned the Whites — along with another couple and the minister from their church — to their home for support, shortly after calling 911.

A grand jury heard evidence in the case for 13 months, and disbanded in October 1999, with no further action by the Boulder County District Attorney's office.

The Camera reported in a Jan. 27, 2013, exclusive that the grand jury actually had voted to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey, but that then-District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to prosecute the case, believing he lacked the evidence needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Oct. 25, those indictments were made public by a judge's order, showing that each parent had been indicted on charges of felony child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime.

The statute of limitations on those charges expired after three years, and Patsy Ramsey succumbed to cancer in June 2006.

Allegation in 2000 put Whites in spotlight

The White family did come in for more public scrutiny than some Ramsey associates during the star-crossed investigation.

In his statement, Becker noted that, in 2000, "The police department did investigate allegations made by a California woman to District Attorney Alex Hunter, as reported in the press, that were intended to cast suspicion on the White family. The department found no evidence to support the unfounded allegations.

"There has never been any evidence to link the White family to the JonBenet Ramsey homicide."

The Camera in February 2000 reported that a 38-year-old woman had told Hunter that, when she was young, she had been ritually and sexually abused in a manner similar to the way JonBenet Ramsey died.

Her claims drew attention because she said she knew John and Patsy Ramsey through Fleet White. Other media also published reports about the unidentified California woman after publication of the Camera`s initial article.

But in May 2000, Boulder police said they found no connection between the Ramsey case and the California woman's allegations of having been victimized in a child-sex ring.

And in saying so, Beckner at that time said the Whites were not under any suspicion in the case, commenting, "We have never had evidence to support such an allegation."

In August 2000, the Whites filed a criminal libel complaint against the Camera for reporting the woman's claims. Because of Hunter's status as a potential witness in such a case, then-Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin appointed a special prosecutor from Pueblo County. In October of that same year, Bailin terminated the criminal libel investigation.

Then, in June 2001, a state appeals court dismissed the Whites' request to reconsider Bailin's decision to end the criminal libel investigation.

Contact Camera Staff Writer Charlie Brennan at 303-473-1327, brennanc@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/chasbrennan.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: The ransom amount matching the bonus amount on John Ramsey's pay

Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs

This seems like a very weak/unlikely explanation. The payslip would have to have been lying around in plain view...

Not sure about you, but in my house I don't necessarily make an effort to hide things like paystubs, or bills.

...and if so, that fact would have been picked up by the police.

Why? The initial case (when they thought it was a kidnapping) was badly bungled. And after that the police were largely focused on the Ramseys as suspects.

I can't imagine the killer rummaging around through drawers looking for payslips, when, as you say, they could simply name any amount they wanted.

It wouldn't necessarily be an intruder searching out a paystub. It would more likely be "I need paper to write (or rewrite) the ransom note. I'll look on this desk. Oh, what's this? A pay stub. Hey, I'll use that as a ransom amount."

Anyway, your point is simply speculation.

Yes, it is speculation. Nobody knows for sure why $118k was asked for. But my suggestions make just as much sense (if not more) than the family who was worth millions and who were such criminal masterminds giving themselves away by asking for such a little amount.

Who would have access "at his office" to that sort of information? Don't know about you, but at my office no-one would have any access to another employees financial records.

Depends on how "friendly" the office staff is.

Could have also been an accidental disclosure.

If you ask me, looking at the images/video of their house (granted not extensively), I wouldn't pick that they were worth millions. It doesn't look very luxurious to me.

So, you don't think they look wealthy, and you think that supports your "insider theory"? If anything, it actually makes it less likely since, if an intruder didn't think they were wealthy, a $118k amount would seem more feasible.

I don't buy the payslip or the mexican pesos explanations...

And what is your problem with the 'pesos' explanation?

(Keeping in mind that I don't have any proof that either explanation is valid, just that they make as much sense as any "inside theory" explanations.)

the one that makes most sense to me is a subconscious slip, or an effort to make it look like the kidnapper had knowledge of the family

So, this family, who was able to mastermind the deception of covering up the murder of their daughter, and failed to "crack" in the hours before the body discovery, or during days of intensive questioning, somehow had a "subconsious slip" by asking for $118k.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Liverpool UK crime writer Keith Andrews, who I admit is not exactly famous, had an interesting 'Fleet White did it' theory on the internet for several years. It vanished for several years and then came back again. It now seems to have vanished again but it may still be on the internet somewhere. This is part of it:

KEITH ANDREWS--Criminologist:
"I have analysed the 'ransom note' left at the Ramsey's home by the killer, and noted several strong matches regarding grammar, phrasing and style between the note and the wording of Fleet White's letter of January 16, 1998 to the Daily Camera. The phrase:'At this time' immediately caught my eye. The phrase 'At this time' starts the third sentence of the ransom note:'At this time we have your daughter in our possession.' I do not believe Fleet White acted alone. I am certain that his wife Priscilla aided and abetted him."

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes it did. And there are a couple of explanations for that:
- The killer would have had significant time in the house. Quite possible for them to have come across one of his pay stubs

I still fail to see that anyone committing a crime in an inhabited house would spend more than the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the task. It's hard to believe that anyone spent the time rummaging through the house to find financial information...

First of all, they would not have been searching an occupied house... they would have been searching a house that was empty, while the family was at the party.

Doing so would provide minimal risk.

...and on top of that was so careful that no one ever noticed that anything had been rummaged through.

You're talking about paper sitting on a desk. Do you really have such a photo-graphic memory that you could automatically detect whether some slip of paper or bill has been moved on a day-to-day basis?

- It may have been someone familiar enough with the Ramseys to know about his bonus (e.g. disgruntled employee)

We don't know who, if anyone, outside the Ramsey family knew the size of the bonus.

You're right.. we don't. That's why I've given multiple possibilities as to how an outside intruder could have come up with $118k for the ransom amount. And while we may never know what the actual reason is, those possibilities are just as reasonable (if not more so) than an inside job where the ramseys were master criminals but somehow "slipped up" the Ransom amount.

- Someone figured out that it worked out to something like 1 million mexican pesos at the time of the crime. (If the kidnapper originally thought he'd get money as a side benefit, that might have seemed like a rational amount.)

Something like? And why not round it to, say, $120,000?

Why would they need to? It wouldn't have been necessary.

Again, its believed that the killer was someone who had a personal vandetta against the Ramseys (for some real or imagined transgression). Pretending to know the person would fit in with that.

Believed by who?

Well, for one, John Douglas, former criminal profiler (with significant experience dealing with serial killers, kidnappings, etc.)

I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen.

I disagree. For an intruder to have left the notepad, the intruder either would have had to have been rather stupid or else been so well-prepared for the crime that he was completely confident that he left no fingerprints or DNA on the notepad or pen.[/quote]
Once again... this case was decades ago. At the time, I doubt any criminal was particularly concerned about 'touch DNA'. As for the fingerprints... a pair of gloves would have sufficed.

Nor would have an intruder had any reason to care whether the notepad was left out or not

Many people put stuff back where they found it out of habit.

Actually, an outside intruder may have left it on the back staircase because he didn't know the family's habits, and left it on whatever staircase was most convenient.

You've claimed that the intruder was unhurried, so why all of a sudden is the intruder worrying about convenience?

[/QUOTE]
Doing something that's convenient (such as leaving the note on the back staircase) doesn't mean he wasn't unhurried. He had one ransom note. He could have left it on either set of stairs. He had to pick one. Why not pick the one that was closest to the door he might have left from or used on his way to get JonBenet?

I somehow get the feeling that had he left it on the other staircase, you would be howling about how it shows "staging because obviously they put it on the main staircase to make it look like a home invasion".

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Also, wasn't there unknown DNA found in the girls underwear or fingernails?

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.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

That's quite an amazing big of arrogance you're exhibiting there.

Keep in mind that many of the posters here are not necessarily making up their own theories, but are reflecting comments made by people who are associated with law enforcement. Lou Smit was a well regarded retired detective investigating the crime who thought it was an intruder. John Douglas was a former FBI profiler with years of experience dealing with serial killers and other murderers, who similarly discounts the idea of it being an inside job.

They are experienced (probably a lot more experienced at dealing with crimes like the JonBenet murder than you), yet neither of them think it was an inside job.

 

[Segnosaur]

I hate to respond to my own post, but I think its something that bears repeating.

For anyone who thinks the JonBonet murder was an "inside job" (either with the murder done by one or both parents, or by the son and just covered up by the parents), I have a challenge for you...

Describe what happened, from the time the family returned from the party, until the time the body was found and the case went from a kidnapping to a murder investigation. Describe where each action happened (e.g. which room), who was involved, and if possible the character's motivation. Where details are unknown, give possible options. And make it so that it explains as much of the evidence as possible (the equal-spaced marks on completely different parts of JonBenet's body, the evidence that suggest she was strangled while still alive, the DNA under her fingernails, the missing tape roll, etc.)

I asked that several days ago. I recognize that people get busy, and are under no obligation to respond to any specific post. But the fact that so many "inside jobbers" have continued to post in this thread but nobody has touched this subject is rather revealing.

People who think that one of the Ramseys did it are looking more and more like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Just watch (loose change/the CBS documentary) , it explains everything! It had to be an inside job. After all, (fires don't cause buildings to collapse/ransom notes don't get left in the same house as the body). Plus you have all the other strange aspects of the case, like (the fire chief saying "pull it"/the strange ransom note).

So once again, "Inside Jobbers"... tell us what happened during the murder of JonBenet. Give us your complete story, not just little snippets. (Oh it must have been one of the Ramseys because X.) But a complete accounting. Lets see how rational your "inside theory" is. Because if you can't come up with a believable story about an inside job (one that doesn't involve bizarre leaps of logic) then the "inside job" theory must be discarded in favor of one that makes more sense (the intruder theory).

 

[LTC8K6]

Assuming it was an intruder...

It seems unlikely that this was this intruder's first and last fling into such activity.

Were there other similar crimes in the area before or after?

Regarding the unknown DNA, it also seems unlikely that 3 people could maintain radio silence about the crime for very long.