Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[Uncayimmy]

Understood, Longtabber. That's why I said that the DNA didn't match the family rather than saying it cleared the family, which is what the DA essentially said.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Understood, Longtabber. That's why I said that the DNA didn't match the family rather than saying it cleared the family, which is what the DA essentially said.

Exactly and I know you fully understand ( after your dealings with VFF, you ought to be a Jedi Master of sifting thru spin by now)

The thing I want to see avoided is the "public" being swayed into what may be a false lead by selective wording of LE or the media. ( like thats never happened)

DNA is what it is and theres very little room to question its accuracy if all done properly but due to the media mainly, release of small portents of information like this can lead to more false assumptions.

People should realize the DA's example of the DNA coming from the manufacturing process was a grab at straws because while possible- one good laundering ( especially with bleach) would have neutralized that.

Not to mention, theres no way to know if that DNA was there from innocent pre event handling. ( or post for that matter)

I would like to see the report and see exactly how close it was an actual match to the panty sample. I wonder if its the same person or just in the same profile category- which if it is will probably be another red herring.

Another thing I felt strange was with all the alleged struggle ( carrying her, killing her, allegedly molesting her and whatnot) that the SANE brushdown didnt find hair or other fibers. I wonder if they did and its just unreleased.

 

[JimBenArm]

We couldn't have done any worse than the cops did that first 12 hours.

Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

In this case not really.

Investigation protocols, while often individually modified to meet specific department requirements are pretty standard stuff.

Sure there are mistakes made everywhere everyday but in this specific case- it goes well beyond "mistakes" into major procedural violations that may have directly resulted in a killer going free.

 

[JimBenArm]

In this case not really.

Investigation protocols, while often individually modified to meet specific department requirements are pretty standard stuff.

Sure there are mistakes made everywhere everyday but in this specific case- it goes well beyond "mistakes" into major procedural violations that may have directly resulted in a killer going free.

And why should I believe that you would have done any better, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback? I have a bunch of people reading news reports, none of which were at the scene, collected any evidence, or interviewed anyone. Yet, somehow, through the magic of the internet, they suddenly have superpowers that make them the most amazing criminologists the world has ever seen!
Please, call me when you make an arrest, 'kay? Then I might be impressed. Until then, you're another "never was".

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

And why should I believe that you would have done any better, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback? I have a bunch of people reading news reports, none of which were at the scene, collected any evidence, or interviewed anyone. Yet, somehow, through the magic of the internet, they suddenly have superpowers that make them the most amazing criminologists the world has ever seen!
Please, call me when you make an arrest, 'kay? Then I might be impressed. Until then, you're another "never was".

Well, lets just make you fully understand me.

First, I was an investigator for years so I dont really feel the need to cater to or even consider the unqualified ramblings of an "Internet commentator" on "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in a subject that the sole level of his experience comes from TV as anything more than uneducated blog commentary.

Second, Frankly, I dont give a tinker's damn what you think- it doesnt alter the accuracy of what I said 1 bit.

 

[Olowkow]

Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.

As I recall, she wet the bed, mom was upset and was brutal in cleaning, etc. so goes the theory.

Autopsy: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

 

[JimBenArm]

Well, lets just make you fully understand me.

First, I was an investigator for years so I dont really feel the need to cater to or even consider the unqualified ramblings of an "Internet commentator" on "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in a subject that the sole level of his experience comes from TV as anything more than uneducated blog commentary.

Second, Frankly, I dont give a tinker's damn what you think- it doesnt alter the accuracy of what I said 1 bit.

Gee, Inspector Clouseau, who did steal the Pink Panther?

Really, it's too bad you weren't there, isn't it? The bad guy would be in jail right now. At least, SOMEBODY would be, bad guy or not!

 

[Segnosaur]

>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.

While it may be possible that you have more field experience than RubberChicken (or myself), keep in mind that many of the claims made by him and I are based on statements made by John Douglas, who IS a rather well-noted criminal profiler and DOES have substantially more field experience in the field of murder investigation than anyone on this board.

When he claims "some people appear calm in these situations", he's referring to statements made by professionals. Its a shame that we don't have John Douglas on this board here to ask questions to directly, but we do have access to many of the books that he's written on the subject.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs.

Once again, I'll defer to the opinion of Criminal Profiler John Douglas, who pointed out that it is extremely unlikey that the note was written after the death. Anyone involved in the murder would probably not have had the presence of mind at that point (with the excitement/adreneline/etc.) to calmly fashion a note.

I could also ask... why would they bother? If the child is dead, you'd have no chance at collecting ransom, so why bother leaving behind potential evidence?

This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

Acutally, there are a couple of other possibilities:

- The father probably had left varioius pay stubs around; any potential killer/kidnapper lurking for a time in the empty house may have had the opportunity to notice one of these stubs.

- One of the police investigating the case noticed that $118,000 at the time worked out to roughly 1 million mexican pesos. A potential kidnapper might have decided to collect the ransom and then flee the country, and 1 million pesos is a nice round number.

If the murder 'knew' the family, they'd know the family had a lot more than just $118,000. why not ask for more?

 

[Segnosaur]

She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.

I recall that being discussed a lot. That the garotte was to cover up the fact she was killed via the head trauma.

This probably isn't likely...

Head wounds tend to bleed a lot.... if the head injury happened first, you might find evidence of blood in the bathroom (or wherever the injury occured).

On the other hand, strangling FIRST would have slowed/stopped the heart, so that any head injury would not bleed as much.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

Your analogy is silly.

Beyond that, I think you are confusing armchair analysis of the data with the obvious blunders by the police.

First off, the entire house was a crime scene. That's patently obvious. You have a child missing from the home, ostensibly taken from her bed. You have a ransom note left on the back stairs. Obviously, somebody had to enter the home, move through the home by himself, then exit the home transporting a little girl. Evidence could be anywhere inside or around the home. It's a freaking crime scene!

The only thing the cops did was put police tape up at the door to her room. They allowed people to walk all around the house and yard. And not just the family, we're talking friends as well. Nobody had been eliminated as a suspect at that point. This was a horrendous blunder.

Second, they did a cursory search for forced entry but came up empty. So what does that tell you? It's a very strong indicator that it was an "inside job" of some sort. Couple this with the fact that most crimes like this are not done by strangers and you have to be thinking family and friends rather than psycho off the street. So why let the most likely suspects hang around the crime scene?

Third, they sent the father and a friend to look around the house for things out of ordinary. These are suspects. You don't send them off unsupervised to look for evidence at a crime scene. That's just ridiculous.

Fourth, they didn't do a thorough search of the house. We're not talking about a forensics tech missing a drop of blood behind the stove. We're talking about not opening the door to the wine cellar and missing an unlatched window in the basement.

Fifth, they let a potential witness sleep (the son) instead of asking him if he saw or heard anything that night.

This was a horribly botched investigation. They had 7 hours to do or think of all that stuff, which is really standard operating procedure. To use your Monday Morning Quarterback analogy, it's like bitching that the coach punted on third down from the opponent's 20 yard line while down by 2 points with 30 seconds left in the game.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

>>>I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion."

Thats why we look at the total body of evidence.

Yes, which also entails understanding when things are not evidence. Like your "suspicion" about why John Ramsey searched the house, which is the specific piece of "evidence" (or non-evidence as it turned out to be) we were discussing.

>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.

So are you disputing the fact that John Ramsey searched the house because the police asked him?

That was what we were talking about. And it was what you claimed was first "a different subject" and then "an appeal to emotion." Otherwise, what the heck are you talking about?

I appreciate you admitting that I am right, though.

You still never address the question about your experience on the scene of a crime

I have this weird thing about not answering completely irrelevant questions. Call it a personality quirk.

not circular- staying on point- but you wouldnt understand that would you?

When I'm talking with someone who doesn't have a point -- yes, that makes it a bit difficult.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

While it may be possible that you have more field experience than RubberChicken (or myself), keep in mind that many of the claims made by him and I are based on statements made by John Douglas, who IS a rather well-noted criminal profiler and DOES have substantially more field experience in the field of murder investigation than anyone on this board.

When he claims "some people appear calm in these situations", he's referring to statements made by professionals. Its a shame that we don't have John Douglas on this board here to ask questions to directly, but we do have access to many of the books that he's written on the subject.

And just to be clear: on the topic we were discussing (victim reactions) I indeed have real world experience in dealing with both crime victims and people in other crisis situations, several involving the death of a friend or loved one. I mentioned it more than once in this discussion, it's just been ignored -- I guess because I don't feel the need to post my entire resume on a message board to complete strangers (crazy, I know!).

EDIT: That said, I would still defer to the books and experience of Mr. Douglas, over my own experience.

 

[Olowkow]

This probably isn't likely...

Head wounds tend to bleed a lot.... if the head injury happened first, you might find evidence of blood in the bathroom (or wherever the injury occured).

On the other hand, strangling FIRST would have slowed/stopped the heart, so that any head injury would not bleed as much.

Thanks for the input. Well, apparently no blood was found, so does that rule out completely head trauma happening first? Your use of the word "might" causes me some concern. Do you have a medical reference for this?

I am familiar with some of what Douglas has written, he is very good. What if it is not an intruder though. The only thing we all have a problem with is how parents could possibly be so callous, as to sit down after an accidental rage killing of a child, and coldly compose a scenario to prevent their involvement from being discovered and (hence )their being punished. It happens.

 

[Olowkow]

And just to be clear: on the topic we were discussing (victim reactions) I indeed have real world experience in dealing with both crime victims and people in other crisis situations, several involving the death of a friend or loved one. I mentioned it more than once in this discussion, it's just been ignored -- I guess because I don't feel the need to post my entire resume on a message board to complete strangers (crazy, I know!).

Nothing personal, but there have been a lot of appeals to authority going on here. None of us has real knowledge of this crime, so we are all just guessing. It's just an intellectual game. I am not ignoring you, but I guess the problem is, what can one say to "Hey, I'm an expert." "OH, okay".

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Nothing personal, but there have been a lot of appeals to authority going on here. None of us has real knowledge of this crime, so we are all just guessing. It's just an intellectual game. I am not ignoring you, but I guess the problem is, what can one say to "Hey, I'm an expert." "OH, okay".

Hey, I agree. I initially only mentioned my experience in response to someone trying to dismiss my opinion because I supposedly don't have "field experience," and all that nonsense. I attempted to cite other experts (as Segnosaur noted) and another specific case to bolster my point. These were also ignored, apparently for the same reason.

So I'm with you. I'm just here to enjoy a lively discussion, that's about it.

 

[Olowkow]

Hey, I agree. ....
So I'm with you. I'm just here to enjoy a lively discussion, that's about it.

Cool, glad you took no offense.
Probably about 10 years ago, I got really hooked on reading every non-fiction crime book I could find. At the time I had some friends in law enforcement, and I loved to pick their brains. I really think everyone here respects the experience of those who are participating, it's just that we are all looking for more than opinions, however well informed. At least for me, it would be nice to have some really convincing evidence of what the heck happened. I keep saying it, wow, what a mystery.

BUT, to many people the OJ case is still a mystery.

 

[Segnosaur]

Thanks for the input. Well, apparently no blood was found, so does that rule out completely head trauma happening first? Your use of the word "might" causes me some concern. Do you have a medical reference for this?

Well, there is a chance that maybe the parents were really really good at cleaning up any blood evidence. Or maybe the cops overlooked signs of blood elsewhere in the house. (After all, they messed up so much with the case.) However, given the excessive attention the Ramsey's received, I figure the cops would be eager to find any evidence like that.

Its a case of looking at odds...what's more likely, that the parents were some of the rare people who were able to successfully clean up after themselves, or that there was no blood because the head was not bleading because of the strangulation.

(I should also point out that the coroner's report mentioned petechial hemorrhages, which likely wouldn't occur if she were already dead prior to the strangulation.)

I am familiar with some of what Douglas has written, he is very good. What if it is not an intruder though. The only thing we all have a problem with is how parents could possibly be so callous, as to sit down after an accidental rage killing of a child, and coldly compose a scenario to prevent their involvement from being discovered and (hence )their being punished. It happens.

Again, if you look at the odds, its not JUST that the parents were callous following the murder, but it was also that:

- They would spontaneiously lash out in rage in the first place, when there has been no evidence that the Ramseys ever abused their children BEFORE. Yeah, its physically possible, but they'd be an exceptionally rare case.

- That they would be organized enough to be able to dispose of any and all incriminating evidence. No blood elsewhere, no sign of the tape or rope that was used.

 

[LTC8K6]

Was the head injury an open one?