Patsy and John Killed Their Daughter?

[Helping Hand]

Patsy killed her daughter and John was an accomplice. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until I hear conclusive evidence otherwise.

That's the sentiment at CTV today and I want to scream !!! How can people 1) ignore the evidence that has been indpendently assessed by investigators and a judge that the Ramsey's did not kill their daughter and 2) be so darn sure that they did kill their daughter.

I guess people like this won't come around until the DNA hits a match (which I am praying for so there will finally be conclusive proof of the Ramsey's innocence)... All My Opinion as always.

Even if it turns out that John Karr didn't kill JonBenet, I think LE should keep its focus on pedophiles, who lived in Boulder at the time or were visiting nearby relatives at the time, during the Christmas holiday.

As facts begin to unfold, we may learn that Karr is indeed the perp. But, I must say, that from what we know thus far, I am not convinced. However, if the DNA found beneath JBR's fingernails and on the blood spot found on her underpants matches Karr's, then there is no reasonable way it to have gotten there, unless he was at the crime scence itself.

John Karr researched this case obsessively, and probably knows more about it than almost anyone. Even the so-called details, which were never publically disclosed, could have reached him through someone close to the investigation who had either shared the info with him, or with someone else who shared it with him.

I'm most interested in that Santa teddy bear Jean Casares spoke of, which was found in JBR's bedroom when she was murdered - the same, or similar one, which belonged to Karr. That teddy bear could end up being a key piece of evidence in this case.

IMO

What I would like to know is if the DNA found under her fingernails matches the DNA of what was found in her panties.
On CTV today, there was a reference to the high school yearbook page that Karr signed and how the initials of what her wrote matched the SBTC of the signature on the "ransom" note.
No one has mentioned this handwriting match again. DId anyone else see this?

Originally posted by nutmeg22
What I would like to know is if the DNA found under her fingernails matches the DNA of what was found in her panties.
On CTV today, there was a reference to the high school yearbook page that Karr signed and how the initials of what her wrote matched the SBTC of the signature on the "ransom" note.
No one has mentioned this handwriting match again. DId anyone else see this?

Yes they were a match according to this article.

"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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in661569.shtml

I heard about the handwriitng looking alike but I haven't seen it.

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yes they were a match according to this article.

"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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in661569.shtml

I heard about the handwriitng looking alike but I haven't seen it.

I had read this article before, but somehow I missed the fact that the same DNA was found on the blood on the panties and under her fingernails. That is it. That does not match the Ramsey family's DNA so it means an outside intruder killed JonBenet. Then the Ramsey's did not do it after all. And it means that that ransom note, as improbable as it seems, was not written by Patsy Ramsey, but was written by the killer and that killer was an outside intruder.

Hey Paula...or anyone...please tell me more about this bear. Did I hear correctly that JMK had a bear like the one found on JBR's bed? And who said his bear was similar/same?

Originally posted by bred
Hey Paula...or anyone...please tell me more about this bear. Did I hear correctly that JMK had a bear like the one found on JBR's bed? And who said his bear was similar/same?

Apparently Karr there's a picture of Karr with a very similar bear from years ago. As Pam, Patsy's sister tells it, she was asked by LE to look around JonBenet's room to see if she noticed anything strange. She noticed the bear that she had never seen before. No family member had bought it for her. However, Pam said that it could possibly have come from a pageant luncheon where the little girls exchange gifts.

Thanks elroh6. I can't quite tell if Patsy identified this strange bear or Pam? This could be important if Patsy discovered it immediately. I wonder if pictures of both are available and some of our experts could do those fantastic comparisons that they do?!

The blood on the panties and under the fingernails from an unknown male means the Ramseys are innocent. I don't know why people now are still trying to say they did it. We know now they did not do it.

I confess that years ago I was one of those who thought they were involved. I was wrong. What they went through was a public lynching, a modern witch trial, carried out in the news media.

Give it up. The Ramseys did not do it, no matter how much you once believed that they did.

Thanks for clearing up the bear story. Yes, IIRC DNA testing ruled out any Ramsey involvement quite a few years ago, but even that didn't seem to totally clear them. Someone on a show last night said he thinks LE asked for a rush through DNA test on Karr and they probably already know if he's a match.

[nuisanceposter]

The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...ey/feb_13.html

On November 19, 2002, The Rocky Mountain News reported the unknown male DNA recovered from JonBenet's panties could have been left on the garment at the time the clothing was manufactured. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured in the plant in Southeast Asia, tested them and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
______________

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

[nuisanceposter]

Focus Remains on Patsy Ramsey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13345463/

So many things don’t add up in the JonBenet Ramsey case even after that creepy reptile of a suspect was allowed to slither out of his Bangkok prison cell.

Last night I spoke to Patsy Ramsey’s sister on Scarborough Country.

She was obviously relieved that the world finally had a reason to divert their suspicions from her dead sister to a serial child molester. But investigators I am talking to on and off camera tell me that their focus remains on JonBenet’s mother.

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

Investigators say even taking the rap for a brutal murder will be a better deal if it gets him back on American soil.

Besides, they say his performance in the press conference was pathetic. One told me, "He looked like he was lying through his teeth."

Others still don’t buy Patsy Ramsey’s story. Remember after the murder how watching the slain girl’s mom made you feel uneasy in all those interviews? Her story didn’t seem to add up then and it doesn’t add up now.

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

what people seem to be constantly missing is that he wasn't in jail for anything having to do with Thailand. he was there ONLY at the request of the US LE for warrents in cali and jon benet. so if LE hadn't asked them to hold him he would still be out on the streets in Thailand.

[cougermom]

Originally posted by athy
Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

what people seem to be constantly missing is that he wasn't in jail for anything having to do with Thailand. he was there ONLY at the request of the US LE for warrents in cali and jon benet. so if LE hadn't asked them to hold him he would still be out on the streets in Thailand.

And if they "can`t get it" they surely want get,the Ramsey`s are good people who loves their children and had NOTHING to do with their daughters death..........CM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...ey/feb_13.html

On November 19, 2002, The Rocky Mountain News reported the unknown male DNA recovered from JonBenet's panties could have been left on the garment at the time the clothing was manufactured. "In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured in the plant in Southeast Asia, tested them and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties."

Police now claim that the unidentified DNA found under both of JonBenet's fingernails has been contaminated and is of limited value.
______________

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

I don't find it surprising that fibers from a parent's clothing would find their way onto a six year old girl's clothes or body on Christmas Day. I think that is nothing.

A Grand Jury and a Federal Judge both found that the DNA evidence was compelling enough to cast doubt on the guilt of the Ramseys and to find that someone else might have or probably killed JonBenet Ramsey.

[Lili007]

Originally posted by Hey Paula
Even if it turns out that John Karr didn't kill JonBenet, I think LE should keep its focus on pedophiles, who lived in Boulder at the time or were visiting nearby relatives at the time, during the Christmas holiday.

As facts begin to unfold, we may learn that Karr is indeed the perp. But, I must say, that from what we know thus far, I am not convinced. However, if the DNA found beneath JBR's fingernails and on the blood spot found on her underpants matches Karr's, then there is no reasonable way it to have gotten there, unless he was at the crime scence itself.

John Karr researched this case obsessively, and probably knows more about it than almost anyone. Even the so-called details, which were never publically disclosed, could have reached him through someone close to the investigation who had either shared the info with him, or with someone else who shared it with him.

I'm most interested in that Santa teddy bear Jean Casares spoke of, which was found in JBR's bedroom when she was murdered - the same, or similar one, which belonged to Karr. That teddy bear could end up being a key piece of evidence in this case.

IMO

Hi Hey Paula,

If he researched this case in such depth that he knew details which hadn't been disclosed to "the public", why does he get such BASICS wrong as 'picked her up from school and took her to the Ramsey's basement", when everyone knows there was no school that day and that she was tucked in that night by her mother. And if Patsy is lying about that, I still don't think that JonBenet could have been absent from the house from the time "school finished" (ie early afternoon time, though there was NO school anyway) up until the time she was supposed to be in bed, without her parents missing her. A 6-year-old can't just 'not be there' for the afternoon, whole evening and night without her parents raising hell if that were the case.

So if Karr researched this case so obssessively, as I've no doubt he did, why make such a stupid statement?

I haven't heard about the teddy bear yet... please could you either post a link, or else just tell me where you heard/read it. Thanks

JMO,
Lili

PS - or just what you know about it

Even when I suspected that the Ramsey parents were involved in the death of JonBenet, one thing that always bothered me was the possible motive. I have never seen a believable one presented.

And while I can believe that a tired or angry and frustrated parent might accidently harm their own child, I cannot believe that John or Patsy would deliberately make a garrotte and strangle her with it. I was always troubled by that.

Neither John nor Patsy had any history of harming their children and we know of no evidence of it for the last ten years. Yet I am expected to believe that both of them apparently went nuts on one day and planned to murder their six year old daughter.

It never made any sense.

[Lili007]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The DNA under the fingernails and on the underwear have not been proved to match by anyone other than Ramsey-hired PIs.

The coroner's office did not use a sterile set of clippers for each finger as they were supposed to. There is serious question of contamination in respect to the DNA found under the nails.

The DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was fragmented and degraded, not even possessing all 13 markers, whereas the drop of JonBenet's blood from which the foreign DNA was extracted is fresh and complete. They can't even identify from which kind of cell the foreign DNA came.

To most rational-thinking people, this indicates that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear prior to JonBenet's DNA being deposited. People have suggested that the foreign DNA came from a factory worker or inspector.

To me, that's not rational at all. If some factory-worker(s) had left their male DNA on JonBenet's panties is unlikely enough. But DNA was also recovered from under JonBenet's fingernails. If that DNA is NOT the same as that on the panties - supposedly left there 'by a factory worker', then the two will not match each other. On the other hand, if the two match each other, then either

1. the factory worker who left his DNA on the panties JonBenet was wearing is the same person who got his DNA caught under JonBenet's fingernails - OR

2. the DNA on the panties comes from a factory worker, but is different from the DNA cound under her fingernails, in which case the DNA from under her fingernails becomes the most likely to identify her killer.

There are various other possibilities and many permutations, but it really boils down to this very simple concept, IMO.

More telling than the DNA on the undies is the fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy Ramsey wore that night being found on the backside of the tape over JB's mouth, in the paint tray where the handle for the garotte came from, and tied into the knot at the back of JonBenet's neck. Fibers consistent with the the shirt John Ramsey wore that night were found on JonBenet's underwear and pubic area.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

* Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

* Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

* Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."

It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

JonBenet would have had at least one set of panties changed and one set of clothes changed, and at least one bath by that stage, AFTER the Christmas party, I would hope.

So unless the killer/s wore the same type jackets or shirts on the following night when they kidnapped and killed JonBenet, whether by accident or not, why would those fibers still be there?

Anyway, I'm, getting carried away here, so I'll back off. But the more I read, the more I find it unlikely that this Karr had anything to do with it, unless he was somehow involved after the 'accident', or unless he's just plain delusional. Or maybe he's guilty, after all.

There - I've covered all grounds.

JMO,
Lili

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosebud

<snip>

A Grand Jury and a Federal Judge

<snip>

The Civil Case

From: www.supportramsey.com

In March of 2003, United States District Judge Julie E Carnes issued a lengthy report, which stated, among other things:

a. "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so"

Link To: Judge Carnes Order March 31, 2003

What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters

What Mr. Ramsey fails to tell the Michigan voters is that Judge Julie Carnes presided over a CIVIL lawsuit, in CIVIL court, a lawsuit filed by Chris Wolf against the Ramseys for defamation of character, after they named him as a murder suspect in their book, "Death of Innocence."

The Ramseys’ civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm


That's right - over 40,000 pages of police documentation that Judge Carnes did not see. Pretty difficult to make a unbiased decision when your evidence is lacking in favor of the Ramseys.

________________________

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

____________________

Hunter's judgments about the case are no longer relevant because his term ended early 2001 when he chose not to run for re-election. Unfortunately, his successor doesn't show any more inclination to get to the bottom of the case than he did.

New D.A. Mary Keenan, who was an assistant D.A. under Hunter, didn't take any publicly known action on the case until nearly two years into her term, and then she did so only after receiving a letter from Ramsey attorney Wood informing her, according to press reports, that the Ramseys were considering suing Boulder unless they were exonerated.

http://crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm
_______________

Plus there's the recent CTV program about JonBenet where they interviewed a grand juror who said that she went into the jury proceedings unable to believe a parent could do to their child what was done to JonBenet (and she wasn't the only one.) So much for fair and unbiased jurors.

I find it very interesting that the grand jurors never heard from either the parents who were in the home at the time the child was killed nor the lead investigator, who, by PMPT author Lawrence Schiller's account, "may know what happened better than anyone."

[TuscanDreams]

I don't know who killed JonBenet, but I don't believe it was Karr.

[Lili007]

Originally posted by TuscanDreams
I don't know who killed JonBenet, but I don't believe it was Karr.

Nor do I.

Apart from the discrepancies we've already talked about in various threads, the fact remains that he got his facts wrong. It has been suggested that he got those facts "wrong" on purpose, to avoid "real" prosecution. I don't think so, but that's JMO.

The interesting thing is, that, when he was asked to very minimally elaborate on his public confession, he kept saying "no comment".

I mean, after all, we have a self-confessed child abuser and murderer who has no problem proclaiming to the world that he'loved' JonBenet and that he was'with her when she died' and that 'it was an accident'. Case closed.

But then he says things like 'I picked her up from school and took herto the (Ramseys') basement. And then ... NO COMMENT.

ASSUMING HE DID ANYTHING AT ALL,

1. What did he do with JonBenet, and why

2. Why 'no comment'? as to anything else related, that the media might ask?

I just do not think he's the guy who killed JonBenet, at this stage.

JMO,
Lili

[LI_Mom]

Thailand is retracting a lot of things they said Karr said.

I wonder if they really DID get their facts wrong or whether they were asked by the US authorities to back off.

[Amy]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Focus Remains on Patsy Ramsey

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13345463/

So many things don’t add up in the JonBenet Ramsey case even after that creepy reptile of a suspect was allowed to slither out of his Bangkok prison cell.

....snip....

Why? Because they think John Mark Karr’s confession may be an attempt to get out of a life sentence in Bangkok. Better to spend your remaining years in US federal facility than a Thailand hell hole.

Investigators say even taking the rap for a brutal murder will be a better deal if it gets him back on American soil.

....snip

He was arrested at his apartment, and despite initial reports that he had been arrested on unrelated sex charges in Thailand, Thai officials have denied this in all the news reports.

Not to say that, if he had not "confessed" to this crime, that they might have eventually arrested him. Sounds like they would rather have "undesirables" deported back to their homelands than to support them for years in prision.

And, perhaps JMK was aware that something was up, that he would probably be arrested on Thai charges, and indeed prefered a sentence in a US prison whether he was guilty or not, than to take the chance that he would rot in a Thai prison.

Just seems to me, he had logical (and while heinous--not as heinous as murder of a 6 y/o girl) charges against him in CA that he could have been extradited back to the US for. Unless he tho't those charges may not have been serious enough (child porn as opposed to child molestation) for the US to come after him?

[LI_Mom]

I think they declared him an "undesribale" for political reasons only.

Instead of wading through extradition headaches bewteen the 2 countries, this is probably a much faster way to proceed.

Pull his visa, hold him in custody at the request of DHS, name him as an "undesirable" and let the US authorities bring him back to Calif bypassing a lot of red tape.

I don't believe much that's coming out of Thailand.

It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.


Reply: That is IF it is true that the fibers found on the duct tape were from there. I am not so sure of anything found on the internet.

I also read somewhere that the police found doors and windows unlocked when they got to the house, and yet all we have heard is about the basement window. The intruders may have just walked in a door.

The Ramseys’ civil attorney Lin Wood presented a one-sided view of the evidence to Judge Carnes. Her decision was based on that one-sided view. However, there were over 40,000 pages of police documents and evidence collected in the criminal investigation by the BPD that Judge Carnes never saw.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm


That's right - over 40,000 pages of police documentation that Judge Carnes did not see. Pretty difficult to make a unbiased decision when your evidence is lacking in favor of the Ramseys.

________________________


reply: Well those 40,000 pages of police documentation did not get an indictment through a Grand Jury in Boulder to indict the Ramseys. And we are often told that a DA could indict a "ham sandwich."

[nuisanceposter]

Not Alex Hunter.

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

[NursingHomeDiva]

Originally posted by rosebud
Even when I suspected that the Ramsey parents were involved in the death of JonBenet, one thing that always bothered me was the possible motive. I have never seen a believable one presented.

And while I can believe that a tired or angry and frustrated parent might accidently harm their own child, I cannot believe that John or Patsy would deliberately make a garrotte and strangle her with it. I was always troubled by that.

Neither John nor Patsy had any history of harming their children and we know of no evidence of it for the last ten years. Yet I am expected to believe that both of them apparently went nuts on one day and planned to murder their six year old daughter.

It never made any sense.

EXACTLY.

[nuisanceposter]

Some people, myself included, believe the head wound preceded the strangling. Experts such as Dr Werner Spitz said the skull fracture would have made a loud sound and rendered JonBenet unconsciousand entering a coma, with eventual death.

I have no problem believing an enraged parent may have struck JonBenet on the head, and, seeing her appear lifeless, decide that calling for medical help was beyond question, and resort to staging a different scene, including tying a cord around JB's neck to make it look like she was strangled instead of bludgeoned.

The knot at the back of JB's neck was not a noose knot. Meyer decribed it in the autopsy as a "double knot". Anyone who can tie a shoelace can tie that knot. it was this fixed knot that ended JonBenet's life, but I think the strangler already thought her dead when it was applied.

Her hair is entwined in the knot...that indicates to me that it was "built" on her neck in a rush, after she was unconscious (since there is no defense marks on her neck and no internal damage from a struggle) while she laid face-down on the floor. Backing this up is the fact that her undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front - where the urine would flow if she was lying face-down while killed and her bladder let go.

Also interesting to note was that there was very little internal damage to JB's neck - her hyoid bone was intact, her thyroid was undamaged, there was no bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue was unblemished. Usually strangulation victims bite the inside of their cheeks and tongue. Why would she not fight the person tying a cord around her neck and strangling her? She's already unconscious.

IMO, it's completely conceivable that someone, perhaps Patsy, hit JonBenet in anger and then staged the rest of the scene to look like anything else.

Originally posted by Lili007


Hi Hey Paula,

If he researched this case in such depth that he knew details which hadn't been disclosed to "the public", why does he get such BASICS wrong as 'picked her up from school and took her to the Ramsey's basement", when everyone knows there was no school that day and that she was tucked in that night by her mother. And if Patsy is lying about that, I still don't think that JonBenet could have been absent from the house from the time "school finished" (ie early afternoon time, though there was NO school anyway) up until the time she was supposed to be in bed, without her parents missing her. A 6-year-old can't just 'not be there' for the afternoon, whole evening and night without her parents raising hell if that were the case.

So if Karr researched this case so obssessively, as I've no doubt he did, why make such a stupid statement?

I haven't heard about the teddy bear yet... please could you either post a link, or else just tell me where you heard/read it. Thanks

JMO,
Lili

PS - or just what you know about it

Hi Lili,

There could be different reasons why Karr made statements which contradict the facts. Here are a couple.

1) If he is truly guilty, making such contradictory statements make it appear as though he might be innocent.

2) If he had molested and/or killed another little girl, he might have picked her up from school and the two events became enmeshed.

The Santa teddy bear has been spoken of extensively on TV. Patsy sister, Pam Paugh, was asked about it too. It seems that either the same Santa teddy bear, or one similar to it appearing in a childhood photo of John Karr, was found in JonBenet's bedroom (on her twin bed) after she was murdered. No one in the family had seen it before.

IMO

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Some people, myself included, believe the head wound preceded the strangling. Experts such as Dr Werner Spitz said the skull fracture would have made a loud sound and rendered JonBenet unconsciousand entering a coma, with eventual death.

I have no problem believing an enraged parent may have struck JonBenet on the head, and, seeing her appear lifeless, decide that calling for medical help was beyond question, and resort to staging a different scene, including tying a cord around JB's neck to make it look like she was strangled instead of bludgeoned.

The knot at the back of JB's neck was not a noose knot. Meyer decribed it in the autopsy as a "double knot". Anyone who can tie a shoelace can tie that knot. it was this fixed knot that ended JonBenet's life, but I think the strangler already thought her dead when it was applied.

Her hair is entwined in the knot...that indicates to me that it was "built" on her neck in a rush, after she was unconscious (since there is no defense marks on her neck and no internal damage from a struggle) while she laid face-down on the floor. Backing this up is the fact that her undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front - where the urine would flow if she was lying face-down while killed and her bladder let go.

Also interesting to note was that there was very little internal damage to JB's neck - her hyoid bone was intact, her thyroid was undamaged, there was no bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue was unblemished. Usually strangulation victims bite the inside of their cheeks and tongue. Why would she not fight the person tying a cord around her neck and strangling her? She's already unconscious.

IMO, it's completely conceivable that someone, perhaps Patsy, hit JonBenet in anger and then staged the rest of the scene to look like anything else.

REPLY: Why would John or Patsy want the police to think she had been strangled instead of dying from a blow to the head? It would make more sense for them to stage some sort of accident scene, where the head wound was inflicted by a fall, perhaps off a table, or down a flight of stairs or off of a banister. I can think of no reason why they would strangle their, what they think is their dead daughter, after they think she has died from an accidental blow to the head.

It makes no sense for them to want the police to think she had been strangled instead of dying from head trauma. Head trauma could be seen as accidental death, a strangulation is homocide.

The theory that Patsy or John Ramsey staged a strangulation of what they thought was a dead JonBenet makes no sense.

However an intruder may have wanted to make sure she was dead before he left the house so she could not ID him.

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Not Alex Hunter.

While widespread allegations of political manipulation by former District Atty. Alex Hunter are warranted as an explanation for inaction in the JonBenet case, the truth may be simpler: Hunter has a long record of being a weak prosecutor who rarely goes to trial, and often infuriates the police because of the lenient sentences he is willing to plea bargain down to. The Boulder police suspected for some time that Hunter was hoping to work out a plea bargain in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. That, of course, is based on the police belief that Patsy Ramsey committed the crime and that her husband conspired with her to cover-up the murder.

In addition to having a reputation in many quarters as being lazy and weak, Alex Hunter is that rare breed – a district attorney who is a true 1960s liberal. When Hunter first ran for the D.A.'s office in 1972, he vowed he would pursue rehabilitation rather than punishment. After six terms as prosecuting attorney, Hunter still believes strongly in rehabilitation, even for the most serious offenders. After 28 years as prosecutor, Hunter has never put a defendant on death row.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

REPLY: Is that all you got? Pretty lame. Do you actually think this case could be made against the Ramseys with the DNA evidence of an "unknown male" on JonBenet's panties? Not a chance.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosebud



REPLY: Is that all you got? Pretty lame. Do you actually think this case could be made against the Ramseys with the DNA evidence of an "unknown male" on JonBenet's panties? Not a chance.

More important than the presence of DNA is the fact that it was fragmented and degraded whereas JonBenet's was fresh and complete. There's a very good chance that the foreign DNA was deposited on the underwear before JonBenet's blood got on them.

The underwear that JonBenet was dressed in were Bloomie's size 12/14. They were fresh and unwashed out of the package. When other packages of underwear were tested, they were also found to have DNA on them.


http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Int...IsthisaDNAcase

# Here's what one of the investigators had to say about the DNA "evidence": "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence." (Rocky Mountain News, November 19, 2002.)
# According to the same article, investigators did some tests on similar panties from the same plant and found that some also contained DNA. Since the bits of DNA molecule found mixed with JonBenet's blood were fragmented and degraded to the point that they couldn't even be sourced to any particular type of cell, contamination from the plant is the most likely explanation for its presence -- and the fact that it was never sourced to anyone connected to the family or anyone in the CODIS database.

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I read - and I don't have a link - that a lady who was involved with the pageants came forward and identified the bear as one that had been given away at one of the pageants - and stated that JonBenet got one at a pageant.

I had heard something like that too. But, even if JonBenet had received it at a pageant, I'd still like to know if the teddy bear is actually John Karr's. I've always wondered if he had attended any of JonBenet's beauty pageants.

nuisance poster, thank you for the informative website. I am not sure how much is true and how much is not though.

I saw Cyril Wecht's rants that JBR was sexually abused for a period before she was killed and saw that some disagree with him.

I can say that I know of Wecht from reading about the JFK assassination and I have total contempt for him. I believe he will say anything in any high profile case that will get him a soapbox and attention.

[Lili007]

Originally posted by rosebud
It's only normal that fibers from JonBenet's mother and father's clothing be present on or around her body. But I get unconfortable when fibres identical to her mother's jacket turn up on the inside of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth (sorry for the horrible imagery), and around the paint brush and the garotte with which her poor little body was strangled.

And what were fibers 'from the same black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore" doing "in" the panties and in "the crotch area" of JonBenet's body? I find that very strange.

Reply: That is IF it is true that the fibers found on the duct tape were from there. I am not so sure of anything found on the internet.

I also read somewhere that the police found doors and windows unlocked when they got to the house, and yet all we have heard is about the basement window. The intruders may have just walked in a door.

Fair point. IF the fibers did come from Patsy's jacket, and IF the other fibers came from John's shirt. Granted.

But if one doesn't trust the internet, it works both ways.

The fact that you 'read somewhere' that LE found doors and windows open doesn't make it so. If you don't believe the report that only the basement window was open, why should you believe that 'doors and windows' were open through the house?

Both reports come from 'we read somewhere' (I include myself in this). So who is to say one is wrong and the other right, and vice-versa?

IMO, the internet is a pretty reliable source of information, IF the source has credibility. If not, it's open house for al sort of speculation. And, let's face it - that's what we do here: speculate and theorize on what transpires through the media and other sources, some more credible than others.

JMO,
Lili

[Lili007]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi Lili,

There could be different reasons why Karr made statements which contradict the facts. Here are a couple.

1) If he is truly guilty, making such contradictory statements make it appear as though he might be innocent.

2) If he had molested and/or killed another little girl, he might have picked her up from school and the two events became enmeshed.

The Santa teddy bear has been spoken of extensively on TV. Patsy sister, Pam Paugh, was asked about it too. It seems that either the same Santa teddy bear, or one similar to it appearing in a childhood photo of John Karr, was found in JonBenet's bedroom (on her twin bed) after she was murdered. No one in the family had seen it before.

IMO

Thanks for that, Hey Paula.

What you say makes sense, but this still niggles at me: if this guy is truly guilty and is making contradictory statements to appear innocent, why did he "confess" in the first place? Without this 'confession', he'd have no need to make up lies to contradict what he wouldn't have said in the first place. And, when asked by the press "are you an innocent man?", he replied "no".

Interesting point about the possiblity of him confusing or 'merging' two incidents into one... But confessing to murder is a bit more dire than confessing to abduction. The two are equally horrible, but one is permanent and there's no therapy on earth that can change it around. So why not confess to abduction, if he felt the need to confess? Then again, why is he a pedophile? Impossible to answer.

Thanks for the info about the teddy bear - I missed that in the broadcasts. If that is true, that that teddy bear just happened to 'appear' on JonBenet's twin bed without anyone knowing anything about it, and Karr having the same teddy bear when he was a child... that should really clench it, I would think.

I wonder if there's any DNA on the teddy bear? If Karr was clutching it as a child and if it had been his favourite (or one of his fovourite) toys, he must have slept with it, cuddled it, kissed it, chewed on it, whatever. If that's the case, there could be some residual DNA, or at least marks that would indicate that that teddy bear was not brand new. No child leaves a toy unmarked - it's almost a ritual. Everything gets a mark from eager teeth, playful fingers and rough-and-tumble play, even from being tucked in to sleep with its loving owner.

If Karr had that teddy bear before it 'appeared' in JonBenet's room, someone should be able to establish that. Or at the very least, if it was a 'previously-loved' toy.

JOM,
Lili

Originally posted by Lili007





Fair point. IF the fibers did come from Patsy's jacket, and IF the other fibers came from John's shirt. Granted.

But if one doesn't trust the internet, it works both ways.

The fact that you 'read somewhere' that LE found doors and windows open doesn't make it so. If you don't believe the report that only the basement window was open, why should you believe that 'doors and windows' were open through the house?

Both reports come from 'we read somewhere' (I include myself in this). So who is to say one is wrong and the other right, and vice-versa?

IMO, the internet is a pretty reliable source of information, IF the source has credibility. If not, it's open house for al sort of speculation. And, let's face it - that's what we do here: speculate and theorize on what transpires through the media and other sources, some more credible than others.

JMO,
Lili [/b]

REPLY: And according to the website "np" sent me to, the police never found the roll of duct tape that the tape on JBR's mouth came from. According to that the parents they did not have duct tape in the house (which if true, it must have been one of the few in America that did not have a roll of it, I will admit).

There was enough mold on the floor around the body in the basement for Hi-Tec shoe imprints near it, but no Hi-Tec shoes were found in the house, apparently. I assume no fingerprints were found on the piece of wood used in the garrotte.

Here I would have to assume that the parents had the presence of mind to dispose of shoes and duct tape before the police were called, but left the garrotte around her neck with the wooden handle put back in the paintbrush box in the basement, (If the garrotte was never found, it would clearly help the parents's case) and did not have sense enough to get a crowbar and force open a door or break a window to make it appear an intruder had clearly broken in, and did not dispose of the pad of paper the ransom note was written on or the felt pens used to write it.

What the third DNA sample not found on JBR's body was (semen, blood, spit?) and where it was located (her bedroom, the basement, a bathroom, the kitchen?) must be one of the great mysteries about this case. I wonder if it has been matched to anything and what condition it was in. I am surprised I never saw more speculation about that.

I will withdraw the claim that doors had been left unlocked when the Ramseys went to bed that night, but apparently the police did find unlocked windows. I discount the report that the "Butler's door" was open that morning. John Ramsey says he checked all of them before going to bed, however, I also suspect that if an intruder did it, that intruder was already in the house and was hiding when the family returned home from the Whites.

I did not see where it says that the burglar alarm was activated while they were at the Whites. I saw that it was not activated that night, which is odd, and I would wonder why it was not. I did not see a reason given for that. I would be curious if Ramsey had checked for locked doors before they went to the Whites, and whether he activated the burglar alarm.

If an intruder was in the house waiting, the time that Burke stopped playing with his new toys and actually fell asleep would be relevent. That might have been what the intruder(s) was/were watching for. I did not see that time mentioned.

I did notice that Burke was questioned by the police apparently away from his parents the day after the murder or soon after, and that he later testified to the Grand Jury. Apparently he said nothing earth-shattering. If the police were not able to get incriminating testimony from a 9 year old boy, they must be more inept than anyone has even yet imagined.

The discussion on the "garrotte being used as a sex toy" on JBR went over my head. I might be a little naive on this one, but a "six year old girl" was being semi-asphyxiated in a sex act? I thought that a choking device was what the adult male used on himself--although I thought it was usually a plastic bag over his head.

As for Cyril Wecht's "theory" that the head wound was inflicted after she was strangled, I would have to say that that made the least sense of all. (I am happy to report that--Wecht is beneath contempt, IMO) That makes no sense. And can I imply that the cord was found still around her neck? Well, Cyril, if the cord was still around her neck, I would think that "attempt" to confuse the issue by faking a head injury would be something that even Inspector Clousseau might see through immediately.

Whether JBR was sexually assaulted on the night she died, or had been repeatedly molested in the months before, I don't know what to think. It seemed that the experts did not agree among themselves.

[LindaA]

I've often wondered why the Ramseys would not have gotten rid of so much incriminating evidence and not other things unless they were staging the crime.

I also read in the past that JR said they did not generally set the alarm because ir was so loud and frightening and the children sometimes set it off by accident and were terribly scared of it. I'm sorry I cannot provide a link, but I did not read it online.

Likewise with doors being open or unlocked. I read about the so-called butler's door being either open or unlocked years ago -- not online.