[QUOTE=42fish]
But wouldn’t that sort of reasoning apply equally well to writing a fake ransom note to cover a murder? Especially considering that if I had killed someone, I’d really want to minimize the amount of material for the handwriting analysts to work with.
[/QUOTE]
If you are a pro, then yes. If you are a sloppy amateur in a panicked state, then no.
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
But if I’ve been reading everything correctly, it wasn’t touch DNA that had already been found on her underwear. The touch DNA came off the long johns, but there had previously been a conventional finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear.
So my question is, why wasn’t the previous finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear sufficient to exonerate her family back then?
[/QUOTE]
Not 100%. It could have been touch DNA mixed with the blood in the underwear. You couldn’t rule that out completely.
Say John Ramsay killed her but didn’t leave DNA, but a sweatshop worker left his sweat in the fibers and that mixed with her blood. Likely? No. But possible.
But when the same DNA is on TWO different articles of clothing, then it’s not possible from a worker. It is from the attacker..
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Not 100%. It could have been touch DNA mixed with the blood in the underwear. You couldn’t rule that out completely.
Say John Ramsay killed her but didn’t leave DNA, but a sweatshop worker left his sweat in the fibers and that mixed with her blood. Likely? No. But possible.
But when the same DNA is on TWO different articles of clothing, then it’s not possible from a worker. It is from the attacker..
[/QUOTE]
It’s not like they were socks and a toque - the clothes were underwear and long johns. They are touching each other. Couldn’t a simple act of scratching account for DNA on panties, under fingernails, and on long johns?
Y’all have to look into the DA’s motivations here as well - she’s a whackjob, and has been on a crusade to exonerate the Ramsey’s for a long time. Nobody in and around Boulder buys this story.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
It’s not like they were socks and a toque - the clothes were underwear and long johns. They are touching each other. Couldn’t a simple act of scratching account for DNA on panties, under fingernails, and on long johns?
[/quote]
No. They were three different kinds of DNA material. It wasn’t a single sample that could have transferred.
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
But if I’ve been reading everything correctly, it wasn’t touch DNA that had already been found on her underwear. The touch DNA came off the long johns, but there had previously been a conventional finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear.
So my question is, why wasn’t the previous finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear sufficient to exonerate her family back then?
[/QUOTE]
The original DNA was considered to be a strong piece of evidence against the family being involved, but to people were convinced of their guilt it wasn’t enough. Complicating things was the fact that the underpants were brand new, straight out of the packet. Therefore, it was not outside the realm of possibility that the underpants had been innocently contaminated with someone else’s DNA during the manufacturing process.
Me either, but then again, why break into someone’s house and rape and murder their six year old in the first place? We’re not talking about someone whose thought processes make sense to your average person.
Perhaps he’d been in the house since soon after the Ramsey’s left, found the basement room and worked out that it offered easy access to the stairs leading to the child’s bedroom, become bored of sitting in the dark waiting… and then perhaps he thought of a ruse that would buy him extra time to, I don’t know, set up an alibi or something. The note said it was a kidnapping and instructed the Ramseys not to call the police or friends or family. They disregarded that instruction and reported the crime straight away, but if they hadn’t, how long may they have waited for a ransom demand that never came? Without the note, they probably would have searched the house from top to bottom as soon as they realised JonBenet was missing, and may have found her body sooner. With the note providing clear evidence that someone had been in the house, I expect the Ramseys would have done a more panicked, less thorough search.
“No one” knew the amount of John’s bonus, but that’s not true. The people who paid it to him had to knew, anyone working at his bank could know and perhaps someone stealing his mail might know. Maybe a disgruntled secretary complained to her boyfriend that she had to make out a $118,000 bonus cheque to Mr Ramsey, while all she got was a lousy Christmas pudding. Perhaps someone overheard a phone conversation. What it comes down to is the fact that the $118,000 was not a state secret, and there are plenty of people who might have known about it even though they weren’t supposed to. If the Ramseys had written the note, I’d expect them to have set their daughter’s value higher, and to have chosen a round number. If a disgruntled person with a grudge and knowledge of the bonus had written it, I’d not be surprised to see them go with the exact amount of the bonus.
[QUOTE=astorian]
You’ve just proven my point.
YOU. DON’T. KNOW. The. RAMSEYS.
You don’t know a damn thing about them, except what you’ve seen here and there on TV. Maybe they’re killers (but the evidence now suggests pretty strongly that they’re not), maybe they’re just weirdoes, or maybe they’re decent people that you’ve assumed the worst of for no good reason.
When DNA evidence comes in, the smart thing to do is reconsider your previous beliefs- not to double down and say, “Screw the evidence- there’s something creepy about them, so they must be guilty!”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that knowing the Ramsey’s has anything to do with their guilt. I doubt that anybody that knows them can provide any proof one way or another as to their guilt, and if they could, it would be irrespective of their knowledge of Ramsey’s.
This DNA stuff means nothing, until proof comes in as to who actually did the murder.
I think that there will be new developments in the case, that will undo this ‘exoneration’. Something will turn up. Everybody was a bit too enthusiastic over the one dork that said he was 'there with Jon Benet" and was flown back from Hong Kong, or singapore, wherever…
Something smells fishy now, too. To me, that is.
We’ll see…
[QUOTE=greatshakes]
Something smells fishy now, too. To me, that is.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you convince me then. Screw the scientific evidence, screw the on-site investigators and experts! Your nose is all the proof I need.
:rolleyes: 
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I understand, but imagine if you woke up and found your child gone and a ransom note on the kitchen counter. When the police arrive, they start asking you suspicious question.
Wouldn’t you go almost blind with rage? I mean, your little girl is out there in the hands of a kidnapper, and here are the police fucking around trying to find little inconsistencies in your story.
I guess the police have to cover their bases, but can you now understand why the Ramsey’s started to not cooperate after a few days? The cops were helping; all they wanted was to interview the parents separately when the Ramsey’s know that they are wasting time. It must be incredibly frustrating..
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, knowing the way the world is, even though I’d be livid with frustration I’d be aware that indeed I AM a prime suspect. I’d hope I can keep my wits together well enough to remind myself that if I visibly stop cooperating I’ll only draw even more heat. OTOH, clearly the successive administrations of the Boulder police and prosecution agencies have majorly bollixed up this case both in the scene investigation and in the legal proceedings.
In the scenario you posit, I find my kid missing and a ransom note – one thing’s for sure, even if from the note I have reason to believe she has been taken away, I’d be DEMANDING that the crime-scene team take my house apart looking for clues, and that someone stay to be there when the kidnapper calls, PRECISELY so that if anything happens or is found, THEY are there and there is no question of me acting on my own.
Y’know this case does illustrate a few things. For one, there are folks who, in this or any other case, are too eager to to nail **someone, ANYONE ** (v. the Carr fiasco, which BTW also produced posts in this board wondering where was the apology to the Ramseys…). Real life, alas, does not work like an episode of CSI or Perry Mason; often, you end up never really knowing. Another, that thank goodness the so-called “court of public opinion” has no bailiffs, jails, death chambers or auction blocks, but it still can hurt you badly. Yet another, that some people will NEVER believe the Ramseys are cleared.
There is no need to apologize for merely being wrong in the face of reasonable presumptions and incomplete information. Those who being aware of the incompleteness of evidence and the lack of proof, crossed the line into advocating nailing the Ramseys and disparaged anyone asking for proper procedure to be followed, just because they “just knew it to be so”, may have to, though.
[QUOTE=brewha]
I apologize if this seems to be thread shitting - it’s really not intended to be. But, I never understood what was so special about this murder. Yes, someone did kill a cute little white girl, but that was, what?, 12 years ago?
[/QUOTE]
People are still interested in this case largely because of the media attention that was paid to it in the first place. I guess it’s sort of a chicken and egg thing–by printing more, they got people more interested, so they printed more, and on and on. Whether the initial onslaught of media attention was deserved is a different question.
The other thing that makes this murder “special” is that it really is quite a mystery. People like mysteries.
Compare it to, say, the OJ Simpson case. Regardless of the verdict, I think most of us feel that we have a pretty good idea what happened there. Not that we all agree about what happened, but at least we have some answers. The mystery is, for the most part, solved.
In the JonBenet case, most of us don’t feel we have a satisfactory explanation of what happened. We’re still waiting for the big reveal. It might never come, but we want it.
Speaking for myself only–I became interested in the case because of the child beauty pageant thing and the seemingly weird family dynamics. Of course this was fueled by the huge media attention. I never was interested enough to learn and debate every detail or to do a lot of reading on the subject. But am I interested enough to read a Dope thread about it? Yup. Do I want to know what the hell happened? Absolutely!
Like it or not, the JonBenet Ramsey case is more than just the murder of a cute little white girl. Maybe that’s all it was to start with, and maybe that’s all it ever should have been, but at this point, it’s bigger than that. It’s “special” because it’s special.
[QUOTE=greatshakes]
I think that there will be new developments in the case, that will undo this ‘exoneration’. Something will turn up. Everybody was a bit too enthusiastic over the one dork that said he was 'there with Jon Benet" and was flown back from Hong Kong, or singapore, wherever…
Something smells fishy now, too. To me, that is.
We’ll see…
[/QUOTE]
Despite the law enforcement officers who actually investigated the case saying that this new DNA evidence clears the Ramseys, you, with your detailed insider knowledge, find it fishy. And it’s always going to be like this.
The culprit could hand himself in, give a full confession using details only the real killer could know, and helpfully providing notorized video footage of himself committing the crime along with a DNA sample that matches the DNA at the scene, and there will still be a gaggle of morons out there somewhere, chewing the cud and opining “I don’t buy it. Reckon John Ramsey paid him to confess cuz he knew the cops were on to him. That video was staged in the Arizona desert - you can tell because the shadows are all wrong.”
[QUOTE=Cazzle]
Despite the law enforcement officers who actually investigated the case saying that this new DNA evidence clears the Ramseys, you, with your detailed insider knowledge, find it fishy. And it’s always going to be like this.
The culprit could hand himself in, give a full confession using details only the real killer could know, and helpfully providing notorized video footage of himself committing the crime along with a DNA sample that matches the DNA at the scene, and there will still be a gaggle of morons out there somewhere, chewing the cud and opining “I don’t buy it. Reckon John Ramsey paid him to confess cuz he knew the cops were on to him. That video was staged in the Arizona desert - you can tell because the shadows are all wrong.”
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the “law enforcement officers who investigated this case” who are saying this new evidence clears the Ramseys. It is one District Attorney who wasn’t involved in the original investigation, and who has accepted a highly disputed theory that the culprit was an unknown intruder. She has never wavered from her theory, even though it goes against the opinion of almost all investigators involved in the case. Her theory is the one proposed by an investigator not involved in the initial investigation, and who was hired by the Ramseys.
That alone does not mean the theory is wrong, but it is not the opinion of the investigators who were on the case originally that the Ramseys are cleared.
You can’t explain away that DNA. The killer was not in the family. That’s no longer disputable.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
It’s not the “law enforcement officers who investigated this case” who are saying this new evidence clears the Ramseys. It is one District Attorney who wasn’t involved in the original investigation, and who has accepted a highly disputed theory that the culprit was an unknown intruder. She has never wavered from her theory, even though it goes against the opinion of almost all investigators involved in the case. Her theory is the one proposed by an investigator not involved in the initial investigation, and who was hired by the Ramseys.
That alone does not mean the theory is wrong, but it is not the opinion of the investigators who were on the case originally that the Ramseys are cleared.
This “investigator not involved in the initial investigation and who was hired by the Ramseys” is retired detective Lou Smit, right? The Detective Lou Smit who was brought out of retirement by the DA - the previous DA, Alex Hunter, not Mary Lacy - three months after the murder to investigate the killing, and quit in frustration 18 months later? The Detective Lou Smit who said in 2001 that he’d been working with the Ramsey’s investigators, unpaid, for 18 months because he believed the police investigation was flawed?
A federal judge in Atlanta also believed the intruder scenario was the most likely one.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
Here is a good analysis of the ransom note.
[/QUOTE]
I read through the whole thing, waiting to get to the good part. The author is working from the assumption that the mother wrote the note, so of course every single sentence is going to be proof positive that the mother wrote the note.
“The author makes a redundant statement! Therefore the mother did it!”
“The author made an obvious fib about who she was! A real kidnapper would never do anything like that! Clearly, the mother did it!”
“Her threats use the present tense like in a gangster movie! A quality ransom note would use the grammatically correct future tense! Only the mother could do something like that!”
Disclaimer: I only read about the case a) when it happened and b) they caught that weird dude from Thailand. It’s pretty surprising the parents hadn’t been cleared yet; I opened this thread because I wanted to see how long it had been zombied.
[QUOTE=Nicolas Bourbaki]
Disclaimer: I only read about the case a) when it happened and b) they caught that weird dude from Thailand. It’s pretty surprising the parents hadn’t been cleared yet; I opened this thread because I wanted to see how long it had been zombied.
[/QUOTE]
What a circus that was when they nabbed that guy here! Thailand is intent on proving to the world that it’s cracking down on pedophiles, so they considered that a god-given opportunity, and the authorities exploited it for all they could squeeze out of it. Too bad he turned out to be just a nutter.
That guy was on Greta Van Susteren a few days ago as a guest. It was bizarre and appalling. She had him on as if he was just another talking head there to comment on the Ramseys being cleared. She told him how happy she was to see him and everything. The guy still pins every creep-o-meter within a 20 mile radius. I was appalled that she was treating him like he was no different than any other guest. The line between celebrities and high profile criminals is almost completely gone. Soon we’ll see Charles Manson as a judge on some talent show.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That guy was on Greta Van Susteren a few days ago as a guest. It was bizarre and appalling. She had him on as if he was just another talking head there to comment on the Ramseys being cleared. She told him how happy she was to see him and everything. The guy still pins every creep-o-meter within a 20 mile radius. I was appalled that she was treating him like he was no different than any other guest. The line between celebrities and high profile criminals is almost completely gone. Soon we’ll see Charles Manson as a judge on some talent show.
[/QUOTE]
The nurse at a popular local cut-rate gender-reassignment clinic helpfully broke ethics and came forward to tell the press he had been a patient undergoing preoperation procedures. Dunno, but if I were going to have my gender reassigned, I would not be checking out the cut-rate places. Sounds like something on Futurama.
This thread: Not so Mundane, but certainly Pointless. Ah, but what else to do at 4 in the morning when you can’t sleep?