What happened to JonBenet Ramsey?

[Freudian_Slit]

I know we’ve had threads on this topic before, but we were going down that route in the “Which ONE Crime Would You Like the True Answer to” thread, and I figured I’d start a new one up rather than hijack.

Here are a couple of posts from the thread.

@F.U.Shakespeare

I don’t claim to be an expert on the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

But what I have learned about it has convinced me that the Ramseys were not involved, and were victims of a particularly brutal instance of being tried in the media. The police were shockingly sloppy in securing the crime scene, which was probably to blame for the killer’s evasion.

There was a time when I thought otherwise. Their hiring of a lawyer right after the murder sounded fishy to me. But I’ve since learned, as a cop friend told me at the time, that’s what rich people do when they are in any way involved in a crime, even if they’re innocent victims. The creepiness of those children’s beauty pageants certainly raised a lot of people’s eyebrows. But while JonBenet’s exposure in those contests may have been a factor in her being targeted, I don’t think there was anything worse than the age-old situation of an ex-beauty queen (Mrs. Ramsey was a former Miss West Virginia) wanting to live her youth over again through her kid.

There was also some weirdness in the amount demanded in ransom being identical to the father’s recent bonus.

But the Ramseys were scrutinized *very *closely. Nothing in their past - either one of them - indicated the kinds of disorders that could lead to such a crime.

If I am wrong about anything factual here, please feel free to correct me.

And yes, I would indeed like to know who did commit the crime.

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

I think I remember that the stationary or writing paper that the uber-bizzare “ransom note that wasn’t actually a ransom note” ('cause the kid’s dead body was still in the house) was written on proved to be taken from the Ramsay’s own home.

If some random stranger (or disgruntled employee or even a pedo who was specifically targeting JonBenet) comitted this crime, would they really search the house for writing paper (either before, during or after a murder) and then take the time to hand write a multi-page note?

You are right that the Ramsay family was under microscopic scrutiny, but my sense is that the family was somehow involved in JonBenet’s death (which in my mind was probably accidentally caused by one of the parents) and were actually able to get away with it.

It does seem mind blowing that the parents weren’t involved…but didn’t the DNA evidence point to an unidentified white male, and clear the immediate Ramsey family?

I guess that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have been involved, I guess. I read a lot about it about a year ago because it was so fascinating. The idea that a random killer would come in, know where to go in the house, and then would sit around and write a ransom note is far fetched to say the least. What could have happened that involved both a third party and the Ramseys, though? A third party did this and then they covered it up? Wasn’t there a popular theory that the Ramseys pimped JonBenet out to some sicko from the child pageant circuit who then killed her by accident or something?

[Markxxx]

I’ve read a few books on this case, and in reality, the crime scene and the evidence was so botched up, it’s unlikely you could ever get a real answer, I mean short of someone confessing.

Other crimes like Lizzie Borden are similar, the crime scenes and evidence weren’t handled correctly and it allows too much margin.

If Mrs Ramsey did it, she took the secret to the grave, and if she didn’t it leaves a few theories.

A child killer. Perhaps, but rarely to they only commit one crime. There should be other similar type crimes against children in the area. Unless of course for some reason, he was arrested soon after for another crime and can’t do that.

[DanBlather]

@Freudian_Slit

I
It does seem mind blowing that the parents weren’t involved…but didn’t the DNA evidence point to an unidentified white male, and clear the immediate Ramsey family?

They found some DNA from an unknown person (on a hair?), but that does not clear the Ramseys. It could have been from any number of sources.

The family acted so oddly, that I think they knew who did it at the very least. My guess is that the brother did it and the parents tried to cover it up by fabricating the kidnap story.

[Freudian_Slit]

@DanBlather

They found some DNA from an unknown person (on a hair?), but that does not clear the Ramseys. It could have been from any number of sources.

The family acted so oddly, that I think they knew who did it at the very least. My guess is that the brother did it and the parents tried to cover it up by fabricating the kidnap story.

But I thought the DNA they found came in contact with both fibers from JonBenet’s clothing and something on the way downstairs (Xmas tree decorations or something), which meant that whoever carried her downstairs was also the person who killed her. I’m not remembering exactly what I read but it was something that made it pretty clear that they couldn’t have been involved. Are you saying that you think they were involved but managed to get rid of any sign of it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There was male DNA found on two separate articles of the victim’s clothing, including her underwear, that did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family. The DNA is still unidentified. The Ramseys were cleared once and for all in 2008. There was never a shred of evidence that they did it. All of the evidence which does exist points to an intruder.

This is from a letter written by the Boulder DA to John Ramsey in 2008:

"This new scientific evidence convinces us…to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

… The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. … To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. … We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. … I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence,"

An unknown intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey. We may never know who. What we do know is that the DNA did not come from within the household, and whoever left the DNA was the killer.

[valleyofthedolls]

@DanBlather

The family acted so oddly, that I think they knew who did it at the very least. My guess is that the brother did it and the parents tried to cover it up by fabricating the kidnap story.

In what way did they act “oddly”?

[Freudian_Slit]

@valleyofthedolls

In what way did they act “oddly”?

I don’t think they did but according to others, procuring a lawyer so soon was. Also, I think the fact that they flew out of the state right away. And apparently they didn’t show enough emotion when they went on TV to talk about it. Also, didn’t people think it was odd that Patsy was wearing the same clothes from the night before on t the morning the body was discovered–meaning she either didn’t go to bed or put on the same outfit.

I don’t know that these are such odd things to do–is there a “normal” way to react when your kid has been killed and you’re being scrutinized at this hellish moment?

I feel really bad for the kid, Burke. Well, he’s not a kid anymore, but to be that young and have people speculating if you killed your baby sister. Ouch. I’m reminded of the Joyce Carol Oates book My Sister My Love, which is basically based on the murder with a few details changed, from the POV of a character who is meant to be Burke Ramsey (Skyler Rampike).

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There was male DNA found on two separate articles of the victim’s clothing, including her underwear, that did not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family. The DNA is still unidentified. The Ramseys were cleared once and for all in 2008. There was never a shred of evidence that they did it. All of the evidence which does exist points to an intruder.

**This is from a letter written by the Boulder DA to John Ramsey in 2008:**

An unknown intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey. We may never know who. What we do know is that the DNA did not come from within the household, and whoever left the DNA was the killer.

She was not the DA at the time of the murder, and she’s also the one who sent deputies to Thailand to arrest a whackjob who wasn’t even in Boulder at the time of the murder. She’s also the one who destroyed the University of Colorado football program with a bunch of outrageous accusations of rape and other things that didn’t lead to a single arrest, let alone a trial or a conviction.

I can tell you with firsthand knowledge that Mary Lacy’s views were her own and did not reflect the concensus in the DA’s office and even moreso that of law enforcement. She was a grandstander.

[Pray_for_peace]

I don’t have anything new to add regarding the forensics, as the SDMB is my only source of information on that. But I don’t have any problem believing that some psychopath broke into the Ramsey’s house, killed JonBenet, and wrote that bizarre note before escaping. I remember that both Polly Klass and Elizabeth Smart were taken from their bedrooms in the middle of the night while their parents slept in a room nearby. It is odd that the ransom note asked for an odd amount of money that was exactly the same as the father’s year-end bonus (if the Dope is correct on that fact). But IIRC there was a broken door or window in the Ramsey’s basement that would have permitted access from the outside, and it’s possible the person who did it had been in the house before and found that bonus info by snooping around. The ransom amount seems like an extra F-U from the killer, kind of analogous to the way that some killers deliberately deface the body.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Lamar_Mundane

She was not the DA at the time of the murder, and she’s also the one who sent deputies to Thailand to arrest a whackjob who wasn’t even in Boulder at the time of the murder. She’s also the one who destroyed the University of Colorado football program with a bunch of outrageous accusations of rape and other things that didn’t lead to a single arrest, let alone a trial or a conviction.

I can tell you with firsthand knowledge that Mary Lacy’s views were her own and did not reflect the concensus in the DA’s office and even moreso that of law enforcement. She was a grandstander.

The identity of the DA is irrelevant. It’s the DNA that clears the Ramseys. That’s not disputable.

[Ferret_Herder]

The ransom note’s particulars weirded me out, too. The text of it (and an image of the original) is available at the girl’s Wiki entry. My wild guess would have been that it was someone who knew her father very well, but I couldn’t conceive of why the killer would have written it out there, unless somehow that person forgot/lost the note before the break-in.

[Jackmannii]

So we do or don’t know the bodily material from which the DNA was derived?

And there’s no possibility that an investigation that screwed up so badly also managed to contaminate evidence with foreign DNA?

[Merijeek]

@Jackmannii

So we do or don’t know the bodily material from which the DNA was derived?

And there’s no possibility that an investigation that screwed up so badly also managed to contaminate evidence with foreign DNA?

For example, did anyone ever check any of the police for a DNA match? Is this known conclusively?

-Joe

[Markxxx]

The problems are the brother was most likely too small to cause strangulation and a skull fracture as the way of death.

As for the DNA on her undewear, that could be meaningless. They’ve already done tests on radom unopened packages of underwear and have found DNA on it. So it could already have been there. It’s not really possible for DNA to survive a decent wash of underwear, but who knows.

A stranger would have had to break into the house and waited for Jon Benet to come down. The crime scene indicates SHE came down to him, not the other way. So why would he do this?

Some swear there were footprints, but the police noted that all the snow around the house had long been cleared away.

JonBenet had eaten pineapple before she died but neither parent can remember this. This indicates again that JonBenet came down on her own free will.

It’s highly unlikely a random stranger would risk stalking out a house like this. But it’s possible.

The ransom note was for asked for $118,000 which is the exact amount of Mr Ramsey’s bonus. That’s quiet a co-incidence. Unless the killer knew Mr Ramsey and his finances.

It can’t be determained whether JonBenet was sexually assulted or not. This most likely would be clear if there was any sort of sex maniac, even if he left no genetic evidence. What did he break in and get off while he watched her?

For a stranger to break into the basement, then wait, till she came down to the kitchen, then possibly to decide to watch the girl while he sexually got off, then leave a ransom note for the exact amount of Mr Ramsey’s bonuses. All while nothing was heard.

It’s a big stretch, but I guess you could make an argument for it, though it seems that if it wasn’t the Ramseys it was someone who knew them well enough. Someone who knew the house, the layout, the routine of the family and knew where they kept their records or knew about their financials to some degree.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It was in her underwear and underneath her fingernails. There is no possibility it came from anyone but the killer.

[Ferret_Herder]

@Jackmannii

So we do or don’t know the bodily material from which the DNA was derived?

And there’s no possibility that an investigation that screwed up so badly also managed to contaminate evidence with foreign DNA?

Per the cites collected in the Wiki article, one of the samples was “a mixed blood sample” which the male DNA was extracted from, found on her underwear. I only see mention of “DNA” from two other pieces of clothing worn by her (not specified), all reportedly matching the same unknown male. I don’t see any indication that the DNA source is known for any of the sample sources.

Edit: Dio, I didn’t see any reference to sample matching for anything from under her fingernails, just on clothing.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There was an unknown male’s DNA in her underwear and under her fingernails. That can’t just be waved away.

The lack of footprints is meaningless. None would be expected on a cleared sidewalk.

All the evidence points to an intruder, not a single thing points at the family. It’s not a stretch at all. There are multiple examples of children being abducted from their homes while the parents sleep.

And really, the DNA ends the argument.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The identity of the DA is irrelevant. It’s the DNA that clears the Ramseys. That’s not disputable.

All there is is some unkown male DNA. That could come from bumping into someone at a party or sitting on Santa’s lap. Maybe the housekeepers boyfriend rifled through her underwear drawer when the family was away.

The DNA is possibly incriminating if we could identify whose it is, but it is not exculpitory in any way. There’s Ramsey family DNA all over her clothes as well, as would be expected.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Ferret_Herder

Per the cites collected in the Wiki article, one of the samples was “a mixed blood sample” which the male DNA was extracted from, found on her underwear. I only see mention of “DNA” from two other pieces of clothing worn by her (not specified), all reportedly matching the same unknown male. I don’t see any indication that the DNA source is known for any of the sample sources.

Edit: Dio, I didn’t see any reference to sample matching for anything from under her fingernails, just on clothing.

Testing in 1998 showed that DNA evidence found in the girl’s underwear and beneath her fingernails was from an unidentified man and did not match anyone in the Ramsey family. Follow the timeline »

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child’s panties.Genetic material was scraped from the waistband of the long johns, which JonBenet was wearing over her underwear when her body was found. Lacy said in her statement that authorities believe the long johns were either replaced or removed by her killer.

Additional tests were conducted to ensure that the genetic material did not come from law enforcement or medical examiner’s personnel, the statement said.

DNA clears JonBenet's family, points to mystery killer - CNN.com

Note that law enforcement was also eliminated as the source of the DNA.

It was an intruder. End of story.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Lamar_Mundane

All there is is some unkown male DNA. That could come from bumping into someone at a party or sitting on Santa’s lap. Maybe the housekeepers boyfriend rifled through her underwear drawer when the family was away.

The DNA is possibly incriminating if we could identify whose it is, but it is not exculpitory in any way. There’s Ramsey family DNA all over her clothes as well, as would be expected.

It was in her underwear and under her fingernails. That didn’t come from some department store santa.