# What happened to JonBenet Ramsey? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577 "2010-01-11T23:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![UTejas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UTejas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UTejas)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/301 "2010-01-14T19:09:37Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Did the amount in the demand actually match the bonus, by the way? I am assuming so, since people keep saying it, but is it really true? That is, has it been confirmed? The actual amount was $118,117.50. [Cite](http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/aug/23/check-stub-adds-to-ramsey-mystery/) Relevant portion: > [@](#): > > It does appear clear, however, that such a pay stub could have been discovered by someone inside the house. > > That’s because, according to John Ramsey in his book, the $118,117.50 was deferred compensation awarded in January 1996. > > That means, Ramsey wrote, that the figure was printed on every pay stub issued him in 1996. Therefore, a December pay stub laying around the house would have contained the figure, even though it was awarded to him at the beginning of the year. So apparently it was not that year’s Christmas bonus, but the previous year’s. So anyone seeing any pay stub from the previous year would have seen that (rough) figure. Plus the note was written on a pad taken off of an office desk in the house. It is not ludicrous to presume that a check stub from the previous year might be located somewhere near the desk. Also relevant: > [@](#): > > Those who continue to profess a belief in John or Patsy Ramsey’s culpability in the homicide have consistently minimized the importance of the DNA evidence for that reason, and have advanced a number of arguments to explain away myriad other evidence pointing to the murder having been committed by an outside intruder. > > That evidence includes the apparent use of a stun gun on the child; unidentified shoe and palm prints inside the home; a broken basement window and a disturbed window well, with material from that window well found in the room where her body was discovered; unidentified hair and fiber on the child, her clothing and the blanket covering her; duct tape used to silence JonBenet, a source for which was not found in the home; and a missing portion of a paintbrush handle, which investigators believe was used to strangle her. > > [portion cut] > > In the meantime, the Boulder County district attorney has now decided to formally clear the entire Ramsey family from involvement in the crime, a decision fully justified by the evidence. from [here](http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/10/now-add-dna-to-evidence-of-an-intruder/) ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/302 "2010-01-14T19:10:48Z")
> [@3\_20\_59\_or\_bust](#): > > Easy there, Sparky. I’m not stretching one way nor the other. > > I’m curious, as I thought it was a strange phrase to use. That’s it. > > Thanks. I’ve definitely heard other people bring this up before. I don’t know how relevant it is, but you’re not the first to note the similarity. I don’t know how relevant the whole pedophile angle is either, though. Didn’t some police speculate that she may have been molested after death–i.e., the killer trying to make it look like it was a sex crime? All this talk of pedophile rings just seems like so much rampant speculation. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/303 "2010-01-14T19:12:37Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > How? Once again: 1. access to the stationary 2. amount of ransom equals amount of bonus To be clear, the note implicates the Ramseys as well as anyone else with 1. access to the stationary and 2. knowledge of Jon’s bonus. That means that the circumstantial evidence can be explained away. It does not mean that it is not circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys. If folks would try to understand this from the perspecive of assembling evidence implicating many people (some of whom are innocent) and corroborating evidence to devlop a theory focussing on one person or a group of opeople insetad of looking at this as evidence equals proof equals guilt, we’d all be a lot better off. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/304 "2010-01-14T19:16:02Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Hypothetically, what would be circumstantial non dispositve evidence of the Ramsey’s invovlement? Prior, confirmable history of sexual abuse, physical evidence of involvement with her death (eg, something like matchable bite print, hand prints matching bruises, non-innocent DNA on the body, et.) lack of evidence for an intruder, lack of foreign DNA, prior statements made by the parents which could indicate a willingness or poetntial to commit this kind of crime. All would be circumstancial, but not dispositive. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/305 "2010-01-14T19:21:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Prior, confirmable history of sexual abuse, physical evidence of involvement with her death (eg, something like matchable bite print, hand prints matching bruises, non-innocent DNA on the body, et.) lack of evidence for an intruder, lack of foreign DNA, prior statements made by the parents which could indicate a willingness or poetntial to commit this kind of crime. All would be circumstancial, but not dispositive. Jeffrey Dahmer was bat-shit insane by most peoples standards, but he still managed to convince a police officer that the man who had just escaped from his house was just a little overwrought and was not going to be eaten. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/306 "2010-01-14T19:24:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > lack of foreign DNA. leaves open any number of theories not invovling JonBenet’s parents, including the intruder theory. How can you say the note is not circumstanital evidence based soley on the fact that it does no support a theory of the Ramseys as killers to the exclusion of all others when the same can be said of “lack of foregin DNA”? Not only are you wrong about whether the note is circumstantial evidence of the Ramsey’s involvement (something that can be attributed to, apparently willful, ignorance), you’re not even internally consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/307 "2010-01-14T19:26:14Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Jeffrey Dahmer was bat-shit insane by most peoples standards, but he still managed to convince a police officer that the man who had just escaped from his house was just a little overwrought and was not going to be eaten. What does this have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/308 "2010-01-14T19:26:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Jeffrey Dahmer was bat-shit insane by most peoples standards, but he still managed to convince a police officer that the man who had just escaped from his house was just a little overwrought and was not going to be eaten. What does this have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/309 "2010-01-14T19:27:42Z")
Jinx! Buy me a Coke. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/310 "2010-01-14T19:29:17Z")
What does this have to do with… damn-it. Too slow. ---
**Author:** ![UTejas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UTejas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UTejas)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/311 "2010-01-14T19:39:38Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > leaves open any number of theories not invovling JonBenet’s parents, including the intruder theory. How can you say the note is not circumstanital evidence based soley on the fact that it does no support a theory of the Ramseys as killers to the exclusion of all others when the same can be said of “lack of foregin DNA”? > > Not only are you wrong about whether the note is circumstantial evidence of the Ramsey’s involvement (something that can be attributed to, apparently willful, ignorance), you’re not even internally consistent. **whole bean** , I understand the argument you are making. Perhaps I was a little too hyperbolic in saying that there was “not a shred of evidence”. I suppose I should have more clearly stated this as “not a shred of evidence _that points only to the family_.” Does this work better? Of course there is circumstantial evidence that points to the family. We are arguing that _this evidence doesn’t help construct a case_. Evidence of things from inside the house is simply not exclusionary enough to help. Using a stationary pad from inside the house neither points only to the family nor to anyone outside of the house. The fact fibers from clothing belonging to Patsy was found on duct tape is also not entirely surprising. I would be surprised if fibers from my clothes weren’t all over my house and that something like duct tape might pick one up. Surely the fact that no duct tape was found in the house is way more sigificant, right? It had to be brought in. The most problematic part is the bonus amount and, per my cite above, this is _not_ a freakin state secret. It was printed on every check stub from the previous year. Anyone who had ever seen a single check stub either by searching through the same desk the note was written on OR by trash diving or any way else could have seen this number. Yes, it is circumstantial evidence against the family but it simply does not narrow down the suspects to ONLY the family. I understand that nothing is proven in the scientific sense. I understand that elaborate scenarios involving the family can be drawn up ad nauseum. I am simply stating that the overwhelming amount of physical evidences points to an intruder at the exclusion of the family (duct tape, cord, and paint brush handle all from outside the house). The evidence implicating the family (note written on a note pad they own, living in the house that the crime occurred in) doesn’t point to them at the exclusion of others. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/312 "2010-01-14T19:41:59Z")
> [@UTejas](#): > > **whole bean** , I understand the argument you are making. Perhaps I was a little too hyperbolic in saying that there was “not a shred of evidence”. I suppose I should have more clearly stated this as “not a shred of evidence _that points only to the family_.” Does this work better? > > Of course there is circumstantial evidence that points to the family. We are arguing that _this evidence doesn’t help construct a case_. > > Evidence of things from inside the house is simply not exclusionary enough to help. Using a stationary pad from inside the house neither points only to the family nor to anyone outside of the house. The fact fibers from clothing blonging to Patsy was found on duct tape is also not entirely surprising. I would be surprised if fibers from my clothes weren’t all over my house and that something like duct tape might pick one up. Surely the fact that no duct tape was found in the house is way more sigificant, right? It had to be brought in. > > The most problematic part is the bonus amount and, per my cite above, this is _not_ a freakin state secret. It was printed on every check stub from the previous year. Anyone who had ever seen a single check stub either by searching through the same desk the note was written on OR by trash diving or any way else could have seen this number. Yes, it is circumstantial evidence against the family but it simply does not narrow down the suspects to ONLY the family. > > I understand that nothing is proven in the scientific sense. I understand that elaborate scenarios involving the family can be drawn up ad nauseum. I am simply stating that the overwhelming amount of physical evidences points to an intruder at the exclusion of the family (duct tape, cord, and paint brush handle all from outside the house). The evidence implicating the family (note written on a note pad they own, living in the house that the crime occurred in) doesn’t point to them at the exclusion of others. I think I can agree with everything you’ve written. Now, if you could just convince **Diogenes** , my work here would be done. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/313 "2010-01-14T20:17:41Z")
It means that some people are very good at hiding their true self and even in moments of high risk, they can still appear ‘perfectly normal’. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/314 "2010-01-14T20:19:39Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It means that some people are very good at hiding their true self and even in moments of high risk, they can still appear ‘perfectly normal’. Oddly enough, the Ramseys are being taken to task for many for not appearing to act as normal grieving parents (smiling at the funeral, etc.). I’m not really sure how that’s relevant. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/315 "2010-01-14T20:38:28Z")
**Diogenes** your certainty is unsettling. Regarding the DNA evidence: > [@](#): > > Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy on Wednesday publicly cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, a fatal error that only complements the repeated misjudgments she has made in the case since she was elected. > > Her decision was based on the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA that were found in JonBenet’s underpants apparently match skin cells discovered on the waistband of JonBenet’s leggings. Although this DNA may match, Lacy’s own words prove this particular DNA may not even be relevant. > > In 2006, after Lacy extradited John Mark Karr, an otherwise innocent man, from Thailand, to erroneously charge him with the murder, she announced: “The DNA could be an artifact. It isn’t necessarily the killer’s. There’s a probability that it’s the killer’s. But it could be something else.” > > Forensic expert Henry Lee most likely would agree that the foreign DNA in question most likely is “artifact,” because he always has said he believes it actually is the result of contamination and that it is completely unrelated to the crime. We simply don’t know that the DNA was from the killer. End of Story. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/316 "2010-01-14T20:39:49Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > **Diogenes** your certainty is unsettling. Regarding the DNA evidence: > > We simply don’t know that the DNA was from the killer. End of Story. So a random person attacked her and molested her before she died but may not have killed her? ---
**Author:** ![Marienee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@Marienee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marienee)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/317 "2010-01-14T20:44:09Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > **Diogenes** your certainty is unsettling. Regarding the DNA evidence: > > We simply don’t know that the DNA was from the killer. End of Story. Where is that quote taken from? It reads like an editorial, possibly? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/318 "2010-01-14T20:54:54Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Oddly enough, the Ramseys are being taken to task for many for not appearing to act as normal grieving parents (smiling at the funeral, etc.). I’m not really sure how that’s relevant. Cracks in the armour, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/319 "2010-01-14T21:25:49Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Cracks in the armour, maybe? But it could just be the normal strain of parents losing their child. People here have posted about laughing at funerals or seeing their child dying–there’s no normal way to behave when something like this happens. It’s really not relevant either way. ---
**Author:** ![UTejas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UTejas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UTejas)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/320 "2010-01-14T21:30:03Z")
> [@Marienee](#): > > Where is that quote taken from? It reads like an editorial, possibly? I agree. Cite please, **KidCharlemagne** Of course there’s no 100% scientific proof that the DNA is from the killer. It is, however, unknown male DNA found on a separate piece of clothing that matches DNA found in a blood sample. There is no reasonable explanation that fits with all of the other evidence in the case that explains how this type of DNA ends up on two pieces of clothing. Plus a cite that involves an appeal to authority based on what that authority would “most likely would agree” is ludicrous. It is an artifact of what exactly? Contamination seems much much less likely when the same DNA sample is found on two separate pieces of clothing. This sounds like something of a hit piece from the first sentence referring to clearing the family as “a fatal error” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577.md?page=17)