And that is just missing the point, even degraded DNA is very useful.
Certainly can be; but I don’t believe it is in this case. To me, it shows that it wasn’t deposited at the time of the murder. It was pre-existing.
Sorry, you need a big fat cite for what you are claiming here.
Santa Claus did it. Case closed. You’ve got a creepy guy who plays Santa Claus, is familiar with the home and the family, his wife wrote a book about a child abduction with eerily similar details to the murder, and his own daughter had been abducted, he was known and trusted by Jon Benet, and the only exculpatory evidence was the unsupported idea that he was physically incapable of doing it because of his age. Maybe his wife may helped him do it. It couldn’t be more obvious.
It’s possible she still needed help - or that her mother helped even if she didn’t need help. I can see a mom like that doing that. I’ve also seen a theory that she was a bedwetter and mom was cleaning her up that way.
A big fat cite for what? That the foreign DNA was degraded, or my logical conclusion that that means it was pre-existing?
That it was degraded is widely known. It took a couple of years before they could test it… took that long for the technology to become available.
This was one of my theories, too. Not sure how he/they got in and out without leaving evidence. Or why they didn’t just take her with him/them. Seems hard to believe they spent that amount of time in the house with the rest of the family upstairs sleeping.
I think that’s one of my biggest problems with the intruder theory. Why and how did this person or persons spend so much time in the house? According to experts, there was anywhere from 60 - 90 minutes between the blow to the head and the strangulation. What were these intruders doing during that time? All the while, the family is upstairs…
THe ONLY 2 things that point to the family are statistical (9 out of 10 deaths of these types are done by the family I think) and the time factor. Also the lying (the part about Burke being asleep.) These aren’t evidence at all. Not even close. But they loom large over the whole thing.
The time thing is the only one that can’t be denied. You can get around the lying (maybe it wasn’t Burke’s voice on the recording.) And you can get around the statistics obviously… but the time factor is the toughest.
The intruder obviously had to have been there before to know about the room and to have possibly lifted the note pad. Even then, it is a tough sell.
I know what you’re saying, tomcar, and I was on the fence for years. But when I look at the totality of the evidence, there seems to be much more pointing toward a family member. There doesn’t seem to be any intruder evidence that holds any weight. I have also, in all these years, never read/heard of an intruder theory that makes sense.
Of course, I’m basing all of this on known evidence. I fully concede there may be things that have not been made available. I reserve the right to jump back on/over the fence. 
What is this evidence you speak of? There isn’t any. Thats the problem here. Sure the family doing it makes the most sense, but there is literally no evidence.
When you read through these forum posts here and elsewhere, people have all types of fictious stories of the Ramseys pimping their daughter out. They were letting people molest her. They would lend her out…BS. This is fan fiction of the weirdest kind. These were famous people in the community. If that stuff had been going on, people would know. People would have been talking about it before this happened. People always do.
They have all these make-believe situations of Burke doing it. There is literally no evidence, not a shred that Burke did it. This comes from us. We toil over the facts of the case, become obsessed and have elaborate schemes of what happened. Nothing points to Burke at all. At all.
Again, I agree - there are some stories out there that just make me roll my eyes and say “REALLY? You believe that, really?!”
I guess what speaks to me is:
Lack of intruder evidence or scenario that makes sense. (This is a big one.)
Unlike many others, I do see the Ramsey’s after-crime behavior as suspect.
The staging of the crime scene… who else would need to stage?
Patsy’s sweater fibers being in and around the wine cellar and entwined in the ligature, even though she said she hadn’t been down there.
And, ultimately, logic.
And these are just off the top of my head. I suppose what’s bringing this up again is that the one or two things that gave an intruder theory any plausibility in my mind have been disproved. I always felt the Grand Jury knew more than I did, and if they didn’t vote to indict that I must have been missing something. Which now we know they DID vote to indict. The touch DNA gave me pause, but the more I learn about that, the less meaningful it is.
The ransom note is the evidence. Are you telling me than an intruder killed the girl, and then sat down at the kitchen table (with people asleep upstairs) and wrote 2 pages of what the FBI has determined is not a ransom note? Why didn’t they go out for a six pack or put on a pot of coffee since they were pissing around for so long with a dead girl in the basement?
That argument is absurd. Kidnappers would have written a ransom note beforehand. I don’t know who did what and where, but everything about that note points right back at the Ramseys.
It’s possibly worth noting that in another thread there’s a discussion on a grand jury not making an indictment, and that it’s hard, not knowing everything that was presented to them, to see why they came to that conclusion based on the few scant pages of info that we had access to.
Similarly, this grand jury thought there was enough evidence, but the DA thought it wouldn’t be enough to get a conviction (almost certainly). Mostly in rebuttal are talking points from the Ramsey defense team. I have no idea, or theory, on exactly what happened, but I think (as did the FBI) that the evidence all pointed back to the Ramseys.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought there was a lot more DNA recovered from JBR’s body–all belonging to one or both of the Ramseys–which you’d expect even if nothing had ever happened. But I think that point gets lost in the discussion.
No offense, but the police determined the Ramsey’s did it that morning and the media has been backing that same opinion this whole time. Thinking you know what happened is absurd. You have been spoon fed your opinion. Your opinion has been told to you.
So did it happen while they were molesting her during their weekly Satanic Ritual with other Boulder members of the illuminati? I know, the evil, devil boy Burke did it. There is overwhelming evidence that he did. I mean his voice might be on the 911 call. Evidence doesnt get much more conclusive than that.
/end sarcasm/ Maybe the note was prewritten? They could have got it at a previous visit to the house. That makes much more sense than them killing their own daughter. There isn’t a shred of evidence as far as motives either for them to have killed their daughter.
I didn’t see where **jtgain ** was claiming it was satanic or related to the illuminati?
It’s a sad, unfortunate truth that someone killed JonBenet. All that can be done is to look at the evidence and try to figure out who. As to motive - who knows at this point?They could have been trying to cover up an accident. But to say there’s not a shred of evidence is not true. And the known evidence does point to the Ramsey’s.
The crime scene was staged. The ransom note was staging. Who would have a need to do that?
I’m curious what evidence you think there is for an intruder? Do you have a theory you’d like to share?
Hey Dusty, I think the Burke thing is over the top. I lean towards: an intruder who knew the family, Jon Benet, and had been to the house before the murder.
My gut tells me - family, but they passed a lie detector, had no motive and have passed alot of professional analysis (the big name detective who came out of retirement, people who read gestures, speech analysis, etc.) Sure some of that is woo, but the detective was a straight up pro.
My main theory is that the case is a Rorchasch test. We see what we want to see. We bring our own baggage to the situation. I love conspiracy theories but rarely believe them.
As far as the staged murder, the police didn’t even find the crime scene. How do we know it was exactly how John remembers it. He saw his baby and freaked out (like any of us would have done.) Who knows what the scene was.
There’s different DNA. What was initially tested were two blood stains on the panties (when the tests became available) and what was under her fingernails. There’s also an item called DNA-X which wasn’t found on her body or clothes, but somewhere near her. There are a lot of rumors and theories about this DNA-X, mostly by people who read the Chris Wolf deposition transcripts. The way the witnesses (Beckner?) discuss it, it sounds like it matched someone… but it is not said who.
There’s the touch DNA, but that picked up so much info that it points to something like 6 different people being involved. The funny thing about that type of DNA is that it’s all over all of us, just from being out in the world. That’s why I said earlier that it’s useless.
There were fibers from Patsy’s sweater found in the paint tray outside the cellar door, entwined in the ligature, on both the blanket and the duct tape. Yet Patsy said she hadn’t been downstairs, and hadn’t touched the paint tray. Mind you, the wine cellar was not a commonly used room.
Once again, this item is not true, as many cases that I linked to showed.
That’s what I figure, too, tomcar. If it was an intruder, he/she/they were known to the family and JonBenet. It just makes no sense whatsoever that a stranger would be able to pull this off.
As far as the “woo” analysis, they actually failed that. It seems that all of the “woo” stuff points right at them! I don’t put a lot of stock into that stuff, though the handwriting analysis that I’ve seen is pretty compelling.
Lou Smidt is actually the perfect example of bringing his own baggage to the situation. His main claim to fame was exonerating someone in a cold case murder. I believe he thought he could do it again. He ignored evidence, and put a lot of misinformation (i.e. the stun gun) out there. His theory of how the intruder got in and out of that window is ridiculous. He prayed with the Ramsey’s, that’s how he “knew” they didn’t do it.
The Rorchasch test is something else I agree with. But I also know there are plenty of people that truly care. That want to solve this, no matter which direction it goes in. There are folks on both sides of the fence that won’t listen to anything that goes against their belief on the case no matter what.
I’ve been a fence sitter for years. It’s only recently I’ve leaned so far in one direction that I could say I have a good idea of what I think happened. But like I’ve said before, I could be persuaded to go back the other way. Unfortunately, it really appears to me that it was the Ramsey’s. I have tried and tried to make it be an intruder, but I just can’t get it to work. If I follow the evidence, it points to persons in the home.
I’m sorry, GIGObuster, I did peruse the link that you posted, but didn’t see where they discussed the JonBenet case. If you would be so kind as to post the link to the specific page, I promise you I will read and consider what it says.