It’s impossible to say one way or the other who was responsible. There is enough element of doubt in both main scenarios of intruder v domestic. I certainly lean towards the domestic side as most likely though. A coherent domestic explanation for Jonbenet’s murder is weird, a coherent intruder version is very weird. Something in the house going horribly wrong makes most sense to me.
Eh, I would not say “impossible” in reality the evidence pointed to an intruder so at least a lot of the suspects were already dismissed as being the culprit.
This BTW had been pointed out in previous pages in this thread.
Mary Lacy was wrong to clear the Ramseys. There is no clear evidence either way. And no one knows from where or how the DNA got in JB. Your cites are outdated.
DOLA…the grand jury indictments accused the Ramseys of placing their daughter in a dangerous situation. They had also lied to the police about the son being asleep during the commission and aftermath of the killing.
Sounds more like just conspiracy points. Who is saying that? Cite?
Mind you, those reports were from 2008, I posted later in 2010 referring to the DNA evidence and later searches for possible killers, if the authorities had dismissed the DNA evidence then what was reported in later years would make no sense; bottom line: the authorities are not considering the Ranseys as suspects anymore, and most of what is being reported later that omits the DNA evidence goes into the same pile as the Kennedy assasination conspiracies that omit Oswald.
Weird that whoever did this has never committed another similar crime that would get his/her DNA in the database.
How often does someone do something like this only once?
I also did notice that most serious reporting does mention about the family’s exoneration with no mention of that DNA evidence being rejected.
And yes, The Star and Globe tabloids would had made a lot of noise about the DNA evidence being invalid, but there is no evidence of that dismissal by the authorities, the tabloids knew they were going to lose big and had to settle.
“The bums lost!” -The Big Lebowski.
I believe the parents were not involved. But regarding the above, if someone’s motive was ransome money why would it matter if she was incidentally killed? Presumably she was going to have to be carried from the scene anyway and being limp (as opposed to struggling) would have made it easier. Even if he had made off with here alive the chances are she would have been killed before she would have been returned alive.
…the “logical explanation” is that somebody wrote a long ransom note.
What is it exactly you want explained to you?
Every piece of equipment required for the murder was to be found in the Ramsey home - murder weapons, notepaper and pen. To say the evidence conclusively points to an outsider is just wrong imo.
Citing cnn proves nothing. Sure, it adds a further element of doubt over the Ramsey’s guilt, but it’s far from conclusive. That dna could have come from anywhere. Had it been unknown semen dna found then I would agree it to be incontrovertible proof to the innocence of the Ramsey’s. I suspect the clothes you are wearing right now(including underwear) probably has some specs of unknown dna on it.
There very well may have been an intruder. But the evidence ALSO points to somebody in the family.
And then there’s the inconvenient fact that the letter asked for an amount of money that just happened to be the amount of money that Mr. Ramsey had received as a bonus.
In the words of the former Boulder police chief:
http://fox2now.com/2015/02/26/jonbenet-ramsey-case-10-things-the-ex-police-chief-just-revealed/
Possibly written after she was killed to make it look like a kidnapping. There’s no strong evidence of who, how, or why that we know of. If the parents weren’t involved then it was Santa Claus. And I can’t see the parents cooperating on this, so that leaves Santa Claus.
If opinion was the only thing going for, then The Star and The Globe would had won the defamation cases easily.
The straw you are grasping is not logical, CNN was not the only one reporting, the police and the forensic labs told us that. And other serious news sources also point out that the DNA evidence was not dismissed, that remains wishful thinking from the part of conspiracy theorists, the Police has not done that.
Originally the authorities found drops of blood from the victim that had DNA from an unknown person. While it would be possible that someone else could shed skin on the underwear of someone the original foreign DNA was found commingled with blood of the victim, the problem is to try to explain away that the same foreign DNA was found in two other locations of a different piece of underwear and under her fingernails.
It is very unlikely that the DNA from the makers of the underwear (as some theorized to counter the DNA evidence) commingled with blood in enough quantities to be found with less sophisticated testing originally. And then that the same DNA appeared under the fingernails and other underwear of the dead child later with more sophisticated testing.
Even the other proposed theories that the DNA was planted make no sense, because at the time of the crime the only testing possible was with DNA coming from samples that were big in comparison to the new tests. Any perpetrator that was aware of what they could do with the technology then would had planted DNA in other locations with so much material that it would had been noticed before the latest tests came into being.
There’s lots of stuff out there about the ransom note. It’s the most studied ransom note of all time.
Patsy is the only family member who cannot be excluded as the author, and there is evidence she was deliberately changing her handwriting after the murder. Certain words and the frequent use of exclamation points match Patsy’s manner of writing.
Most experts agree the note was written to cover up the crime after it happened, not before.
The absurd length of the note and the use of lines from Hollywood movies like “Don’t try to grow a brain” suggest this was not an experienced criminal. It was an amateur’s idea of what a ransom note should sound like.
John Ramsey was worth a lot more than $118,000, and there weren’t many people outside the family who knew the exact amount of his bonus.
Unfortunately since there is also DNA evidence the evidence you present is not very convincing now.
On the issue of docudramas the TV of today is more tabloid than serious reporting. We should be aware that on countless conspiracy theories out there (on in this one as I can see) the slaying of a “beautiful” hypothesis by an ugly fact is not going to stop them from ignoring that fact.
There is in the end only innuendo and very little to pin down the letter to someone.
But I do have one suspicion, there could had been a parent or a family member that did think (yes, only a belief, not a fact that the letter writer was thinking about when deciding to make the letter) that other family member was going to go to jail for this and a very crude way to exonerate the parents or other family members was then decided to be created.
It reminded me of the McMartin case were the main suspect (the whole family was found innocent) was caught in the process of crudely getting rid of pornography magazines (that IIRC were not about underage sex, but weird sex). The innocent man did knew that he was going to be accused of child abuse and one can see that sometimes even being innocent of something can make one do very stupid things such as destroying or making up evidence in a misguided effort to protect the ones that one thinks that are innocent.
I’ve skimmed through this thread. I know little about the case, but can someone explain in what way the knot was specialized, and what is BSM. None of the acronyms listed heresound likely.
BDSM
IH
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I just saw the Buzzfeed: Unsolved profile on this case. It is still astonishing to me that this was never solved. It’s an improbable crime. It was committed within throwing distance of sleeping witnesses, and entirely with materials from the house. The circumtances dictate that the murderer was almost certainly one of the parents, but convincing forensic evidence practically exonerates them.
By now, I would have expected this to be like the post-9/11 anthrax mailings: a consensus quietly reached and the case put to bed. Instead, it seems we are no closer to a satisfactory narrative now than we were 22 years ago. At least as far as anyone is willing to say; the fellow on Buzzfeed cited legal reasons not to speculate on who the killer was, and he’s not usually shy.
I took a Jack the Ripper tour in London last year, and my lasting impression was that the police never stood a chance of finding the killer short of catching him in the act. The style of the mutilations was almost identical to the practice of 1880s slaughtermen, who were legion in Whitechapel, and their ubiquity rendered the sight of men walking the streets covered with blood commonplace. That killer could have been anyone.
This was the opposite. JonBenet’s killer would have had easy access to the home, a good knowledge of it’s layout and contents (not to mention the father’s finances), and likely the victim’s recognition and trust. The list of plausible suspects should be vanishingly small, and yet here we are. Still a bokor in 2018.