It’s not me making the definitive statement, it’s the DNA.
True, she could have just gotten it on her own, but we don’t know that for sure. And if it was right before she died that she ate it, it makes sense that someone woke her up and gave it to her. If someone did give it to her, it would point to someone she knew–could be the parents, could be an intruder whom she was acquainted with.
I agree that it points to someone she knew.
Kitchen stool. Breakfast nook chair. Kids climb. I was climbing onto a kitchen counter after cookies by the time I was 3.
The pineapple theory :dubious:
Is it known whether the pineapple came from inside the Ramsey’s house? If it was something in their fridge, I can see her getting it out and eating it on her own. If it was canned pineapple that had to be opened (was there a can?) it’s hard to imagine a 4 year old doing that on her own.
By itself, the fact that she ate pineapple out of a bowl does not suggest to me that someone she knew had to be there.
Markxxx or anyone else, what is the evidence that she came down from her room on her own rather than someone else being involved in her coming down? Surely it’s not just the pineapple?
The reason the pineapple is such a “bugaboo” is because where it was in her digestive tract. It appears that she ate it approximately one and a half hours before her death. Which means an intruder would have had to have gotten her to eat it, then hung out for an hour an a half before killing her. While the entire family was upstairs sleeping. We know JonBenet didn’t get the bowl down herself, because only Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints were on the bowl. During questioning, Patsy denied even recognizing the bowl.
As far as the DNA under her fingernails, it’s useless. The coroner used the same clippers for all the nails, instead of using clean clippers per nail. Also, it was determined that JonBenet hadn’t bathed in over 24 hours. The DNA in the panties was degraded at the time of the crime. The newly found DNA is called “touch” DNA. As far as I know, there’s been no proof that it matches the “DNA X” that was found near the body.
Remember, fibers matched to Patsy’s sweater were entwined in the garrote used to strangle JonBenet.
This story has so many twists and turns it’s amazing. For just about everything that makes the Ramsey’s look guilty, there’s something that points toward intruder. I’ve been following the case for years, and I’m still on the fence. But for anyone to say there’s not a shred of evidence that makes the parents look guilty? There’s plenty of it.
There are many “odd” facts that lead to the parents knowing and covering what happened. ONE. The “ramsom” letter was started over while sitting at the kichen table and would have been null and void if the house had been properly searched. As said it did attack John and had info only a few knew. TWO. If you read the letter with John dictating it to Patsy (she was never completly cleared of writing it with her left hand) then it makes a better read as to why it’s so long (didn’t know how to end it) and making demands for something that wouldn’t make a hill of beans once the body was found. THREE. The mannerisum of the ransom not is the same tone and wording of the statement that John gave to the police.
Read both with John trying to get Patsy to calmly write what’s he saying and the John making the demands in his statment AND comment on why not?
Oh, I dunno. A crazy-obsessed stalker could build up quite the emotional investment on someone who isn’t even aware of their existence. Ramsay couldn’t point the cops in that direction because he had no idea.
In theory.
Dusty, you’re incorrect about the touch DNA. It was conclusively proven to match the DNA in the panties and under the fingernails, which is why the Ramseys were cleared
A few odd points:
There were practice ransom notes on a pad from one of Patsy’s notepads.
The Ramsey’s reported to police of a kidnapping.
The house was searched, and shortly after, it was Mr. Ramsey who remembered
the hidden room. He went downstairs on his own and found his daughter and began
performing CPR on her, ruining the DNA.
They “lawyered up” and Patsy refused to be interviewed for more than a year.
I remember film of John happily glad-handing people at his daughter’s funeral. Guilty. As. Hell.
Yes, I’ve been at wakes and funerals where close relatives were laughing and joking–I was raised Irish, after all, and at my father’s wake his aide knew she was at the right one by all the laughing–but Jon Benet was a child. There’s a VAST difference between celebrating the life of an elderly man and mourning the death of a child.
Well, if they didn’t know she was dead in the house (i.e., they didn’t kill her) and they found a ransom note, how is calling the police about a kidnapping odd?
The third point is bad–but it’s the police messing up by not securing the area better and letting the Ramseys search the house.
Please, can the tired old myth that innocent people don’t need attorneys be retired? I wouldn’t speak to the police about a parking ticket without a lawyer hanging around. This was a prudent move on their part and to believe this is demonstrative of guilt is completely naive and ignorant.
Is this necessarily an indication of guilt? People behave in odd ways all the time without having committed murder. I agree that it sounds a bit distasteful, but I just don’t think this automatically translates to “killed his daughter.”
Because of Ramsey’s kidnap report, because of their direction, the cs, and especially them, were investigated improperly at first.
But then -zing!- John remembers a hidden spot that the police didn’t look and HE runs downstairs, grabs his daughters body and ruins the cs. What a hunch!
Is it not possible that the perp had taken some of that stationery from the house at an earlier time? Maybe when there to fix a toilet, or deliver a parcel, or maybe one of ‘the help’ gave it to him? Or, assuming they had at least a “cleaning lady”, isn’t possible that she took some of it out of the house and gave it to her boyfriend? Or maybe her boyfriend told her to do so as a preparatory step toward the crime? Or maybe Mr. Ramsey took a pad of that paper to his work because he had written some important addresses or phone numbers on it, and it was found and taken from his work by the same person who knew about his bonus (i.e. a co-worker)?
In any case, how can you be sure that some of the stationery had never been taken out of the house by someone before the time of the crime?
(As an aside, in the Wiki article, an amazing fact is presented. Two detectives retired in disgust at the case. One because the cops failed to get the evidence to convict the Ramseys, and the other because they failed to get the evidence to confirm the intruder).
The ransom note was found on the staircase…the pad with the practice ransom notes was still on a desk. Even if stationery was stolen, I doubt the perp would bring the entire pad back and tear the usable
note out at the house and put the pad on Patsy’s desk.
So what?
It would have been pretty bizarre if they hadn’t, since that’s what they thought it was.
He didn’t ruin all the DNA. They found enough to clear the Ramswys.
Also, if I find my 4 year old daughter lying on the floor unconscious, you can bet your fucking ass I’m going to try to give her CPR. What kind of piece of shit would NOT try to revive his own kid?
So what? I would get a lawyer too. You’d have to be an idiot not to.
He probably wrote it while sitting at the desk. So what?
[QUOTE]
[/QHe probably wrote it while sitting at the desk. So what?
UOTE]
You mean he practiced writing it at the desk…when he got the wording just right he tore it out of the pad
and placed it on the staircase.