Not her parents (Jon and Patsy Ramsey), according to a CBS News – 48 Hours investigative report. Authorities in Boulder Colorado have isolated a different set of unknown DNA found on JonBenet, and it does not match either parent.
The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet’s blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don’t know is his name.
Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet’s killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim’s fingernails.Read more on possible suspects and the hunt for the person who killed JonBenet – eight years ago Sunday.
It was “Some Puerto Rican Guy”. I watched the South Park with OJ, the Ramseys, Susan Smith, and Gary Conditt.
of course, the DNA was made on a 1973 Selectric typewriter, but that’s neither here nor there…
oh, and since its ingrained in my head now, the Family Guy skit with Peter at JonBenet’s funeral is classic.
yea..”i’ll help you find the killer”
“no no really…that’s ok”
along with the south park episode “one of us, one of us, gooble gobble gooble gobble”
I’ve long said the brother was suspect.
I recall clearly the testimony that he came down for breakfast while the adults were in mourning and never once asked what the fuss was about.
The parents fell on the sword (bogus ransom note, etc.) in order to protect their child (at the obvious expense of their daughter).
I’m with Charlie. It’s the simplest explanation that covers all the evidence. I’m willing to bet that no DNA testing has been done on Burke Ramsey. It probably never will be done, either.
Charlie and Sue, I hate to burst your bubble but the report says that the DNA is not a member of JonBenet’s family. They don’t need to test Burke because they tested both parents and there was no match. Since neither of them matched logically, their offspring Burke wouldn’t match either. Who was 9 at the time of the murder?
What, nine-year-olds can’t kill smaller children? Also, why would a grown man need a garrot to strangle a six-year-old little girl? As sick as it is to think about, wouldn’t a murdering pedophile get more pleasure from manual strangling his victim than from using a garrot?
The article talks about a footprint in the basement from a Hi-Tech brand boot, and how one of the suspects had Hi-Tech boots, but they were the wrong size.
Guess who else had Hi-Tech boots? That’s right, Burke.
The autopsy revealed that Jon-Benet had undigested pineapple in her stomach. She had to eat the pineapple chunks within an hour of being killed for them to be in the undigested state in which they were found.
The ransom note was written on a legal pad from the Ramsey house.
Are we supposed to believe that a man (or maybe two men) broke into the Ramsey house, stun-gunned Jon-Benet, carried her down to the kitchen, woke her up and made her eat pineapple chunks, took her to the basement, sexually molested her with one of Patsy’s paintbrushes, smashed her in the head, made a garrot with the paintbrush, strangled her with it, then went back and wrote a two-page ransom note (which probably took at least 15 minutes), and then fled the scene?
I’m sorry, I find that to be much less credible than her nine-year-old brother killing her. It would also explain why John and Patsy lied about Burke being asleep when they called the police that morning, and why Patsy gets so hysterical when anyone tries to link Burke to the murder. It is also the reason why Burke will never have his DNA compared to the isolated DNA from the scene.
Some level comments here:
(1.) Ransom Note:
The Note was elaborately composed and belabored in content, length style and even various rewrites, all indicating someone or ones with time on their hands, more or less waiting out a period of time by engaging in this elaboration of writing the eventual note, keeping themselves occupied throughout some length of time that would not — not AT ALL — make any sort of sense as to the actions of someone or ones after committing such a crime as murder, as they did.
My opinion about that Note was that it was written BEFORE the murder took place, by person or persons using a length of time in hiding within the house to ‘work on’ the note because they had nothing else to do while secreted and while waiting to commit murder.
The Note isn’t the work of anyone hurried, on their way out the door, flustered or otherwise under stress of time or cirucumstance, such that it seems to be quite clearly the efforts by someone with a great deal of loitering time to ruminate, fantasize (all the flourishes of theme and message reflect that) and rewrite. So, the author/s of the Ransom/Kidnapping Note by the murder/ers indicates to my view that he/they were in the house earlier, lying in wait and spending their time waiting by devoting time to the crafting of the Note.
(2.) I’ve always thought that the murder/ers was/were either two young boys (not children, however, but young adults, maybe older teens, thereabouts) or else some emotionally/pscyhologically impaired (d’oh) older or middle aged man. I used to suspect that guy who fancied himself as “Santa Claus” whose wife sewed Jon Benet’s costumes, just because they both seemed so dark and darkly obsessed with the loss of childhood innocence, all that masquereding based upon some disturbed fantasies about childhood, etc…
…but later came to wonder, since the Boulder Police discounted them based upon examinations afterward (but I don’t know if it was conclusive as to DNA, for both/either of them).
All things considered, it’s easy to conclude that there were a lot of extremely disturbed persons affiliated with that entire “Dance Club” for the children, that industry, if you will, that parades female children around as fantasy “items” as objects of adult amusement based upon those strange cosmetics. I’m glad to read that the place has been closed and torn down, and wish the same would take place nationwide as to similar groups that promote and engage in these behaviors, and similar. It’s an abnormal and abnormalizing set of practices in regards to children, and I do believe represents abuse in and of itself, much less the type of strange adults that it attracts.
Anyway, the son, Burke, is discounted based upon DNA and I doubt that he had the capacity to do what was done to poor Jon Benet. I think that whoever committed the murders just burglarized the house, laid in wait for bedtime of parents and children and then struck, obviously leading Jon Benet downstairs for a Pineapple snack and then trying, perhaps, to harm her in another bedroom upstairs and eventually taking her downstairs after incapacitating her, or which was done just after she had her sad Pineapple snack.
Someone tried to sneak her out the basement window, I also thought, based upon the suit case that was reportedly found positioned underneath the window later in the room where Jon Benet’s body was found, but left her due to noise or other difficulty in not being able to exit the window with her body. Might also explain how and when her skull was damaged, but I’m sure that the police (at least, I hope so) have resolved these details based on examination of the crime scene.
I also once doubted her parents but never found them to be guilty of this terrible deed, after their interviews. But, one thing for sure, after reading that there were such a high number of sex offenders in their Boulder neighborhood and a high number of burglaries in the times prior to Jon Benet’s murder, it seems in retrospect to be just horrible that anyone with children would be living in Boulder, or near it.
I used the Megan’s Law website yesterday to search a zipcode of concern to me and there were four registered sex offenders listed as living in the very neighborhood. Scary. Very scary.
The article doesn’t say whether or not a DNA sample has been obtained or that there are plans to do that from that guy who was murdered/had his suicide feigned by unnknown murderer. Seems likely suspect, would certainly fit the intuitive guess about who murdered the poor child, perhaps others.
Article does not also, either state whether that now dead fellow’s associates are being, or have been, researched, investigated, but seems clear that they should be.
I do think that two people murdered Jon Benet, two teens or immature male adults, probably, based upon the outlandishishness of the note and the instrument created to strangle her. Seems to be horribly similar to a “Chemistry Set” sort of behaviors, gruesomly reapplied, as to individual, handmade nature of the acts committed.
Oh come on?
1) Could a 9 year old kill a 6 year old? Yes. But I don’t think a 9 yr old could garrot her to the point that she is nearly decapitated, or hit her hard enough to crush her skull. Do you really think a 9 year old could carry a 6 year old down several flights of stairs to the basement? You are talking about a 9 year old who may weigh at best 100 pounds carrying a six year old who weighs maybe 50 pounds an extended distance. What about the stun gun? Did Burke own a stun gun?
2) “The article talks about a footprint in the basement from a Hi-Tech brand boot, and how one of the suspects had Hi-Tech boots, but they were the wrong size.
Guess who else had Hi-Tech boots? That’s right, Burke.”
The article implies that the boot is a full sized boot, not the size of a child. Also, all of the family’s shoes were examined and cleared as not being the ones that made the print.
3) Pineapple – Maybe she snuck down to the refrigerator and ate the pineapple between the time she went to bed and the time she was murdered? Is that a possibility?
4) Ransom Note: The Ramseys were out of the house for hours prior to coming home and going to bed. Plenty of time for the intruder(s) to enter the house, case it and write the ransom note, before they came home.
5) DNA: They DNA tested both John and Patsy Ramsey and concluded that the DNA was not a match. That means it wouldn’t be a match for Burke either since he shares the same DNA as his parents.
6) Look what Lou Smit has said about this case. He has done the most investigation of it.
7) Look at this quote from the article: “Boulder police brushed aside the thousands of leads that came in, and dismissed the possibility that an intruder had somehow slipped inside the house and committed the murder. Instead, they leaked information to the media — sometimes fabricated information, charges of pornography and sexual abuse — to put pressure on the Ramseys. ”
One of the problems with this case is that the Police lied to the media and a lot of the belief that the Ramsey’s did it is based on bullshit stories that came from the Police to make the Ramsey’s look guilty.
Sue you obvously believe Burke did it. Is that belief based on real evidence or perhaps bullshit spread by the Police?
Sue is not taking into account specifics here, but just speculating based upon nothing too accurate, if accurate at all.
There was another person’s (a male’s, not a family member’s) DNA found in the underpants that were worn by Jon Benet when she was murdered.
That’s an obvious indication of the deeds committed upon her body and by what means and it doesn’t suggest that someone used ‘a paintbrush’ to “molest” Jon Benet, for starters.
Unless there was a lone person who was either well known by Jon Benet and someone who would not startle or frighten her by waking her up in the middle of the night, and not a parent, then I continue to suggest that there were two persons who were responsible for the acts that took her life a while later. Someone or ones woke her up, managed to keep her silent enough as to not create a disturbance to wake the rest of the sleeping family members in the home, engaged her with a snack of pineapple and then did what was done, and probably did so by rendering her unconscious and/or silent otherwise after that point. Some one of two maintained a watch, another engaged in deeds and/or switched off as to some combination of those acts…
AND, that elaborate Note that was left ALSO indicates that there was a certain level of entertainment underway by the author, or authors, such that one person was using the process of writing the note to entertain (“show off” or thereabouts) to someone else in the process, as if one person was actually writing the note while another person was adding information as a form of entertainment, which would also explain the rewrites, as if one person was writing the note, another person was saying, “yeah, try THAT” and the writer would say, “Yeah, I like that, let’s write THAT” and so on and so on…
The note really describes who the people are, in many important aspects to who they are, is what I suggest. All that allusion to certain dramatic moments, particularly that use of the lines of dialogue from “Escape from New York,” …a lot there in that note to pretty well describe who the murderers are, and I do believe that there were, are, two of persons responsible.
And by the fact that there were sleeping parents and a sibling in the house while the murder took place, it also indicates to me that the murder or murderers have issues with that, again pointing to young male adults, if not older teens, younger adults, twenties or so.
Who cares!! its all about Robert Blake and
FREEEEEEAKKKK! BOY now the media will
not even do any positive stories about soldiers
but they saturate us with trial upon trial
as if we are salivating over a t-bone steak.
I could care less about Robert Blake…now
the Freak!!!!! it would be nice to see him go
to the slammer and put in with Jeffrey Dahmers
ol roomy…I hope to hell freak! boy gives up
on the macartney and lennon songs and sells
them back to Paul real cheap.
I just ran out of time to rebut all of the stuff you brought up, but here’s an article about the crime that sounds more reasonable than any goofy stalking book-writing intruder scenario:
Here are the transcripts of John and Patsy’s 2000 interviews, where it comes out that Burke testified to a grand jury that he had Hi-Tec boots.
Also google up BURKE RAMSEY SWISS ARMY KNIFE for more fun.
Sue: you appear to have long since determined by imagination that “the family” and/or some combination of family members murdered Jon Benet. I’ve read several comments by persons similar and they never budge, always returning to the parents because they “had to” have “done it” and/or same thing applied to the boy, the nine year old boy at that time.
If you want to believe that — what, a nine year old and his mother sat around and wrote that lengthy note after they murdered their own relative/child/sister? — go ahead. Not going to argue with you, just that you aren’t taking into consideration many other factors, much as the Boulder police did not, either.
I knew a guy in Hawaii who was determined that the parents murdered the child because, as that guy alleged in his determined point of view, Ramsey was “into pornography” and when presssed as to why he “knew” this about Mr. Ramsey, the guy would just say that he “knew” that Ramsey was. That Ramsey “had to be” because of Jon Benet’s dressup activities.
I dunno. I long since watched the interviews with the Ramseys and long since abandoned any doubt about either of them, a lot of things considered, including those interviews. It’s an easy conclusion to make that they “had to” have murdered their daughter, but I don’t think that they did. The nine year old son was too young and unable to do what was done. There’s DNA present from another, non related male on Jon Benet’s underwear, and some of the suggestions from her autopsy lead me to conclude that she was sexually molested at or after the time of her death.
Two sets of footprints in the basement that don’t match any one in the survivors’ family members, and some other things, and, all things considered, if not those three, then invaders or an invader into the home took the life of the poor child.
I believe that someone broke into the house while the family was away that afternoon/evening and lay in wait for them to return, planning to molest and murder the child Jon Benet. And did. The elaborate note is just more evidence of that elaborate plan. It certainly wasn’t written by someone in a rush, was written by someone with a florid imagination and a highly theatrical tone and content, someone making a specific point among all that…I believe most profilers would agree with my interpretations of that note, and, having discounted Patsy Ramsey as the author after all is said and done (and she was, eventually, from what I’ve read except to some stalwarts in the Boulder police who already needed to convict her because they seem to have been unable to consider alternatives for whatever reason), then that means someone outside the family wrote the note, and rewrote the note, and loitered around with enough time to rewrite it again and then to go back over it and edit it and dwell over it and thereabouts. All of which indicates that someone seems to have paid more time to the note composition than to the murder itself, or, perhaps, one person was obsessed with one act, while another person was obsessed with the other (which is what I think is the case, as to liklihood).
The guy who was found murdered (CBS article) seems like a likely place as any to start checking DNA and researching HIS murderer because, it sure seems to me that two people murdered the child and did so to make a psychological point, whatever it was, as to the two parents being present in the house while they did so. The work, again, of troubled, immature males, on average.
You should look into O.J.SIMPSON’S knife collectin instead, if this type of issue is curious to you, and the fact that Simpson was instructed in Naval Seal personal combat maneuvers, with knives, just a short time before his wife and Ron Goldman were killed, and that one of Simpson’s knives was missing from his collection on the night of the murders.
The jury didn’t get to hear that evidence because it wasn’t allowed into the trial, but, the fact is, that O.J. Simpson received training in Naval Seal personal defense, with knives (as to how to kill another person with a knife in a one-to-one fight) just a short while before his wife and Ron Goldman were murdered in that very fashion.
But, about the Ramseys, I don’t believe that they were responsible, and that includes their nine year old son, but that two/one invaders (probably two) lay in wait in their home and then took the life of the child. All things considered, that’s what I’ve concluded, based upon what I’ve read and heard and intuited.
The Media also wanted to claim that the dad of Elizabeth Smart or some other family member had killed her and look how that turned out…
I saw an interview today with two ex-Boulder cops who’ve become private investigators and listened to their theory. How come they didn’t have that theory when they were detectives on the force investigating this little girl’s death?
I have somewhat of a particular gift and I believe her parents abused and killed this little girl just as much as I felt Scott Petersen killed his wife and baby. I go with my “feelings” and I’m rarely wrong.
We all make mistakes, firstbrokenangel.
I intuit the Jon Benet Ramsey murder differently. After watching and listening to both parents on several occasions, any open mindedness about their culpability as to her death was gone. I tried to believe that they were responsible, but after watching and listening to both of them, I felt sure that they weren’t responsible.
Patsy Ramsey displays some unexplained sense of guilt and remorse, however, something that she feels painful regret about about Jon Benet and I don’t know what that is, but I felt very surely that it wasn’t her death. I believe that aspect about Patsy Ramsey is what some people focus on about her person and that leads them into jumping to a conclusion about her that isn’t square. It might be some projection about her own life and regrets that she psychologically associated with Jon Benet and whose murder, later, struck closer to her own person than it would have otherwise, but whatever that sense of closer examination about Patsy Ramsey may be, I long ago decided that it wasn’t an indication that she’d murdered her daughter. I don’t believe either parent did, and I did try to perceive them as responsible, at one point, just because of statements such as yours.
But, again I write, everyone, even yourself, has and does make intuitively incorrect assumptions. In this case, by focusing with assurity on the two parents despite indications that someone else or others were involved only serves to perpetuate the pain and horror of this child’s death.
I can’t “read” Scott Peterson. He’s been convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence and that bothers me, on that level alone. But, about the man, I just have no opinion in relationship to his wife’s murder/death, other than he has bad character as a spouse, or did. The circumstantial conviction in his case, however, bugs me because his guilt wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but upon suspicions. My suspicions aren’t good about Peterson, not anywhere near good about him, but, as to convicting him to die based upon circumstances, I can’t accept that. THAT PROCESS bothers me.
In forensic expert Cyril Wecht’s book, “Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?” Chapter 11, he concludes from the autopsy report that Jon Benet had also been sexually molested days before her death, at least 48-72 hours earlier. There was evidence of both acute and chronic injuries.
Re the ransom note (Appendix A of book): that’s a really strange one. It threatens beheading. It demands an exact amount of $118,000 and signs off “Victory! S.B.T.C.”
“The ransom of $118,000 matched almost to the penny the amount of John Ramsey’s bonus from Access Graphics for the year.” (Wecht’s book)
The “S.B.T.C” may refer to Subic Bay Training Center. John Ramsey served at the Subic Bay base in the Philippines in the mid-sixties, while still married to his first wife, Cindy.
So whoever wrote the ransom note was not a random stranger. I’m not saying it was one of the parents or the brother, but someone who knew the amount of John Ramsey’s bonus.
Enough forensics – test Clinton’s DNA!
Suzy, most of what went on in court was sealed and we’ll probably never see or hear about it but he was not convicted on circumstantial evidence – that’s the only part we saw; what the jurors saw and heard is entirely a different matter altogether and they took this very seriously – the result was correct and so was the punishment.