Comments
21 - 40 of 196 Comments Last updated Friday Jul 18

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

It wasn't a garrote.
candy

East Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Quote: "The natl. avg. of "hits" is exactly 3 times more than that of CO."

You really can't compare "the states", unless you look at the ones with the same population as Colorado. The states vary wildly in size, demographics, etc. That would be the most apt way to compare, IMO. I think highly of them, and haven't heard any major criticisms of them. RE: testing the DNA, other suspects, I leave that up to LE as to how they proceed with that. Re: Is this an active case? Yes, and people on our side need to be careful about what they say about that, because the Scams are not cooperating and do not deserve to know anything whatsoever, IMO.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. Since the garrote is the murder weapon, DNA from it would put the contributor directly in contact with the murder weapon. All the other DNA found does not possibly connect with the crime.
Not necessarily. It depends on where the rope/cord was stored beforehand or who handled it prior to the night of the crime. If someone else handled that cord, it's quite possible DNA would be left on it as well, especially with a rough surface such as cord or rope

Some keep saying that JBR's DNA and an "unknown" DNA was found under her nails but like the other DNA that they advertise, how does anyone know that those were the ONLY DNA samples found?

Let's not forget that nobody has ever said that the DNA found anywhere was the ONLY DNA found

That is VERY important

Since: Jan 12

Overland Park, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

candy wrote:
Quote: "The natl. avg. of "hits" is exactly 3 times more than that of CO."

You really can't compare "the states", unless you look at the ones with the same population as Colorado. The states vary wildly in size, demographics, etc. That would be the most apt way to compare, IMO. I think highly of them, and haven't heard any major criticisms of them. RE: testing the DNA, other suspects, I leave that up to LE as to how they proceed with that. Re: Is this an active case? Yes, and people on our side need to be careful about what they say about that, because the Scams are not cooperating and do not deserve to know anything whatsoever, IMO.
Thanks, Candy.

I agree, to compare CO with any other state(s) then demographics, crime rate, tourism, etc. need to be fairly consistent b/w the states used for comparison. I'm not sure what states would be most comparable to CO.
We should be looking at percentages, as population may vary a great deal, whereas percentages provide an equal base line for comparison.(out of 100)

I'm not really banking on a CODIS hit, especially now given the statistics you have presented. I tend to believe the/a perp(s) has his/her name(s) in JBR case files already. I do hope that LE requests samples from case players that have not submitted their DNA for testing. I know there are a few "known" individuals that have likely not cooperated with LE when asked to submit DNA, hair, prints, etc.

You say the case is "active", but it seems that LE is no longer looking at new leads/suspects/etc. If this is true, it's safe to assume they have put most of the pieces of the puzzle together, but they simply lack corroborating forensic evidence?

With regard to Ramsey DNA, if the CBI found Ramsey DNA anywhere incriminating (cords, panties, etc.), wouldn't an indictment come easily? Would DNA experts be able to explain away the foreign DNA profile in CODIS?

What are your thoughts on the investigation? Do you believe LE suspects ONLY the Rs, ONLY an intruder, or perhaps are they looking into a combination of the two major theoretical viewpoints, IDI/RDI?

I have a feeling this case is much more complex than any of the more common theories circulating @ Topix, WS, FFJ, my forum, etc. What are your thoughts?

Since: Jan 12

Overland Park, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>Not necessarily. It depends on where the rope/cord was stored beforehand or who handled it prior to the night of the crime. If someone else handled that cord, it's quite possible DNA would be left on it as well, especially with a rough surface such as cord or rope

Some keep saying that JBR's DNA and an "unknown" DNA was found under her nails but like the other DNA that they advertise, how does anyone know that those were the ONLY DNA samples found?

Let's not forget that nobody has ever said that the DNA found anywhere was the ONLY DNA found

That is VERY important
Touché.

Although, I am of the opinion that IF Ramsey DNA was obtained from any incriminating evidence, that an arrest and indictment would follow. I know you say the difficulty lies in determining the 5 Ws. Regardless, someone (JR) could be held accountable for some crime, even if it's not murder or manslaughter charges?...

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. It depends on where the rope/cord was stored beforehand or who handled it prior to the night of the crime. If someone else handled that cord, it's quite possible DNA would be left on it as well, especially with a rough surface such as cord or rope
Some keep saying that JBR's DNA and an "unknown" DNA was found under her nails but like the other DNA that they advertise, how does anyone know that those were the ONLY DNA samples found?
Let's not forget that nobody has ever said that the DNA found anywhere was the ONLY DNA found
That is VERY important
You are correct, but regardless, the garrote is the murdeer weapon. Some want to hang the contributor of the DNA on the longjohns or panties. It makes more sense to hang the person directly connected with the murder weapon.

Since: Jan 12

Overland Park, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct, but regardless, the garrote is the murdeer weapon. Some want to hang the contributor of the DNA on the longjohns or panties. It makes more sense to hang the person directly connected with the murder weapon.
CC~
Good points. If consistent DNA profiles were obtained from both murder weapons (the strangulation device and the object causing the skull fracture/displacement) then the hypothetical profile likely belongs to the killer. BUT, there is a problem with drawing this conclusion, as well. It's not unlawful, as you say, to handle undergarments, clothing, etc., just as it is not unlawful to handle a bat, a flashlight, a cord, or a paintbrush.

An arrest and indictment of a Ramsey would require that a DNA expert first discredits the foreign DNA profile in CODIS. Then LE would need to link the Rs forensically to the murder weapons, the sexual/physical assault, etc. However, if a DNA expert successfully discredits the foreign DNA, couldn't a defense expert argue that (hypothetical) Ramsey DNA is insignificant as well?...

Based on the evidence to which we have access, too much reasonable doubt exists in this case. Although, I believe LE is remaining "tight lipped" about newer forensic evidence that has surfaced due to advancements in DNA technology. I imagine that the "garrote" has been submitted for TDNA collection, and the results of an STR analysis are being kept confidential. What if the results yielded NO DNA profile(s)? Would this suggest the killer wore gloves when committing the murder?

There are too many questions for which the public does not have answers. Although many of us would like to have all the answers, that could clearly hinder LE's investigation. Perhaps BPD and "team Ramsey" have learned a thing or two about the detrimental effects of leaks in the past decade and a half?...

I certainly hope LE does have answers to the questions you and others have raised. I believe we all simply (or not so simply) want resolution and, ultimately, justice for the victim. I wonder how close (if at all) LE is to solving this crime? They just aren't talking. Maybe that's a good sign, maybe not...

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, but regardless, the garrote is the murdeer weapon. Some want to hang the contributor of the DNA on the longjohns or panties. It makes more sense to hang the person directly connected with the murder weapon.
I agree but the reality is that if there is other DNA on the cord/garrote, while it is more questionable, that by itself doesn't mean a thing unless all the other elements are also in place regarding the crime. If the rope/cord/garrote is from the Ramsey home, there may be DNA on it from being handled.

We just will never know and the DNA is only one piece of the puzzle that requires all other pieces to fit in order to rely on that as a smoking gun. In this case, the DNA is not a smoking gun. It is a smoking gun when DNA is from sperm, etc., but not DNA as it is represented in this case. It may be a convenient "out" for IDI, but in reality it is just another piece of evidence that may not even be related to the crime and finding DNA that can't be sourced or proven to be from the night in question is just a red herring for now

The pineapple is a way more important piece of evidence than the DNA and the IDI conveniently ignore the reality of that pineapple and how it got into JBR's system while she was asleep :)

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jun 10, 2012
 
Mama2> An arrest and indictment of a Ramsey would require that a DNA expert first discredits the foreign DNA profile in CODIS. Then LE would need to link the Rs forensically to the murder weapons, the sexual/physical assault, etc. However, if a DNA expert successfully discredits the foreign DNA, couldn't a defense expert argue that (hypothetical) Ramsey DNA is insignificant as well?...

Bakatari> No. This case is NOT a DNA case. Your DNA on the garrote places you with touching the garrote. You would need a LOT more proof besides that to get a murder conviction.

Suppose the alleged DNA matched that of the pedophile, John Mark Karr... That would not ensure a conviction even with his confession unless they can prove he was in the state of Colorado at the time of the crime at least, but further, that he was at the crime scene at the time of the crime. The alleged DNA does NOT prove that the contributor was at the crime scene at the time of the crime. It only proves that the contributor was in contact with the item some time in history.

Just think as a juror. Would you convict a person just because he confessed? While the courts will convict a person entering a guilty plea, a confession before a trial is an entirely different thing. I for one, would not want to punish an innocent even if he wants to be punished.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jun 10, 2012
 
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>
CC~
Good points. If consistent DNA profiles were obtained from both murder weapons (the strangulation device and the object causing the skull fracture/displacement) then the hypothetical profile likely belongs to the killer. BUT, there is a problem with drawing this conclusion, as well. It's not unlawful, as you say, to handle undergarments, clothing, etc., just as it is not unlawful to handle a bat, a flashlight, a cord, or a paintbrush.
An arrest and indictment of a Ramsey would require that a DNA expert first discredits the foreign DNA profile in CODIS. Then LE would need to link the Rs forensically to the murder weapons, the sexual/physical assault, etc. However, if a DNA expert successfully discredits the foreign DNA, couldn't a defense expert argue that (hypothetical) Ramsey DNA is insignificant as well?...
Based on the evidence to which we have access, too much reasonable doubt exists in this case. Although, I believe LE is remaining "tight lipped" about newer forensic evidence that has surfaced due to advancements in DNA technology. I imagine that the "garrote" has been submitted for TDNA collection, and the results of an STR analysis are being kept confidential. What if the results yielded NO DNA profile(s)? Would this suggest the killer wore gloves when committing the murder?
There are too many questions for which the public does not have answers. Although many of us would like to have all the answers, that could clearly hinder LE's investigation. Perhaps BPD and "team Ramsey" have learned a thing or two about the detrimental effects of leaks in the past decade and a half?...
I certainly hope LE does have answers to the questions you and others have raised. I believe we all simply (or not so simply) want resolution and, ultimately, justice for the victim. I wonder how close (if at all) LE is to solving this crime? They just aren't talking. Maybe that's a good sign, maybe not...
You are correct. If no one pleads guilty in this case, the case must go to trial. If the case goes to trial, the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A DNA match in this case would NOT mean guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It would be IF the DNA was semen found in, or on the victim, or at least in the house, because it would be proof enough of the presence of the contributor.
CC

Since: May 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree but the reality is that if there is other DNA on the cord/garrote, while it is more questionable, that by itself doesn't mean a thing unless all the other elements are also in place regarding the crime. If the rope/cord/garrote is from the Ramsey home, there may be DNA on it from being handled.
We just will never know and the DNA is only one piece of the puzzle that requires all other pieces to fit in order to rely on that as a smoking gun. In this case, the DNA is not a smoking gun. It is a smoking gun when DNA is from sperm, etc., but not DNA as it is represented in this case. It may be a convenient "out" for IDI, but in reality it is just another piece of evidence that may not even be related to the crime and finding DNA that can't be sourced or proven to be from the night in question is just a red herring for now
The pineapple is a way more important piece of evidence than the DNA and the IDI conveniently ignore the reality of that pineapple and how it got into JBR's system while she was asleep :)
All of the evidence could have been touched innocently EXCEPT the garotte, Cap. That's the only thing the Ramsey's didn't touch, or said they didn't touch. JR handled the wristcords, so his DNA was accounted for, but he didn't touch her throat to loosen the cord. Hence, that is the only DNA that would tell us WHO strangled and killed JBR.

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The pineapple is a way more important piece of evidence than the DNA :)
It's the big bugaboo. And the pineapple in cream/milk is a bigger bugaboo.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jun 10, 2012
 
BrotherMoon wrote:
It wasn't a garrote.
Yes. According to you, it was a suspension device. However, what was she strangled with? The suspension device? It might have been a suspension device, but when used to strangle, it became a garrote.

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bakatari wrote:
...Suppose the alleged DNA matched that of the pedophile, John Mark Karr... That would not ensure a conviction even with his confession "unless they can prove he was in the state of Colorado at the time of the crime at least, but further, that he was at the crime scene at the time of the crime." The alleged DNA does NOT prove that the contributor was at the crime scene at the time of the crime. It only proves that the contributor was in contact with the item some time in history.

Just think as a juror. Would you convict a person just because he confessed?

While the courts will convict a person entering a guilty plea, a confession before a trial is an entirely different thing. I for one, would not want to punish an innocent even if he wants to be punished.
Perhaps you missed the discussion earlier where it was said that it is not necessary to put a perp AT THE CRIME SCENE. In order to eliminate a suspect, the object is to put him at ANOTHER location, thus proving he could NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE.

Therefore it is NOT NECESSARY to put a suspect at the crime scene in order to prove his guilt.

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jun 10, 2012
 
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. According to you, it was a suspension device. However, what was she strangled with? The suspension device? It might have been a suspension device, but when used to strangle, it became a garrote.
Completely wrong.

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed the discussion earlier where it was said that it is not necessary to put a perp AT THE CRIME SCENE. In order to eliminate a suspect, the object is to put him at ANOTHER location, thus proving he could NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE.
Therefore it is NOT NECESSARY to put a suspect at the crime scene in order to prove his guilt.
If you cannot prove that the accused was at the crimescene at the time of the crime, there is no way you can prove his guilt.
Common sense 101.
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely wrong.
OK, then she was strangled with the "suspension device" ! LOL!!!
Since it had a handle, and it was used to strangle, it was a garrote.

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cannot prove that the accused was at the crimescene at the time of the crime, there is no way you can prove his guilt.
Common sense 101.
CC
Back to CC?

There is no way you can prove a person's guilt simply by proving he was at the crime scene at the time of the crime. There has to be substantiating evidence proving he committed the crime.

OTOH, if he's shown to be elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, he cannot be guilty since he can't be in two places at the same time.

That is why they tried to PROVE JMK was in Atlanta at the time of the crime. They were unable to do that, so he is still one of the prime suspects in the crime.

And even though they could not place him in Boulder at the time of the crime, he is still one of the primary suspects.

However, had they proven that he WAS in Atlanta or anywhere else other than in or near Boulder at the time of the crime, he would probably have been forgotten as far as the Ramsey case is concerned.

He has NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
If you cannot prove that the accused was at the crimescene at the time of the crime, there is no way you can prove his guilt.
Common sense 101.
CC
WRONG AGAIN...You obviously don't follow any criminal cases. Read up on some cases - IT'S CALLED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
deb

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jun 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed the discussion earlier where it was said that it is not necessary to put a perp AT THE CRIME SCENE. In order to eliminate a suspect, the object is to put him at ANOTHER location, thus proving he could NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE.
Therefore it is NOT NECESSARY to put a suspect at the crime scene in order to prove his guilt.
HI OS,

He really has a cognitive deficit.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

23 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 2 hr Steve Eller 171
Snow Prints? 11 hr Steve Eller 28
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet 11 hr Steve Eller 37
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... Jul 21 candy 10
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Jul 21 candy 24
Why patsy didn't wake up Burke Jul 20 Just Wondering 3
Fleet, Priscilla White denied official Ramsey e... (Jan '14) Jul 19 Steve Eller 184
•••
•••