There was something undisclosed

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1 Jan 16, 2014
I've come to realize the most transparent criminal investigation in the history of the world isn't so transparent. A piece of physical evidence wasn't disclosed and this information is credible.
Heloise

UK

#2 Jan 16, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
I've come to realize the most transparent criminal investigation in the history of the world isn't so transparent. A piece of physical evidence wasn't disclosed and this information is credible.
Well, don't leave us dangling!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#3 Jan 16, 2014
I agree there is undisclosed physical evidence but never considered Jonbenet's case to be in any way shape or form a 'transparent' investigation, just the opposite. It took over 14 years for the truth about Alex Hunter and the Grand Jury Indictment to surface.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#4 Jan 16, 2014
I don't know what it is other than it actually exists and whomever I spoke with will not divulge anything further. I was told a few things, though, that helped clarify some of the assumptions that I had previously made. The flashlight was not used as a murder weapon if at all. There was some confusion at the crime scene and that particular piece of evidence was documented rather ambiguously as it pertains to prints or rather lack of them. I was told the head injury was more likely a fall of some sort onto a rounded surface rather than a blunt force attack.(I still disagree and like the golf club as the weapon). Investigators think that she had been abused for quite a while and the viciousness of this abuse had been escalating for some time. I was also told that her shirt in her bedroom's bathroom was completely stretched out, as if whoever was wearing it was in some sort of scuffle. I always thought this was an accident and cover up. The person I spoke with only agrees with the cover up part saying "Her death was the result of abuse, there's nothing accidental about that."
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, don't leave us dangling!

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5 Jan 16, 2014
Transparent in that most of the case documents, transcripts, and crime scene photos are available to the public.
moonjack wrote:
I agree there is undisclosed physical evidence but never considered Jonbenet's case to be in any way shape or form a 'transparent' investigation, just the opposite. It took over 14 years for the truth about Alex Hunter and the Grand Jury Indictment to surface.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#9 Jan 16, 2014
Kolar said in his latest chat he was going use some info of Dr. Werner's Spitz's to show why a flashlight WAS used to create the head wound.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#10 Jan 16, 2014
That's a bit strange. He has always discounted the flashlight as the weapon in the past. Im a firm believer in Burke causing the head wound. Only john and possibly patsy could have done that to her skull with that flashlight and that is even unlikely.
candy wrote:
Kolar said in his latest chat he was going use some info of Dr. Werner's Spitz's to show why a flashlight WAS used to create the head wound.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#11 Jan 16, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
That's a bit strange. He has always discounted the flashlight as the weapon in the past. Im a firm believer in Burke causing the head wound. Only john and possibly patsy could have done that to her skull with that flashlight and that is even unlikely. <quoted text>
Unless I am mistaken, Kolar remarked in his book that after seeing the difference in Burke's height as compared to Jonbenet's, he felt Burke would have had the ability to exert enough force to cause the head wound.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#12 Jan 16, 2014
No way, the flashlight wasn't long enough for a child to do that kind of damage. The longer a weapon is the more devastating which is why a bat or a golf cub are far better weapons than a flashlight.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless I am mistaken, Kolar remarked in his book that after seeing the difference in Burke's height as compared to Jonbenet's, he felt Burke would have had the ability to exert enough force to cause the head wound.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#13 Jan 17, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
No way, the flashlight wasn't long enough for a child to do that kind of damage. The longer a weapon is the more devastating which is why a bat or a golf cub are far better weapons than a flashlight. <quoted text>
The flashlight was a monstrous one so it could have done that much damage. But I am not convinced that it was the weapon. Sometimes I think she was knocked against something during an argument. And I do think that Burke, whether accidentally or deliberately, was more than likely responsible for the injury.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#14 Jan 17, 2014
I agree that it is long enough but I think someone of Burke's stature could not generate that type of force with just the flashlight. I read an interesting article yesterday on skull fractures and likely weapons. I'll post it asap.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The flashlight was a monstrous one so it could have done that much damage. But I am not convinced that it was the weapon. Sometimes I think she was knocked against something during an argument. And I do think that Burke, whether accidentally or deliberately, was more than likely responsible for the injury.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#15 Jan 17, 2014
http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/bl...

This was an excellent article and really identifies the types of injuries and the usual circumstances in which they were incurred. Especially interesting was the part about depressed skull fractures.
O my

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Jan 21, 2014
Just keep ignoring the facts and dna evidence.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#18 Jan 21, 2014
The DNA was not evidence of anything other than normal social human contact. It was all old, degraded, and incomplete. There were 6 unidentified examples found but were they to test every possible square centimeter of clothing far more would appear as they would on anyone's clothing. The ability to find 'touch' dna has eclipsed the ability to understand what it means.

The far more importnt question is who had sexually abused both young Ramsey children. Who caused dysfunction so immense Burke was unable to control his behavior and left feces in his clothing. Who are the parents protecting?
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#19 Jan 21, 2014
O my wrote:
Just keep ignoring the facts and dna evidence.
There are many ways touch DNA can be transferred if I have read the articles correctly.

We only have Patsy's word that Jonebent wore neither the undies or the long johns to the Whites' party that evening.(It is just like a little girl to make sure she wears her (correct) day of the week undies on Christmas--even if they are too big for her.)

Had she worn them to the party, when she went to the bathroom at the Whites', she probably would have put her hands down on the toilet seat to balance herself as she was getting on or off the commode. Result: Transfer of unknown person's skin cells to her clothing when she pulled up her longjohns. Had the person who had visited the bathroom coughed or spilled urine on the seat, the crotch of Jonbenet's undies may have come into contact with that miniscule bit of DNA. Result: Miniscule drop of DNA in undies. This sounds completely feasible, if you think about it.

I wonder if they tested for touch DNA on the pants that Jonbenet wore that evening? If so, more of the unknown DNA may be found on them. Surely they thought to check this out?
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#20 Jan 21, 2014
If Patsy was telling the truth about Jonbenet's clothing...

Question: Why would a pedophile/murderer/kidnapper redress the child without wearing his gloves?

Some have suggested that he removed his gloves to molest her. Given--that sounds credible.(But that being the case, shouldn't DNA from Jonbenet's bodily fluids been intermingled with the touch DNA?)

Why, since the pedophile was apparently savvy enough to wear gloves the rest of the time that he was in the house, would he not have redressed her with his gloves on?

Would a pedophile have even redressed her? Would a pedophile care that the child/victim was left naked? Why take the chance of leaving even more incriminating evidence? This was one compassionate pedophile!!! With this MO, the police should have caught him in record time.
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

#21 Jan 21, 2014
And, oh yes, this pedophile took the time to grab her favorite blanket from the dryer to wrap her in, instead of just grabbing up bed clothing from her bed. Part of his MO?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#23 Jan 21, 2014
Perhaps it was JMKs 'torch', LOL?

Oh wait, he wasn't in the state, much less the Ramsey home, my bad, ;)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#25 Jan 21, 2014
Yes they have OS!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#27 Jan 21, 2014
DrSeussMd wrote:
Yes they have OS!
Ah Geez, here we go again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What I believe is close to what happened 17 hr Rangette 66
Karr's Christmas Message Tue Legal__Eagle 47
Chief Kolar's AMA on Reddit Tue Legal__Eagle 187
John Ramsey Role Tue Legal__Eagle 64
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Tue ICU2 176
SBTC--Victory Tue gotgum 38
Patsy's Ritual Abuse of JonBenet (Oct '08) Apr 30 Just Wondering 707
More from around the web