Jaclyn Dowaliby/JonBenet cases

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>
I've been a true crime buff for many years so yeah, I've read about REAL killers.
Smit's glory days were over by the time he got on the Ramsey case. He should have stayed retired. Some of the things he came up with were laughable.(The dust ruffle comes to mind.)
I guess neither Smit nor Gray are "all that" since neither one has even come close to solving the murder. Do you suppose it's because they weren't/aren't looking where they should be looking? ;)

Well if you read about BTK you can see that he never fit the profile. He was married with children, a church deacon, no record, a code enforcement officer. No one ever suspected him, yet he had this unbelievable sick and sadistic "other" side to him that his own wife and secretary never even noticed.
Bundy was charastmatic and likable. No one ever suspected him either.
These guys were able to kill again and again because they knew how to appear "normal" to everyone else. I think criminals have become more brazen over the years. They are willing to go into the homes while the family is home, they are willing to do daring things just for the thrill of it. The internet has perpetuated much of it. But hopefully it will be the internet to put an end to these sickos.

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
Smit may have been part of the "Apple Dumpling Gang" but he had ethics, character, and experience. My personal thoughts are that the crime could be solved via the internet and that may be a disadvantage to older detectives on both sides. The case could really use some young techies. I think it will technology that catches up with the killer.
I didn't find the dust ruffle observation "funny" at all. I think it showed that there could have been a perp who hid under the bed.
I do think it is funny that Boulder PD didn't think anyone could climb throught that window and here is Smit, a very tall man, who climbs through it with no problem. Stun guns in 1996 were mostly only used by LE at the time so medical examiners were not used to seeing these types of marks on bodies. Smit showed that it could be a stun gun.

Patsy was packing a suitcase on that bed. Don't you think it's more likely that the dust ruffle was "disturbed" by her own foot? Why didn't Smit think of that? See what I mean? Laughable.
Smit was not a medical examiner and he only saw photos. Meyer saw the actual wounds and called them abrasions, not burns. It's his job to know these things. Smit was full of himself. Turns out he wasn't as good as he thought he was. He didn't solve the case.

"KANE: First of all, the thing I was going to say is if Mary Keenan has reached this conclusion, she clearly has not reviewed her own file because I don’t want to get into a lot of specifics about this because of ethical reasons, but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots."

"The thing about the stun gun that everybody keeps coming back to. There was one person who was qualified who actually looked at that little girl’s body on the autopsy table and that was Dr. Meyer, who’s a forensic pathologist. He looked at those very marks and said that they were abrasions. It is a quantum leap-you can take a stun gun and put it up against somebody’s body...

KANE:... and it’s going to leave a burn. It does leave an abrasion. So all these other opinions that have come out that said that this was a stun gun, there is absolutely no way they would ever get into evidence because there is no evidence that these were burns.

ABRAMS:... there were other experts like Mr. Doberson and others and Lou Smit who have said they absolutely believe that there was a stun gun used.

KANE: But they’re basing that based on photographs of marks on her body. When the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Meyer is that these were not burns."

Biz wrote:

<quoted text>
Well if you read about BTK you can see that he never fit the profile. He was married with children, a church deacon, no record, a code enforcement officer. No one ever suspected him, yet he had this unbelievable sick and sadistic "other" side to him that his own wife and secretary never even noticed.
Bundy was charastmatic and likable. No one ever suspected him either.
These guys were able to kill again and again because they knew how to appear "normal" to everyone else. I think criminals have become more brazen over the years. They are willing to go into the homes while the family is home, they are willing to do daring things just for the thrill of it. The internet has perpetuated much of it. But hopefully it will be the internet to put an end to these sickos.

Read what you just wrote and explain to me again how the Ramseys couldn't possibly have anything to do with the death of their daughter.

thewhitewitchone wrote:

<quoted text>
Read what you just wrote and explain to me again how the Ramseys couldn't possibly have anything to do with the death of their daughter.

I read it and I can't understand why you think they had something to do with her death to be quite honest!
First of all those knots were rather complicated. I have researched them and the closest I came to an explanation was a "reverse french bowline" Can you tie one? I sure as heck can't. They are often used in bondage.
The abrasions are evenly spaced and you can clearly see square endings on the skin in the autopsy photos, just like a stun gun IIRC. I think it was a stun gun or I have even found cattle prods that could make a similar mark.(I looked into that after Nancy Krebs said her abusers used a cattle prod on her.)

The man most likely responsible for the Dowaliby murder is a man named Perry Hernandez. He lived 3 doors down from the Dowalibys. And is currently in the IDOC for a home invasion, rape, and kidnapping. Anyone interested can do an IDOC inmate search and you can get his info.

Ok so at the end of the movie for the D.case, it show's Rob Kenny confessing to the murder of Jaclyn but they said it still wasn't good enough to put him in jail. Well I really don't understand that part? And I mean if the police could go through all that trouble and even go to the extent of FAKING evidence to prove Cindy and David guilty, which they succeded to do when they were infact innocent...then why couldn't they go through the trouble again to prove that Rob's confession was legit and put him away for life! It's sad to know that the police were only focused and set on putting the parents in jail because they had insufficient evidence pointing elsewhere and only made sense to blame everything on them. And all this because they were in a hurry to solve the case for their own political reasons and not for the justice of little Jaclyn.