Could JonBenet Ramsey's Murder Be Solved?

What a pathetic article. This author didn't bother to do any research on this case, except for what DISCREDITED former prosecutor and lawyer for Samantha Siegel, Robin Sax told him about it.

It ties everything together. The brunette Patsy grew up the eldest of 3 sisters in the South and married an older man with a successful business.

In everything that was written and available to the public about trying to resolve this bizarre death there was never any understanding, explanation, or justification of why a faux garrote was used to strangle JonBenet. It was one of the stumpers. The Scarlet Principle is one valid reason to consider.

The skull fracture was a big surprise during the autopsy. The coroner did not know about it until he dissected her head. There was no outward indication JonBenet had suffered any sort of devasting brain injury. If JonBenet had been brought to an ER they would have had to rule out a broken neck as the reason for her lifeless body.

If John and Patsy were not present when JonBenet’s head injury occurred they would have had no ability to diagnose a skull fracture as the reason for her condition. A broken neck would have been a more obvious choice given there was no visible or apparent damage to her head.

They thought Burke had broken her neck so devised the faux garrote to cover that perceived injury.

Just another lucky blunder for the Ramseys...

I feel sorry for JonBenet having to get her hair bleached by her mother. I believe it was abusive. It would have been painful. JonBenet would have cried... and Patsy just did it again and again. Luckily, most children are not raised by parents who purposely cause pain, most do all in their power to prevent any such occurrences.

If you think it was okay thing for Patsy to do that's a big window into who and what you are.

JAYELLES wrote:

It is solved, basically. The cops just need to poly and DNA test and INTERROGATE the people who lied to them and the public dozens and dozens of times.

Boulder Authorities need to contract with the FBI to polygraph Burke and John about what really happened when they got home. Polygraphs have advanced since the JonBenet's death and Burke has never taken one. If he accidentally hurt JonBenet that memeory is still there. If he truely knows nothing, well he has nothing to hid.

Why is is reluctant to help investigators solve what happened in his own family? Only one reason I can think of...

What did Burke do to give JonBenet an invisible skull fracture so severe it caused brain injury so catastrophic it rendered her lifeless?

Pinker, that isn't Jayelles you are posting to it is the spammer - ignore him.

pinker wrote:

<quoted text>
Boulder Authorities need to contract with the FBI to polygraph Burke and John about what really happened when they got home. Polygraphs have advanced since the JonBenet's death and Burke has never taken one. If he accidentally hurt JonBenet that memeory is still there. If he truely knows nothing, well he has nothing to hid.
Why is is reluctant to help investigators solve what happened in his own family? Only one reason I can think of...
What did Burke do to give JonBenet an invisible skull fracture so severe it caused brain injury so catastrophic it rendered her lifeless?

candy wrote:

What a pathetic article. This author didn't bother to do any research on this case, except for what DISCREDITED former prosecutor and lawyer for Samantha Siegel, Robin Sax told him about it.

The author thinks he has solved the case and JonBenet's death was caused by the kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard. They think he saw JonBenet's picture in pageant literature and went from there...

He claims the Ramseys were living in an opulent mansion.... it was a small English Cottage from the 30's with an oversized architecturally inappropriate addition. The decor was like most things Patsy did, gaudy and overstated; plus it was a filthy.

Perhaps the writer is a friend of the new Mrs Ramsey and is returning a favor? I believe she had been in the ‘favor’ business at one time.

FYI: FREE / E Book on WHO killed JonBenet and his current location. The new Boulder D. A./ Stan Garnett should order a GRAND JURY. HINT: The person of interest was William (Bill) Ramsey until after JonBenets murder. His new name became Larry Rohn and later was changed to Bill Rohn SEE: jonbenetstruecasehistory.com / The Book tab

candy wrote:

What a pathetic article. This author didn't bother to do any research on this case, except for what DISCREDITED former prosecutor and lawyer for Samantha Siegel, Robin Sax told him about it.

It wasn't that bsd, Candy. He was considering possibilities and Garrido, being so notorious, probably seemed like a candidate for the suspect list. Had Garrett considered the manner in which JonBenet died, he'd have realized that killing in that manner wasn't Garrido's style.

pinker wrote:

It ties everything together. The brunette Patsy grew up the eldest of 3 sisters in the South and married an older man with a successful business.
In everything that was written and available to the public about trying to resolve this bizarre death there was never any understanding, explanation, or justification of why a faux garrote was used to strangle JonBenet. It was one of the stumpers. The Scarlet Principle is one valid reason to consider.
The skull fracture was a big surprise during the autopsy. The coroner did not know about it until he dissected her head. There was no outward indication JonBenet had suffered any sort of devasting brain injury. If JonBenet had been brought to an ER they would have had to rule out a broken neck as the reason for her lifeless body.
If John and Patsy were not present when JonBenet’s head injury occurred they would have had no ability to diagnose a skull fracture as the reason for her condition. A broken neck would have been a more obvious choice given there was no visible or apparent damage to her head.
They thought Burke had broken her neck so devised the faux garrote to cover that perceived injury.
Just another lucky blunder for the Ramseys...

Faux garrote? That's a good one. That fake garrote cut so deeply into her neck that it strangled her. The cause of death was ligature strangulation, so how can you debate that?http://crimeshots.com/Aut opsyReport.html "CLINOCOPATHOLIGICAL CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

John E. Meyer M.D. Pathologist"

A true garrote kills by snapping the neck backwards and severing the spinal cord, it does not kill by strangulation. It's been around for centuries as weapon of 'instant' death where as strangulation can be slow. JonBenet's spinal cord was intact, she was not garroted.

pinker wrote:

A true garrote kills by snapping the neck backwards and severing the spinal cord, it does not kill by strangulation. It's been around for centuries as weapon of 'instant' death where as strangulation can be slow. JonBenet's spinal cord was intact, she was not garroted.

Obviously you are far more knowledgeable than the coroner, Detective Smit, and all others who agree she was garroted. Since your knowledge far exceeds that of those mentioned, how is you aren't aware the garrote has been used since the world began as a means of torture by sadists who like bringing their victims to the verge of death, then releasing it slightly before beginning the torture over again? JonBenet died as a result of that garrote, as per the Medical Examiner. You are wrong.

The coroner does not mention a garrote anywhere in the autopsy. Plese link to the interview with the coroner where he used the word garrote.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/coroner-jon...

John Ramsey seemed very keen to have the word garrote used. Another favorite is sophisticated killing devise. Looks more like a macraméd noose. I’ve seen knots that unique in the shoes of kindergartners.

The greatest possibility is the parents thought Jonbenet's neck was broken by Burke so they staged the bizarre faux garrote to cover that injury.

That would be my number one queston if John and Burke are polygraphed.

The neck ligature was not a garrote it was a suspending device as were the wrist ligatures. You will find this type of consistency with my theory and not in others.

pinker wrote:

The coroner does not mention a garrote anywhere in the autopsy. Plese link to the interview with the coroner where he used the word garrote.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/coroner-jon...
John Ramsey seemed very keen to have the word garrote used. Another favorite is sophisticated killing devise. Looks more like a macraméd noose. I’ve seen knots that unique in the shoes of kindergartners.
The greatest possibility is the parents thought Jonbenet's neck was broken by Burke so they staged the bizarre faux garrote to cover that injury.
That would be my number one queston if John and Burke are polygraphed.

• No, he didn’t use the term “garrote”. Instead, he used the term “ligature”, which is the same thing, as most know. Here are definitions from dictionaries: A garrote is a handheld weapon, most often referring to a ligature of chain, rope, scarf, wire or fishing line used to strangle someone. A garrote can be made out of many different materials..
•
• http://www.yourdictionary.com/garrote--a cord, thong, or length of wire for strangling a robbery victim, enemy sentry, etc. in a surprise attack.
There is no possibility the Ramseys thought Burke harmed JonBenet; and there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to any family member as the killer. The touch DNA has proven an UNIDENTIFIED CAUCASIAN MALE left his DNA on her body, which translates an intruder killed her. Too much time has been wasted looking for the killer within the family while the killer remains at large.
http://crimeshots.com/AutopsyReport.html

BrotherMoon wrote:

The neck ligature was not a garrote it was a suspending device as were the wrist ligatures. You will find this type of consistency with my theory and not in others.

Please repeat that theory, BM. The wrist ligatures have always puzzled me.

Logan wrote:

<quoted text>• The touch DNA has proven an UNIDENTIFIED CAUCASIAN MALE left his DNA on her body, which translates an intruder killed her.

DNA was not found on the body, it was found on clothing which allows for transfer.

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>DNA was not found on the body, it was found on clothing which allows for transfer.

Sorry, LE, but that's not correct. DNA was found underneath her nails and mixed with her blood in her panties, and this DNA matched what was found on her pants.

No, the DNA under her nails DID NOT match the DNA in the panties. The DNA under the fingernails was contaminated and matched NOTHING.

And of course you know who and what "Logan" is, don't you Legal?

The clown that wrote this article Tommy Garrett and the hapless former DDA Sax he consulted with thinks Garrito's DNA is sitting in California, unknown to Colorado law enforcement. WRONG it goes into CODIS, the National DNA databank, where there is a weekly (every Monday) check run for any type of match anywhere to the 15 years UNSOURCED DNA in this case. Garrito's DNA doesn't match either.

candy wrote:

No, the DNA under her nails DID NOT match the DNA in the panties. The DNA under the fingernails was contaminated and matched NOTHING.
And of course you know who and what "Logan" is, don't you Legal?

Sorry but I don't agree that it was contaminated and didn't match. BTW, I am Logan, not Legal.