The only suspects known to be in the house

We often hear that the Ramseys were the only suspects KNOWN to be in the house that night and therefore it points to their guilt. This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

Lynette 22 wrote:

We often hear that the Ramseys were the only suspects KNOWN to be in the house that night and therefore it points to their guilt. This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

When there is no obvious evidence of an intruder, and in this case, no real evidence to speak of that there was an intruder at all, combined with the fact that this was a lengthy crime, complete with a snack and a practice ransom note (a few times), and the time it takes to write out three pages, to re-dress the victim and spend so much time in the house while family is there makes all the sense in the world to look at those who were IN the house.

ANY murder requires the elimination from the inside out and in this case, the inside means the immediate family who were KNOWN to be in the house while the crime was occurring

I can't understand why that wouldn't make sense to you

Yes. Until they can help eliminate themselves, which the Ramseys felt 'offensive'.

Help me understand how someone who wasn't in the house could have committed the crime.

Lynette 22 wrote:

We often hear that the Ramseys were the only suspects KNOWN to be in the house that night and therefore it points to their guilt. This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

Lynette 22 wrote:

We often hear that the Ramseys were the only suspects KNOWN to be in the house that night and therefore it points to their guilt. This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

Lynette, to me this is as meaningless as saying Karr could not have committed the crime since he wasn't KNOWN to be in Boulder that night. By this reasoning, we should suspect everyone in Boulder who was KNOWN to be there that night!

I believe he very well could have been in Boulder that night but people are putting too much stock in his ex-wife saying he was with her at the time. This woman IMO had been working hand-in-hand with Karr when he was trying to lure little girls into his grasp. She knew about and participated in his attempts over the Internet to establish his connections to these children. I therefore believe she had a motive in covering for him, i.e., she was protecting HERSELF.

Also, while he was in jail on the porn charges in Sonoma, what happened to all his belongings? She disposed of them, that's what! Although her insuation was she was ridding everything of his from their home, IMO there is just as good a chance that she was destroying any evidence remaining that could connect her to him and her role in his crime. So her saying he was with HER at the time of the crime just doesn't wash.

IMO, there was just far too much relating to Karr that wasn't investigated fully and this is a prime example.

I not looking for agreement with my opinion. But I AM explaining some of the reasoning why I believe Karr was involved up to his neck in the crime.

DrSeussMd wrote:

...Help me understand how someone who wasn't in the house could have committed the crime.
<quoted text>

Now you're being facetious.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you because their being on the scene is far from being the only thing that cast suspicion on them.

Lynette 22 wrote:

We often hear that the Ramseys were the only suspects KNOWN to be in the house that night and therefore it points to their guilt. This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

No, I was directly referring to something Lynette said, which was:

Lynette 22 wrote:

This has never made sense to me. Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime because they just happened to be there when the crime took place?

And I believe it IS reasonable to suspect those people first that were there when the crime took place, until they can be eliminated by other means. Nothing facetious there.

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you're being facetious.

It is a given fact that the Ramseys were in the home at the time of the crime. There is nothing that definitively supports an intruder, even if he had a key.

To justify an intruder, you need evidence, a motive, and a method, and the IDI only have speculation, with no hard evidence at all supporting an intruder.

DrSeussMd wrote:

No, I was directly referring to something Lynette said, which was:
<quoted text>
And I believe it IS reasonable to suspect those people first that were there when the crime took place, until they can be eliminated by other means. Nothing facetious there.
<quoted text>

I notice that you said you believe it is reasonable to suspect those people FIRST that were there when the crime took place.

I see nothing wrong with this, so long as you don't say, "...it is reasonable to suspect those people to the EXCLUSION of all others", which is what I believe the BPD did.

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
I notice that you said you believe it is reasonable to suspect those people FIRST that were there when the crime took place.
I see nothing wrong with this, so long as you don't say, "...it is reasonable to suspect those people to the EXCLUSION of all others", which is what I believe the BPD did.

Considering they checked out over 260 other people (source posted multiple times) I would hardly say the BPD looked at the Ramseys to the exclusion of all others.

DrSeussMd wrote:

No, I was directly referring to something Lynette said, which was:
<quoted text>
And I believe it IS reasonable to suspect those people first that were there when the crime took place, until they can be eliminated by other means. Nothing facetious there.
<quoted text>

OBVIOUSLY IF JONBENET WAS MURDERED IN THE RAMSEY HOUSE, then it was someone IN THE HOUSE that murdered her. If she had been shot, he could have been on the grassy knoll, but garotting and busting swkulls with a maglite have not been perfected at long distances. Volunteers would be appreciated :)

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Considering they checked out over 260 other people (source posted multiple times) I would hardly say the BPD looked at the Ramseys to the exclusion of all others.

I disagree. The Boulder cops have always been fixated on the Ramseys and on nobody else. It was never a complete investigation and leads and suspects were disegarded. The Boulder cops even disregrded the DNA evidence when it was proved not to be Ramsey DNA.

The Boulder cops only so-called investigated Santa Bill and Chris Wolf because the homicide detectives at the Boulder DA's office were taking an interest in those suspects. That was just for the Boulder cops to eliminate them from the Ramsey case inquiry. Fleet White has never been properly investigated.

It wea just the same in the Macdonald case. The MacMurderer posters always post about the thousands of people who were supposed to have been interviewed all over America. The trouble is the real culprits in that case have never been properly or thoroughly investigated.

The Army CID and FBI asked for the alibi of those supects and one said he might have been staying with his parents that night, another said he was painting his apartment betwn 2am and 4am that night. A likely story! Another said he didn't have an alibi and Helena Stoeckley said she couldn't remember because she was on drugs that night.

That's bad police work and a poor investigation by the FBI. The MacDonald case and the Ramsey case, and even the Darlie Routier case, needs a proper homicide squad or homicide bureau on the job. It's obvious that the Ramsey case is not being properly investigated by the Boulder cops, or by Lou Smit, or by anybody else.

The matter was discussed by the Ramsey case author Stephen Singular once:

Q: "What was the result of those investigations?

The police never truly investigated Simons or anyone else who raised the possibility of a different scenario for this homicide. They were, to use Hunter's word, "fixated" on the Ramseys and still are.

Q: So when police chief Mark Beckner told the press that his detectives had "intensively investigated" numerous other suspects, apart from the Ramseys, he wasn't telling the truth?

He was telling the truth as he saw it. They did devote a little time to this or that person but never with any conviction or genuine curiosity. From firsthand observations of the police behavior in this case, I can tell you that they have not deeply investigated a number of credible leads. They haven't acted this way out of malice, but because they hold only one view of the case. The murder can't be solved, I believe, because that view doesn't fit the evidence."

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. The Boulder cops have always been fixated on the Ramseys and on nobody else. It was never a complete investigation and leads and suspects were disegarded. The Boulder cops even disregrded the DNA evidence when it was proved not to be Ramsey DNA.
The Boulder cops only so-called investigated Santa Bill and Chris Wolf because the homicide detectives at the Boulder DA's office were taking an interest in those suspects. That was just for the Boulder cops to eliminate them from the Ramsey case inquiry. Fleet White has never been properly investigated.......

I'll make this succinct.

That's just not true and you are lying, period

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Q: So when police chief Mark Beckner told the press that his detectives had "intensively investigated" numerous other suspects, apart from the Ramseys, he wasn't telling the truth?
.
He was telling the truth as he saw it. They did devote a little time to this or that person but never with any conviction or genuine curiosity. From firsthand observations of the police behavior in this case, I can tell you that they have not deeply investigated a number of credible leads. They haven't acted this way out of malice, but because they hold only one view of the case. The murder can't be solved, I believe, because that view doesn't fit the evidence."

Henri, I think there were many reasons why the BPD did not solve this case. They were untrained, unsuited, ill prepared, inexperienced, and unwilling to accept the assistance from any agency that could have provided the expertise and skills they lacked.

And you said a mouthful when you said, "They did devote a little time to this or that person but never with any conviction or genuine curiosity." And why should they? In their minds they had caught the killer(s) and they didn't WANT to spoil their catch.
There was even disagreement among themselves regarding WHICH Ramsey was guilty. But it really didn't matter to them, just so long as it was a Ramsey.

I think Ole South was wondering about JMK and Rita Johnson somewhere on this forum.

Rita Johnson was a prolific poster on the JonBenet forums round about 2003. She was intending to write an anti-Ramsey book and had guaranteed to Rose on Rose's now defunct forum that it would be published. When it didn't get published Rita Johnson and Rose fell out.

Rose made a nice posting about Patsy when she died, I think on this topix forum, but she seems to have stopped posting since then.

There is something on the internet that Rita Johnson's book was completed in 2006 but not much information that it was ever published.

Rita Johnson said she got the idea to write a Ramsey case book after reading the Ramsey case book by the sinister psychiatrist Dr. Hodges.

The only evidence connecting JMK to Rita Johnson seems to be that Rose, Susan Stine, Rita Johnson nad JMK seemed to have connections to Atlanta.

There was some rumor that Susan Stine had been sending fake emails to Rita Johnson.

Rita Johnson seems to have met Patsy in a supermarket once and had a chat with her. I don't think that's close connections.

Candy has been on the phone to Rita Johnson a few times in the past and Jameson seems to know who Rita Johnson is. Rita Johnson might not be her real name.

The BPD didn't have a "catch". They had suspects which were not only reasonable suspects, but the ONLY suspects that didn't cooperate

The BPD has absolutely no reason to want this unsolved no matter who the murderer/s were.

I will never believe that their suspects were the Ramseys solely for the sake of having it be a Ramsey. The DA's office? That's another story

There is no reason for the BPD to WANT it to be anyone in particular

My opinion

I think it is quite obvious that a family member committed the murder, going by the evidences connecting with the killing, and the absence of evidence supporting an outside intruder. Besides that, the behavior of the parents before and after the body was "found".

What I cannot understand, are the IDI, who ignore the obvious.

Charlie Chan wrote:

I think it is quite obvious that a family member committed the murder, going by the evidences connecting with the killing, and the absence of evidence supporting an outside intruder. Besides that, the behavior of the parents before and after the body was "found".
What I cannot understand, are the IDI, who ignore the obvious.

The OBVIOUS is that someone left saliva type DNA comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. This would not have survived washing and must have been left at the time of her murder. Likewise DNA found on Jonbenet`s long john waistband matched the DNA comingled with her blood. Since this was fragile touch DNA, it`s obvious that it would not have survived washing. That makes it OBVIOUS that since both DNA match and the DNA doesn`t match a Ramsey, that any logical thinking person would realize that the Ramseys didn`t kill Jonbenet.

Detroit,
Please source the "saliva DNA in the blood"?
You made it up???
That's what I thought.

While you are at it, Please source with reliable information that the DNA found anywhere, matched anything else as you claim? You cannot??? That's what I thought!

Thank you,
Your IDOL,
Uncle CC

DETROIT wrote:

<quoted text>The OBVIOUS is that someone left saliva type DNA comingled with Jonbenet`s blood. This would not have survived washing and must have been left at the time of her murder. Likewise DNA found on Jonbenet`s long john waistband matched the DNA comingled with her blood. Since this was fragile touch DNA, it`s obvious that it would not have survived washing. That makes it OBVIOUS that since both DNA match and the DNA doesn`t match a Ramsey, that any logical thinking person would realize that the Ramseys didn`t kill Jonbenet.

The source of the DNA has never been conclusively identified as from saliva. It could just have easily have been touch DNA.

Any logical thinking person would understand that just because the DNA doesn't belong to a Ramsey it does not conclusively prove that they were not involved and/or have no knowledge of what took place that night.

The DNA doesn't match any of the known suspects but you and your IDI friends insist on keeping them in the pool so why do the Ramseys get a pass?