All posts in the Forensics category

Maybe Burke DID do it? Here is a plausible scenario.

Published October 6, 2016 by mmc7

This article was written before I found out about the feces which Burke had spread throughout JonBenet’s room that very night which he would have had to have done after he got up to go downstairs after everyone else was in bed. It was on her presents and a box of chocolate she had just received that day as well as on her walls and a grapefruit sized wad in her bed according to an FBI investigator they found in her room during their investigation. For a 9 year old, this indicates extreme jealousy and hatred of his sister. Perhaps he did not get what he wanted for Christmas or their parents overindulged her. Maybe JonBenet taunted him. But this was Burke’s mindset just an hour before she died. He may have woken her up while he was in her room and she followed him downstairs. So this has been included in the next article about the Burke scenario timeline and how she may have picked up the DNA from the cellar floor while fighting with Burke and how she was injured on the train track on the floor while fighting. I strongly recommend reading the Burke timeline scenario which has all of the evidence included.

Since this case began, I have always believed Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenet Ramsey by accident when she was upset over a wet bed.

However, after listening to her brother Burke Ramsey speak to Dr Phil in an interview, I am having very disturbing doubts about his innocence based on what he disclosed in the interview. It should be noted that I did not see the recent CBS Documentary but I have followed this case from the beginning. However, Burke was kept under wraps by his parents for 20 years so no one really had a chance to hear from him until now.

In the Dr Phil interview (which was truly lopsided and catering to John Ramsey and their attorney), Burke Ramsey admitted to some very disturbing details about the night his sister JonBenet was killed. His father, John also shared a few details which were new to me such as he had taken the flashlight upstairs when he put his children to bed. He carried JonBenet to bed and her mother undressed her.

Burke said he came back downstairs after everyone else was asleep because he was not done playing with one of his presents. He did not deny he brought the flashlight downstairs with him (which was probably left in JonBenet’s room). He also contradicted their lawyer and said he did have a pair of hiking boots. Burke also said he may have eaten pineapple.

This places Burke at the scene of the crime with his sister; with opportunity and motive which I will explain. No intruder was in the house with Burke prowling around.

Here is the plausible Scenario based on Burke’s own admissions:

JonBenet may have woken up when Burke was prowling around her room looking for the flashlight. Or she woke up after wetting the bed. I suspect Burke woke her up. JonBenet followed Burke downstairs dragging her favorite blanket with her. (I used to drag my blanket around when I was her age).

They both ate pineapple. (However, her mothers fingerprints on the bowl could have gotten there when she put the dishes away or placing the bowl of pineapple into the refrigerator.) Burke’s fingerprints were on the glass of tea next to the bowl of pineapple left on the table.

Burke went down to the basement. JonBenet followed him.

JonBenet either saw Burke climbing out the window to get something from the car or something outside OR she saw him doing something else and she threatened to tell their parents. I caught my own son (then age 6), trying to climb out of his bedroom window late at night. Some other kid was outside encouraging him. Kids do things like this.

Burke attacked her to keep her from tattling. She fell backward on the floor onto the toy railroad track. (They had a model train set in the basement and played down there quite often). JonBenet screamed when she fell on the section of track. (a neighbor heard her scream) easily through the broken window. But the parents probably didn’t hear.

Burke hit her with something to shut her up (flashlight or the bat he threw outside). They said this knocked her unconscious for about 45 minutes. Burke may have thought she was dead. But when she regained consciousness, either she went into convulsions which frightened him, OR he was afraid she was going to tattle on him…  so Burke grabbed a nearby rope which had a paintbrush handle tied to it and choked her to “either make her stop convulsing or to prevent her from tattling.”

The rope tied to the paintbrush handle was NOT a garrote even though Burke used it as such.  The kids probably used it as a handle to fly their kites or as a pull rope to skate behind a bicycle (JonBenet had just gotten a bike for Christmas). The parents probably made it for the kids to  use for Kites or other activities.

When JonBenet was dead, Burke covered her up with her blanket and went to bed. Kid’s hide when they do something bad.

Patsy woke up and went to check on JonBenet’s bed to see if it was wet. Parents do this when they have a bed wetter. She discovered JonBenet was missing and got the story from Burke as to what he had done. He probably said he didn’t know at first. All kids say this when they are guilty. “I don’t know.” He may have even made up a story but Patsy figured it out enough to know Burke was in big trouble.

Fearing that her son would end up being tried as an adult and placed into Juvenile Detention, Patsy wrote the Ransom note to protect him. There is a long list of items which shows it was written by a female familiar with John Ramsey, well educated and a perfectionist about punctuation, grammar and letter sizing despite efforts to alter the slant and style. It also had info which only John or Patsy would know. The details were also absurdly overdone and the wordiness clearly showed it was a female and not a kidnapper. Besides, who would leave a ransom note AND leave the child (dead or alive).

Patsy staged the note and probably added the  tape to JonBenet’s mouth since police said it was applied AFTER the child was dead. Very little staging would have needed to be done. JonBenet was left as Burke had left her in the basement.

John probably woke up just prior to the 911 call and Patsy told him what happened. Can you imagine what it must have been like to explain this to her husband? Everyone would have been in tears and impossible to understand. Since John had just learned about this, it explains why he said what he did to Burke at the tail end of the call… and Patsy’s comments as well. It all fits with this scenario.

Burke was sent away from the house after police arrived and his parents circled the wagons for 20 years.

The first person who searched the basement did not see JonBenet because she was covered under the blanket.

John Ramsey said he closed the window. He also would have recognized JonBenet’s blanket, looked under it and carried her upstairs to the police.

Few people would believe a 9 year old was capable of such an act… but Burke was described as frequently spreading feces through the house and in JonBenet’s room. This was not a 2 year old. Burke was 9. This was a serious issue for a 9 year old. It shows extreme jealousy and hate. There is also a pattern to these things like killing animals.

It would be interesting in hearing interviews of Burkes friends between ages 8 and 10 (or otherwise) to find out how he behaved with other kids. He could have been secretive about the things he did. He certainly needed counseling. His video interviews 2 weeks after the death of his sister were very disturbing. He was quite happy to be an only child. He hasn’t improved much as an adult. He was downright creepy the way he inappropriately grinned all through his interview. In fact, the only times that grin dropped from Burke’s face was when Dr Phil brought up a question or subject which troubled Burke. Such as specific accusations against him.

I’m surprised Dr Phil made so little of Burke’s reactions. This is a key symptom competent qualified psychologists look for as an indicator of problems. I clearly saw narcissism and sociopathic tendencies (someone who has no conscience and doesn’t know right from wrong.) Plus the inappropriate responses. Not just now, but in those videos 2 weeks after her death as well.

Those types of behavioral patterns such as spreading feces and killing animals can progress into something much worse, such as voyeurism, serial rape or serial killing. They have studied many serial killers and serial rapists who started off like that.

Dr Phil was too busy accommodating John Ramsey, Burke and his attorney. When the attorney is a key guest, you can rest assured that the show is geared toward the attorney’s expectations and satisfaction. Not toward public interest or finding truth about her death. He only asked what the attorney allowed him to ask… and his clients were fully prepared by the attorney with their responses  before they appeared. But we did get these tidbits of information from Burke which explained a lot about what happened that night. Especially when included with the other details of the case.

The “touch DNA” was nothing more than JonBenet playing on the floor with other kids at the party and from people she asked to help her wipe & pull up her drawers.

JonBenet’s grandmother said JB would ask any nearby stranger (male or female) to help wipe her on the pot and pull up her drawers. Long johns are hard for kids to pull up.

While disturbing, this was innocent DNA when someone helped her. Or JonBenet could have transferred innocent DNA from playing & shaking hands and later transferring it when she pulled up her own drawers. No body fluids. No DNA on JonBenet except under her nails from playing with other kids or grabbing hands.  All DNA was innocent touch DNA easily transferred & easily misinterpreted.

I’ll bet it matches a kid or party attendee or friends guests. Woe be to the party guest who helped pull up her long johns or shook her hand & she transferred their DNA when scratching herself or going to the pot. Since the authorities don’t have a good understanding of how easy it is to transfer & misinterpret touch DNA, or how little girls drop their panties onto the bathroom floor around their ankles or sit directly on their underwear when wearing a dress, their underwear picks up DNA off the floors, furniture, etc., they never should have used it to exonerate anyone… much less the Ramsey’s.

Men also like to spit outside which is an excellent source of DNA when someone walks through it and tracks it elsewhere. Also, men wearing boxer shorts are constantly shedding pubic hairs down their pants leg which gets tracked elsewhere and that doesn’t begin to include all the other hairs and skin cells which everyone sheds continuously.

Since the authorities don’t seem to understand how easy it is to transfer and misinterpret touch DNA… some innocent person is going to be crucified for this… just so the Ramsey’s lawyer doesn’t sue the city. Getting the Ramsey’s off the hook for a 20 year cover up to protect a bratty son.

If they really understood touch DNA, they would never have exonerated the Ramsey’s. The only reliable DNA is obtained from body fluids… as long as it has not been planted at the scene by the perpetrator or by accident. It is crucial for the authorities and the public to understand the nuances of DNA technology. Otherwise, innocent people are going to be crucified for something they have not done due to the mere presence of a transient DNA source or touch DNA.

As for JonBenet Ramsey, it is clear one of their family was responsible… probably by accident and most of us Agree that Patsy staged the letter. As I mentioned in my scenario, that probably was not a garrote. It may have been a rope and handle to fly a kite or pull behind a bicycle or some other purpose. it was probably lying nearby when he used it.

This speculated scenario is based on Burkes statements in his interview about getting up after everyone else was asleep and going back downstairs because he wasn’t done playing with his present yet. And his admission about the hiking boots, pineapple and flashlight. That puts him at the crime scene, with opportunity and motive. It also eliminates a hiding intruder since Burke was awake and wandering around the house downstairs and eating pineapple with his sister.

While it is speculation, it is a plausible theory as to what may have happened while Burke was awake and wandering around the house and basement with his sister in the middle of the night while their parents were asleep. This scenario gives a possible  “benefit of the doubt”  explanation behind the attack. It is possible that the attack could have had a more violent intent by the brother which we may never know.

However, if his school friends would come forward and tell us about the Burke they knew at age 9 before and after his sister’s death, the incident and intent may become more clear. They would also be around 30 years old today and are probably afraid of the Ramsey lawyers… but perhaps they could give us their insight anonymously? It might answer a lot of questions.

What  we have learned, is if you have a lot of money to hire the meanest lawyers, you can get away with just about anything. We saw this with OJ Simpson as well… among others.






Darlie Routier Wrongfully convicted by silly String

Published December 19, 2014 by mmc7

This woman was arrested and convicted of spraying silly string on her children’s graves. Crucial evidence of her innocence was withheld and her attorney was clearly not able to provide the level of defense she required to fight the prejudicial mentality which consumes the local populace. The Law enforcement officials involved, clearly admitted they ordered her arrest after seeing video of her spraying silly string on her son’s graves whose birthdays were just days after their deaths. This video was shown on the news. But there was other earlier video which was never shown of the family grieving and praying for over an hour before the silly string was sprayed. The investigators took the 5th when questioned about illegally videotaping the family at the cemetery without a warrant which would have shown the family grieving but was withheld from the trial . The jury only saw the silly string video from the news of her spraying silly string over her children’s graves. The jury saw this silly string video dozens of times and based their guilty decision on this one video.

No two people grieve the same way or react the same way to a tragic event. Some people will completely submerge all thoughts of a tragic event and pursue joyful activities to cope with tragedy. So no one can base grief or guilt on a 2 minute video.

The jurors were never shown the photos of her arms completely blackened with horrific bruises (see below) from her death struggle after having her neck slashed within a millimeter of her artery. We also do not know what medications she was on for the pain and shock she had recently suffered which may have affected her. Nor were the jurors shown the cemetery video footage where Darlie and the family were grieving over the boys graves on their birthday for over an hour. It was the sister who brought the silly string in an effort to relieve the family’s grief. It was only those few minutes of spraying silly string which was broadcast on TV which prompted the police to arrest her for murder of her two sons.

The jury and prosecution ignored the evidence of a sock being found  a block away with blood from both children but none of Darlie’s blood which she could not have done bleeding so profusely. There was not enough time for her to drop the sock then return and cut her own throat since one child was still barely clinging to life when help arrived. 

The events were just like Darlie had claimed. She and the children fell asleep watching TV. She woke up with her children being stabbed and her throat being slashed as she fought desperately with an unknown assailant in the dark and pursuing him toward the garage during which that glass could have been broken and landed on top of the blood dripping from her wounds. She immediately called for help. Anyone who has been injured should know that adrenaline often masks the realization of how badly someone is injured and they often don’t notice how severely they’ve been wounded and some people don’t even realize they have been shot. It is only after the adrenaline decreases that the pain and realization of the injuries set in.

The investigators also claimed she was walking around while on the phone with 911 and staging the scene. I know I pace in circles whenever I am on the phone and standing. Most women do this without realizing it. Under the circumstances she was experiencing, having been attacked, bleeding profusely with her sons stabbed on the floor; it is quite understandable that she would have been frantically pacing while on the phone with 911 and could have easily knocked over a glass while she was frantic and bleeding.

It is also not the first scene where a criminal grabbed a knife in the kitchen and attacked the homeowner with it. Especially, peepers who may be escalating their behavior for the first time. Remember the barefoot peeper who entered a home to commit his first rape and unexpectedly ran into her boyfriend in the adjoining room? He also used knives he found in the kitchen.

The jury never saw the other photos of her injuries where she was completely blackened with horrific bruising covering her arms where she had clearly held them in a defensive position while they were attacking her.


On these photos, you can actually see handprints of where someone gripped her wrists with massive strength to create bruises like this.
Throat slashed a millimeter from her artery.

People also forget she was laying next to her sons, so she would have been struck with cast off blood from the attacker stabbing her sons as well as transfer of any blood on him as she struggled to defend herself. Also, her shirt and the other clothing were placed into bags with wet blood on them and kept at the fire station until police retrieved them. Wet blood on clothes placed into the same bag easily transfers to other clothes in the bag.

Since you can see the assailant had gripped both her wrists at one point, that means he had dropped the knife and then retrieved it as he overpowered her. A man’s hands are usually large enough to grip both wrists with one hand once they have grabbed both of the victims wrists and then forced both wrists into the grip of one hand as he then retrieved the knife and slashed her throat. These heinous bruises and injuries clearly depict a life and death struggle. There is clearly no way she could have done this damage to herself. Especially when you can see handprints in the bruises on her wrists.

It was quite easy for any one of them to have dislodged one of the wine glasses in a wine rack which was located at shoulder level along the kitchen wall. That could have been broken at any time in the aftermath without having been a staging. Nor would someone staging a scene pick up a bloody knife. She shouldn’t have but in a moment of bleeding and shock and struggle with an attacker, I can see where she saw one of her knives on the floor and picked it up without thinking. Especially the mother of young children would automatically pick up a sharp object from the access of her children. Although a dumb thing to do, you cannot expect people to think clearly and there are thousands of cases where someone has moved a gun or knife upon discovering someone dead or injured. It is often done out of the person’s own repugnance for having a weapon lying out in the open so they attempt to move it away or place it on a table. Or fear of someone using it again. She mentioned to the 911 operator that she had touched it because she realized she may have inadvertently obscured prints on it.

She and her husband both stated she had gone to the sink to get wet towels more than once to try to stop the bleeding on the sun who was still clinging to life which is how the blood got on the sink. There is nothing nefarious about this. The towels were left in the hallway when they were done using them. Of course she would have blood from her sons on her and her blood on them since they were all laying together when they were stabbed as well as her checking on her sons and trying to help them.

After a shock like this, no one is going to remember every detail clearly, even if it just occurred. That includes touching something, breaking something, or leaning on the vacuum, etc. So they are going to be mixed up and uncertain, especially after a sudden, violent attack with the triple shock of her two boys dying and her own bleeding slashes on her throat, chest and arms.

As for grief, it comes in waves with periods of calmness in between until something else sets off another wave of grief. The police will often bellow loudly and gruffly at the person or make accusations to stop them from crying. Males and females do not grieve alike and have no business trying to judge the other sex based on their own responses… much less judge another person, whom they do not know, based on how they would react in a situation they have never experienced. Some people internalize and go into a denial stage as a coping mechanism. Also, after having relived an incident repeatedly throughout hundreds of interviews and testimonies, it becomes easier for someone to talk about it without breaking down. Yet, juries, prosecutors and judges expect the person to perform on cue even though they have repeatedly relived the retelling of their story hundreds of times. But if the person overreacts, they are accused of putting on a performance. So, either way, they cannot win the preconceived notions which courtrooms expect.

The jurors also did not see the video of the family grieving, crying and praying at the cemetery over an hour before the silly string was ever sprayed. She had cried for over an hour over her children’s graves before the sister suggested the silly string. There is only so much a person can cry until the wave of grief subsides.

Jurors who have since seen the photos and videos not shown in the trial are now convinced of her innocence. But these small minded Texas courts and prosecutions never want to consider or admit they could be wrong. They would rather have an innocent woman go to her death in the Texas death row system.

I, for one, do not believe she is guilty. I have always believed her to be innocent.

But there is someone whom I believe is guilty that they have not looked at. Her husband. He was upstairs with the baby and unharmed at the time of the attack on his wife and 2 sons who were stabbed to death downstairs where they had fallen asleep in front of a TV. His business was failing. When the police arrived to the scene where his children were stabbed to death and his wife’s throat was cut within a millimeter of her artery… her husband was telling the officers about her boob job and bragging about it.

I think her husband hired someone to commit the crime so he could collect the insurance money to bail himself out of trouble. If his wife had not desperately fought for her life, she would have been killed as well. But she was arrested after prosecutors saw the silly string video on the news. Darlie thought her husband was on her side as he appeared to stand by her. She was grateful for his support, but I don’t think she realizes that he was the most likely culprit behind the attack.

However, in fairness, you should know that the entire Dallas Metro area and suburbs have been plagued with hundreds of violent home invasions for decades.  In recent years, the home invasions have modified their attacks to wait near the driveway for their victims to approach, then attack which gives them the keys to the house, the car and the garage door opener. But it was not unusual at the time when the attack occurred on Darlie and her boys, for home invasions who attacked anyone they encountered. So, if the husband is not guilty (although I think he was), then a home invasion is certainly not unusual for this area.

To understand this mockery of justice, you have to understand the mentality which permeates this area. Women, minorities and any religion other than Southern Baptist (SBC) are treated like second class citizens. The native Texans are a bigoted, no neck, chauvinistic, bully mentality. Fortunately, cities like Dallas and Houston have a large portion of their suburban populations which transferred here from other states for technology and engineering jobs. Possibly 50% came to Texas from California. But the law enforcement in most of these areas are the typical chauvinistic, bully, bigots who have zero respect for women or minorities. The prosecution and judicial authorities are dismissive and condescending toward women and minorities while patting the “Good ole boys” on the back, no matter what crimes they are accused of committing. This is also the state where some confessions are extracted by force, abuse, threats and coercion.

Everyone else may tiptoe around this issue, but I will not do so. I have lived in all of the major metro cities in Texas for the past 20 years but I’m fortunate enough to not be a native. Each metro has a uniquely different personality and mentality based on the type of industry in each area and populations which have settled there. Unfortunately, Texas has an ugly history with their Law Enforcement system which is usually populated with narrow minded, red neck, native Texans; bullies who enjoy intimidating people. Add this to the narrow minded, fanatical attitudes of the native Texans (especially in rural areas) who run the court or prosecutorial positions as well as the juries. Anyone who does not meet their stereotype doesn’t have a prayer. 

Texas has had multiple cases where innocent people were convicted. As if this was not bad enough, the courts & prosecution refuse to release or even grant a retrial or appeal for these innocent persons, even when the DNA evidence clearly vindicates their innocence. In one such case, the criminal who was guilty of the crime actually confessed, repeatedly to help release the two innocent men. But despite the confession and the DNA evidence and fingerprints to support this… it was a long uphill battle by the innocence projects to gain their release.

It is bad enough that the prosecutors refuse to ever admit to making a mistake… but these corrupt judges and courts are even worse. Remember, this is the state where a black man was dragged to death, chained behind a pickup truck in the 1990’s. That should give you an idea of the mentality of this KKK state. 

However, this mentality is not as bad in areas with large populations of transferees from other states such as Houston or Dallas. Especially the high tech sectors where most of the transferees came from California whom do not have this narrow minded Midwestern attitude. 

Texas is also the state where a married couple whose daughter was attacked and torn up by a pack of dogs, spent over 6 years in prison because these sick minded prosecutors and investigators had insisted that the rips in the child’s skin were knife cuts for some satanic purpose and claimed the dog bites were caused by the parents sticking push pins into the child. The most absurd, unbelievable, twisted sick fanatics imaginable prosecuted the parents on this sick fanatical twisting of facts. They refused to consider the testimony from neighbors regarding other attacks by these same dogs. The child stated it was the dogs before she died and the photos clearly showed dog claws and even foot prints on her body… but these were withheld from the trial.

If you are someone other than a Texas good ole boy white male who belongs to the southern Baptist religion… you don’t stand a chance in this state for a fair trial or even a thorough, fair, professional investigation. The rural areas of Texas are even worse because they are permeated by the KKK and religious SBC fanaticism of monumental proportions.

This case of Darlie Routier was a local travesty, grossly mishandled by the small minded, typical twisted, low IQ chauvinistic mentality police & prosecution which permeate the state of Texas.

Although there are some decent, intelligent, thoughtful law enforcement officials, they are usually driven away from the state or from the profession entirely by the core brutish element which controls this state; unless they are lucky enough to get a rare commander or chief who is fair, decent and intelligent (usually from some other state).

The majority of these narrow minded agencies ignore evidence and make snap judgments on superficial notions. Even worse are the fanatical SBC element which populate this entire Midwest region. Basically, they behave like a bunch of gossipy old biddies who mercilessly attack their targets who don’t conform to their vicious little cliques. Topping all of this is how these same SBC members support and praise the KKK which infest the rural areas of Texas.

If you are a female who wears any kind of makeup or flattering clothing, the small minded biddies in this state will crucify her in a jury. They are automatically guilty of whatever charges unless it is some God-fearing southern Baptist woman who goes to church every day, has never worked, wears no makeup and her hair cut short and curly, is heavy set, stays at home taking care of babies and grandchildren; baking cookies and wears Miss Ellie’s matronly attire. This is no exaggeration. This is the type of mentality which has placed an innocent woman on death row where she has languished for 16 years for the crime of spraying silly string.

It chills you to the bone when you hear about the travesty of justice in this state. But this is the kind of legal obstacles which investigated, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Darlie Routier to death row for murders she did not commit. If you have any doubts about her innocence, go back and look at the pictures of severe bruising on her arms and wrists. She was clearly fighting for her life. Imagine what it would be like to be in her shoes.

JonBenet Ramsey Evidence

Published December 16, 2014 by mmc7

This article was posted 2 years ago (2014) before any documentaries were made. Before Burke spoke publicly. 

There were a few key issues regarding reported evidence & allegations in this murder which need to be reviewed. If the reported evidence and allegations are accurate, then the complicity of family members would be beyond any reasonable doubt. Despite efforts to use big gun lawyers to silence the media, authorities & sidetrack attention from primary pieces of evidence to distract attention, it is imperative to remain focused on the key items of evidence which are listed below. Some items of evidence have been contradicted in the media and by authorities, but the key pieces of evidence clearly reveal the prime suspect which we now know led to the grand jury recommendation to indict the parents.

However, there are pertinent issues regarding the DNA which no one has considered. These critical issues regarding the potential innocent transfer of DNA could implicate an innocent person & have been inappropriately used to exonerate the very family members who were allegedly responsible for her death. It is these DNA transfer issues we must examine.

Regarding the DNA on JonBenet’s underwear and reportedly was not tested for 7 years;  most police and forensic investigators have never considered the fact that little girls her age, usually drop their underwear around their ankles on the floor when they go to the restroom. At that age, they have not yet learned to not let their panties touch the floor. She was with her parents at a large Christmas gathering prior to going home that night, so her underwear could have easily picked up DNA from the bathroom floor or the toilet at any location where she used the bathroom. This transferred DNA could also wrongfully implicate an innocent person. It could also wrongfully be used to falsely exonerate the perpetrators due to assuming this innocently transferred DNA from a bathroom floor to her underwear was the villain responsible for her demise.

This is one of the dangers of taking DNA info at face value. Never assume.  This likely scenario of accidental DNA transfer is something never before considered, mostly because few people are familiar with the toilet habits of little girls allowing their underwear to drop to their ankles and come into contact with the bathroom floor.

DNA has been found on brand new underwear purchased and sealed in a package, unworn from a department store which could only have been contaminated at the manufacturer during the packaging process. DNA can also be transferred by store employees setting out merchandise or someone laundering or putting the underclothing into a drawer, etc. There are many ways to transfer DNA by innocent means.

There are also many ways to transfer foreign pubic hairs from a bathroom floor, tracked in on shoes, from furniture or even transferred from clothing of the owner where it falls off  while the owner is in motion or seated. Men’s boxer shorts could easily allow pubic hairs to fall down the inside of their pants let onto the floor or onto their socks where it could fall off anywhere. Especially after scratching or using a bathroom which could dislodge pubic hairs. These are things most people never  think about; including crime scene investigators. Perhaps men should think twice about wearing those boxer shorts. Who knows where their pubic hairs could be found since their is nothing to prevent them from freefalling at any location and perhaps being tracked to a crime scene. However, even though briefs would stop the free-fall of loose pubic hairs, it is still possible to dislodge hairs while going through the motions of using a bathroom. I wonder how many innocent men are languishing in prison because of an innocent transfer of DNA?

DNA under fingernails could be obtained while playing with other children, grabbing someone’s arm, grooming another person… there are many ways to obtain foreign DNA under the nails which could remain there for days depending upon how diligent the person is about cleaning under their nails (which most children don’t). Washing the hands does not necessarily clean previously deposited DNA and other materials from under the nails. A child holding hands with someone could conceivably transfer DNA under their nails while gripping a hand.

The pubic hair found on her blanket could have been transferred in the laundry or from the bathroom floor deposited from someone who previously used the bathroom or tracked in by someone who had encountered it at another location or the hair could have come from someone who previously used the blanket or who merely handled or folded the blanket. This transfer could have occurred in the bathroom after her mother impacted the child’s head on the toilet in a rage due to her bedwetting as someone might do similar to pushing a dogs nose into the urine after wetting the carpet. JonBenet could have easily cracked her skull when her mother shoved her head against the toilet. This 8 1/2 inch injury she obtained to the side of her head from an impact on the hard surface of the toilet likely caused the child to have seizures and die. The subdural hematoma indicates she was alive at the time of the head injury. I’m sure this was an unintentional injury by the mother who was sleep deprived, tired, stressed & rushed by their morning flight schedule and overreacted with sudden rage over the bed wetting. A wet washcloth indicates the daughter had been washed off in the bathroom, probably by her mother just before she lost her temper and shoved her daughters head onto the toilet a little harder than she intended. It doesn’t take much of an impact on a hard surface to cause extensive damage to a head. They had wrapped her lifeless body in a blanket and carried her down the stairs to the basement, entangling her hair in the garland on the staircase on the way down. The pubic hair was likely incidental transfer from the bathroom floor or other source as described above and not associated with her death or the perpetrator. The lack of tongue protrusion or any indication that she tried to resist behind the duct tape and lack of petechial hemorrhages or physical struggle indicates the garrote and choking was done after she was dead.

Another possibility is that she was molested at the party before they went home or at some earlier location. I remember reading that there was evidence of long term prior molestation. While other sources claim there was no evidence of molestation whatsoever. I assume any evidence would indicate scarring or damage to the hymen. But I can verify from personal victim experience that not all molesters cause physical damage to  their victims. Some are oral gratification molesters which would leave DNA in saliva on the victim without producing damage unless their MO is to force the victim to service the molester which might possibly leave DNA around the victims mouth. But the lack of DNA either from saliva or semen present on JonBenet’s body negates that she was molested that particular night. There were reports that she did have vaginal abrasions with conflicting reports that she did not have abrasions. But all indicate reports there was no DNA on her genitalia which supports the assertion that she likely was not molested at all. If she did sustain fresh vaginal abrasions without any foreign DNA on her body, then any such vaginal abrasions were likely caused by an inanimate object after her death for the purpose of simulating molestation to add credence to the staged kidnapping scenario.

Another source of DNA on her underwear could have been from sitting on the floor with the other children at the party transferring DNA from where she sat. Little girls often sit with their underwear directly in contact with the place they are seated. They have not yet learned to wrap their skirts under them at that age. Since she was involved in numerous pageants wearing easily wrinkled materials like taffeta, her mother probably did not want her to sit on or wrinkle her skirts. Thus, her mother likely encouraged her to sit directly on a surface rather than sit on her skirt. Little girls typically don’t learn how to wrap their skirts under  them until they are much older. Usually, most older females learn to wrap their skirts under them before sitting down for hygiene and etiquette reasons.

The proper handling of  a young girls underwear in the bathroom or their skirts when seated is usually not learned until the pre-teen years. This is not an issue with boys because they wear pants, so when little boys drop their pants in the bathroom, their underwear drops inside the pants and is protected from the floor.

However, a little girl in a skirt does not have this, so her underwear ends up around her ankles on the floor of whatever bathroom she is in and the underwear would pick up transferred DNA from anyone who was in there before her who might have “missed” the toilet or walked through spit outside, or missed the sink when spitting while brushing teeth, etc. Anything could have been tracked in on someone’s shoes from other locations where they may have walked through spit or other products; or the floor could be contaminated with urine splatter which could have ended up transferred to her underwear at any location where she used the bathroom.

Investigators, Coroners, jurors, prosecutors and judges often react with a knee-jerk acceptance of DNA as the absolute definitive proof of guilt or innocence. The presence of DNA should neither be absolute in proof of guilt NOR as a tool for proving innocence as they have done in this case by ruling out the Ramseys when this could be innocently transferred DNA or an incidental public hair and thus, there may not have been another person present that night. Only those living in the house.

The Ramseys were preparing to leave on a trip early in the morning. However, JonBenet had recently consumed, undigested pineapple in her stomach and was a chronic bed wetter and had wet her bed that morning. Since the pineapple was not at the party and she did not eat it before bed, that means she was awakened after she went to sleep and was in the kitchen where the pineapple was in the refrigerator. Probably when she woke up after wetting her bed since the pineapple was still on the table when the police arrived. Otherwise, it would have been returned to the refrigerator.

Wetting the bed would have infuriated the mother on this particular morning because they had to leave to catch a plane in just a few hours. A urine soaked bed could pose an issue of spontaneous combustion and other problems under the right conditions if left unattended. The mother was likely sleep deprived, exhausted, overextended, stressed and rushed trying to meet their schedule. So a wet bed on this morning would have overly enraged the mother because she wouldn’t have had time to wash  the sheets before they left but also could not leave them unlaundered.

I believe the mother either heard her daughter out of bed or else she had gotten up on her own to begin preparations for their trip. Either way, she discovered the wet bed and went to the kitchen to confront her daughter. She probably dragged her daughter into the bathroom, vigorously scrubbed her with a washcloth (I believe a wet washcloth used to clean up the daughter was found) and slammed the side of her head onto the toilet in anger telling her daughter something like, “THAT is where you go to the bathroom!” in a moment of rage. (Similar to pushing your dogs nose into a spot where they urinated to impress upon the animal, the wrongfulness of their action.) The forceful impact of her head on the porcelain cracked her skull as reported in the autopsy and she probably went into seizures and died. The garrote was applied for the staged abduction cover story. 

(It doesn’t take a lot of impact to injure someone’s head. I was just barely grazed by the wing of a  goose  and was astonished to discover my forehead was split open. It doesn’t take much. Any hard surface against your skull, even a mild bump to the head can split the skin, create a hemorrhage, clot or concussion and potential brain damage or death.) This probably caused the mother to panic when she likely saw her daughter go into seizures and die. She knew she would go to jail if she didn’t find a way to cover it up. So the daughter was wrapped in a blanket and taken down to the basement. The mother used her own broken paint brush and the rope (she had reportedly bought from a local store with the tape just a few days earlier according to a store employee) to create the garrote to simulate an intruder killing her daughter. Tape and additional rope was applied to simulate and abduction. If there was vaginal abrasions (conflicting reports) since there was no DNA on the genital area, it was likely caused by an inanimate object like a broom handle or paint brush handle to simulate molestation and kidnapping. The only DNA from what I read was a small speck on her underwear, some nail scrapings and a single pubic hair on her blanket. As described above, the minor amount found was likely transferred by incidental, innocent modes not associated with any criminal action.

Her father admitted to having broken the basement window a few days earlier when he was accidentally locked out. So any signs of scuffs or entry around the window were likely from that earlier incident. The footprint on the floor could have been from any number of previous guests or workmen renovating the home and could have been there for a prolonged period. The parents also could have disposed of the remaining rope and tape off the property before calling the police. I’ll bet no one bothered to check the warmth of the family cars for recent use. But one of the parents also could have gone on a short jog to get rid of the items.

What I find the most scary is the possibility of some innocent guest at the party or at their home might be wrongfully implicated because their DNA was transferred from the floor of a bathroom, etc., by JonBenet’s underwear coming in contact with it on the bathroom floor while she was using the toilet or  some other place where she may have been sitting.

After staging the scene, her mother then decided to write out a ransom note on her own note paper with her own pen. No criminal is going to sit and write a 3 page letter in the home either before or after committing such a crime. Certainly no intruder would write a ransom note for kidnapping after leaving their dead daughter in the basement. Nor would they have written such a note while trying to restrain a live child. There were no signs of struggle on the girl or resistance to tape on her mouth or to the garrote around her neck which indicates she was dead before the tape and rope were applied. After her head struck the toilet. If she had been killed by the intruder hitting her in the head, they would not have bothered with the rope and tape and garrote. So since she did not resist the rope and tape, that means she was dead from the head injury. Hence, all of that was staging to make it appear as a phony kidnapping. The mother was in a state of panic and was not thinking clearly about the false scenario she was staging. An intruder would bring a ransom note with them and it would be not more than a couple sentences long. An intruder would not sit in a house and write a ransom note, especially after the child was already dead. Especially not a 3 page dissertation.

It takes a couple hours to write a 3 page letter. Not to mention the fact that there were more than one rewrite of the ransom note on her pad which were discarded. Usually, long, wordy letters are a trait of females. Not males. And the fact that the author knew the exact amount of Ramsey’s bonus plus the ridiculously wordy 3 page letter with preposterous “Patty Hearst type terrorist group rantings” indicates the mother was the only person who could have written that note. Especially considering it was written on her own note paper and her own pen and multiple attempts to write the letter and discard earlier copies occurred in the house. A genuine crook claiming to be some terrorist group would have simply demanded a round sum of money for the child with an order to await instructions and ended with the name of their organization. No more than 3 sentences tops. Can you picture such a person sitting there writing a 3 page  ransom note on her pad for 2 hours, taking the time to rewrite their mistakes and then asking for his exact bonus of $118,000 instead of a round sum of $120,000. It is preposterous to even conceive that someone other than Patsy wrote this letter.

Let us review a few of these items of reported evidence & allegations:

  • The child was sleeping upon arrival home from a party & put directly to bed
  • She had sometime later, wet her bed
  • The child was awakened, probably after wetting the bed
  • The child was calmly eating pineapple in the kitchen.
  • The bowl of pineapple was still on the table when police arrived.
  • A wet washcloth was found & determined she was washed off in the bathroom.
    • Possibly by the mother who had awakened & discovered the wet bed
  • The child suffered an 8 1/2 inch impact injury to the side of her head
    • Possibly by enraged mother who struck her head on toilet in bathroom
    • Similar reaction like shoving dogs nose into wet spot on carpet
  • Subdural hematoma indicates she was alive when head was struck
  • Neighbor heard girl scream at 2 am.
  • She was wrapped in a blanket
    • Wrapping in blanket  on cold basement floor was an act of parental compassion
    • No mention of blanket being evident from wetted bed
    • Molester would have used blanket from bed, if any
  • Had garland from the staircase entangled in her hair
  • The child was dressed in pajama long underwear
    • Molester would have removed lower clothes
  • Tape on her mouth, rope on her hands
    • No signs of any struggle or resistance to rope or tape
    • No indication of movement of mouth under duct tape
    • Likely dead before tape or rope were applied
  • Garrote around her neck using a broken paint brush belonging to Patsy
  • No sign of struggle against garrote
  • No protrusion or resistance from tongue or mouth under tape (normal for strangling)
  • No report of petechial hemorrhages from strangulation
    • Child was likely dead  before garrote was applied
  • Store employee stated rope and tape were bought by Patsy just a few days earlier.
  • No foreign DNA on child or genitalia which indicates no molestation occurred
  • One minute area with DNA on exterior of child’s underwear
    • Could be incidental transfer DNA
  • Fingernails scraped for DNA
  • One foreign pubic hair on blanket
    • Could be incidental transfer DNA
  • If vaginal abrasions found without DNA indicates inanimate object to stage kidnapping
    • Possible object like broom handle or paint brush handle to simulate molestation
  • A ridiculous rambling 3 page ransom letter written on Patsy’s pad with Patsy’s pen
  • Note was written in house & restarted more than once
    • Contained private personal details
    • Ransom demand was same amount as John’s bonus $118,000.
    • Not rounded off to $120,000 if genuine intruder.
    • Referenced father needing to get rest before exhausting ransom delivery
    • Indicating author was female and family member
    • Note was longwinded, rambling, absurd unknown terrorist group
    • Indicative of lifestyle unfamiliar with criminal motives
    • Females tend to write longwinded rambling letters
    • At least 2 hours were spent writing letter & restarted write overs
  • The note pad and pen used to write the ransom note belonged to Patsy.
  • No intruder would sit in house writing 2 hour note using Patsy’s notepad and pen
  • Intruders would bring ransom note with them
  • Intruder notes would be short in content, not written on site
  • Broken Basement window & scuff marks
    • John said he broke basement window a few days earlier when locked out
    • No fresh prints outside
  • Print in basement
    • Workmen had been in the house for renovations
    • Many visitors had been in house over holidays
  • Flashlight was found in kitchen and wiped clean
    • Possibly used by parent in basement while staging kidnapping?
  • Father found daughter with friend
    • Went directly to her location
    • carried her upstairs & removed tape.
  • Visitors in house disturbing evidence.
  • No ransom call ever came
  • Limited DNA and single pubic hair could easily be innocent transfers from bathroom
  • DNA was likely from innocent transfers and not indicative of intruder nor innocence
  • Parents claimed son was asleep until police arrived
    • Son could be heard asking what was going on during 911 call
    • Parents of kidnapped girl would have wakened son to ask if he had seen his sister
    • Parents would not have left son sleeping if daughter was truly kidnapped.
    • 911 call was proof that son was unaware of events & had just awakened.

Everything else is just an attempt to distract attention away from these core issues. Don’t let them sidetrack you with footprints, broken windows, DNA which might be from incidental transfer which wasn’t tested until 7 years after the fact. The real proof is in the 3 page ransom note written in the house, the details in the note, her notepad and pen, the rope & tape she purchased and the paint brush garrote which all tie directly to Patsy.  Has anyone bothered to test the ransom note for palm prints made while writing? If you ever start to doubt her complicity, remember those items. The public was furious about the lack of prosecution for the Ramsey case because they did not want another OJ Simpson to get away unscathed. But their worst fears were well founded.

Keep in mind that extreme effort has been made to intimidate & keep this case quiet and sue anyone who talks about it to dissuade anyone else from discussing the case. This is the same level of determination which ensued when this false kidnapping and murder was staged to cover an accidental homicide out of fear of prison and loss of their freedom, family and everything they had worked for. They continued to fight to maintain that freedom every day after her death.

You have to look at things from the other point of view to understand what happened. There is nothing wrong with hiring an attorney whether guilty or innocent. There are enough corrupt or incompetent law enforcement agencies where anyone faced with a serious situation should always hire an attorney, especially if they are innocent. This is not an indication of guilt. It is a necessity to ensure you do not become a victim of bad police work or misdirected forensics.  People need to understand this. Running is also not a sign of guilt. It is simply a fear of incarceration. By getting their family out of state, the Ramsey’s limited the Colorado authorities access to them as residents under the protection of another state. They actually conducted a very effective battle to stay out of jail.

I don’t think they were necessarily bad people. I think the daughter was mortally injured in a sudden burst of rage by her mother who was sleep deprived and stressed trying to rush to get the family ready to leave and years of frustration over her bedwetting.  Then she made the decision to cover up what she had done in the worst way… but it was the only choice she felt she had to remain free.  She would have gone to prison even if her daughter had survived with brain damage.

Their socializing & entertaining among the affluent community appeared to create a protective shell around them but one has to wonder if the DA also had skeletons in his closet behind his unwillingness to prosecute the Ramsey’s despite grand jury recommendation to indict the parents. Criminals these days hire publicists to modify public opinion by seeding the media with positive stories. Does someone in that situation deserve to go to jail? Perhaps, but not more than 5 years. It was unintentional involuntary manslaughter and obstruction of justice. 5 years would be the maximum logically reasonable for her mothers situation. But a jury would have reacted with extreme emotion as if she was a serial killer… due to the death of such a beautiful child and would have given the parents 30 years to life or even death. Juries seldom consider that any one of them could find themselves in the same situation if some day they lost their tempers for a split second.

We don’t know if the father knew, but he did immediately go directly to his daughters location as soon as he had a friend to accompany him. He also contaminated the scene. If he did know, perhaps the mother had some blackmail to use on him for his complicity or assistance after the fact. It is highly possible that both parents would have ended up in prison for life based on the grand jury’s recommendation to indict them both. So they had nothing to lose by fighting tooth and nail to avoid being indicted. The most effective thing they did was to hire an attorney to sue for libel and slander anytime someone published negative information about them. That shut down the media as well as the gov’t officials and authorities. Their aggressive lawyer put the fear of hell into everyone. Between his lawsuits and the proceeds from their book, they managed to fund the shield of aggressive lawyers who effectively kept them out of prison and ended the investigation and any potential prosecution. The DA’s office clearly feared going up against their army of lawyers despite overwhelming evidence that a blind person could see. Also, why is the judge protecting them by sealing the records? You only seal records to protect the innocent. Not the guilty of an unsolved case. But the investigators also missed the boat. Where are the palm prints on the ransom note? How about the pen? How about fingerprints on the duct tape? Did they use luminol in the bathroom? How about luminol on the child?

However, you can’t assume someone’s guilt simply because they hire a lawyer in such a situation because you cannot depend upon the investigators or court system to treat you fairly or justly. It is quite easy to see why JonBenet’s mother was in a state of panic to do something to hide her complicity and to avoid prison. She had nothing to lose by staging an intruder scenario and it seems to have been effective. But the public is still incensed that JonBenet’s death has never been prosecuted. Perhaps we should be grateful that some innocent person was not prosecuted by innocent incidental transferred DNA? We can only hope that investigators will take a different approach with truly understanding the occurrence of transferred DNA before any more innocent persons are convicted and the true perpetrators are correctly identified.

Here are some links:

%d bloggers like this: