YOUR TURN: "The Secret Life of Patsy Ramsey"? What Literature Might Reveal About the Crime Scene of a Beauty Queen

by Mark Soukup, Guest Contributor

When the murder of JonBenét Ramsey hit the news I thought the 6-year-old pageant princess's father John Ramsey was some kind of pedophile and guilty of the crime. I wasn't very interested in the case. But I had just switched to an early shift at work and listened to local talk radio where the case was covered extensively. But when the autopsy report and ransom note were made public, I saw Patsy Paugh Ramsey, the former Miss West Virginia, as the perpetrator.

I also saw the killing as a type of sacrifice. For years I had been reading books on the psychological interpretation of mythology. From what I'd studied, many of the odd and seemingly incomprehensible aspects of the crime could be seen as having symbolic meaning known only to the offender.

This type of attachment to myth and dream symbolism is typical of psychosis. In some cases a psychotic will take destructive action as a means to manifest their psychotic fantasy. I brought this up to the local talk-radio host but the idea was dismissed. I was curious if the idea had come up before, but back then I had no access to the Internet. So I started reading about the case.

Small Sacrifice

The first book I got was Andrew Hodge's A Mother Gone Bad, and in it I found a reference to the Seraph report. That small group of investigators was commissioned by the Boulder police for an assessment of the ransom note and crime. They concluded Patsy Ramsey had sacrificed her daughter. Their interpretation of sacrifice was different from mine but at least I knew the subject had been brought up to police. At this point the case was two years old.

My line of reasoning came from an approach to dream analysis that is used by Jungians called amplification. I took the theme of literature that is prevalent in the case from the ransom note to John Douglas's Mind Hunter to The Bible and looked for common elements. The common elements, if found, would indicate a "complex," a behavior-centering force in the mind of the perpetrator.

A Sacrifice of Biblical Contortions

For example, the role of the Psalms in the case was well known with a possible connection between the ransom amount and a common interpretation of Psalm 118 that mentions sacrifice. Also, the Ramsey family Bible (NIV study version) was open to a passage that has four lines beginning with the letters C, T, B, S—the reverse of the cryptic ransom note sign-off: S.B.T.C.

Further reading of the Psalms revealed a repeated use of words, phrases, and ideas that are common to the crime and to mother Patsy Ramsey's life in general. After careful study, I thought I had the key to not only the identification of the single perpetrator but an indication that the death of JonBenét was not due to an accident, as was the prevalent theory, but was the intentional act of a person in the grip of a psychosis.

By this time I had access to the Internet. I hit the forums with my ideas and was both lauded and rebuffed. The lack of acceptance made me dig even more. I went back to the trail of literature left by Patsy herself and fixed on Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie since Patsy had chosen to perform a soliloquy from the novel/play in the talent portions of her pageants. Again, I was looking for an indication of a complex. I started with the movie and found three uses of the word "sacrifice" by Jean Brodie (in film still, above). I thought sacrifice was the centering theme in Patsy's psychosis, which she found unavoidably attractive in Spark's work.

JonBenét and Fruit from the Poisoned Case

It took me several months before I read the book. Just a few pages in was a description of a tea party with two members of the Brodie set where pineapple was served. The appearance of pineapple in JonBenét's digestive tract along with the Ramseys' denial of having served it to her—and the use of pineapple by Spark in her novel—was the first mythic connection for me between the crime and a work of literature Patsy was known to have been intimately familiar with.

A few pages more and the question of the spelling of "possession" came up in the novel. The misspelling of possession in the ransom note was part of the heated conversation of the case on the radio and Internet. A detailed study of the book, play, and movie revealed many, many items common to both the crime and to Patsy and the literature she was known to have been associated with, including the chillingly titled Death of Innocence.

Many, many aspects of the case seemed strange and incomprehensible to investigators and to the public and were attributed to panic, amateurism, desperation with the possible source of ideas for staging found in crime books and movies. My investigation into this theme of literature, to me, has revealed coincidence after coincidence between the death of JonBenét Ramsey and the life of Patsy Paugh Ramsey. A preponderance of coincidence rules out coincidence and out of what seems to be a random jumble comes a pattern; the use of one person by another as an object in a personal psychotic fantasy.

A person in psychosis often sees themselves as either a mythic figure or related to one in some way. They also may see themselves as part of a mythic storyline. They may exhibit behaviors that have a high degree of structure but with a low degree of rationality as they follow the mythic storyline. This story may be self created and/or part of an existing, archetypal, or well- known story that can be easily found in popular literature. It is my opinion that the death of JonBenét Ramsey is the result of just such a psychosis and the evidence for it can be found in the products of the creative life of Patsy Ramsey—her writing, her artwork, her correspondences, her pageant performances, the ransom note and even what was done to the body of JonBenét.

Women in Crime Ink reader Mark Soukup is an amateur art historian who has studied symbolism and the creative process. He is owned by two sheep dogs and lives in Colorado.

Tweet

Women in Crime Ink Celebrates First Year Online

Women in Crime Ink is celebrating its first anni-versary today, and we want to mark this special occasion by thanking all of our contributors—and especially our readers!

It’s been quite a year since we launched on March 10, 2008. Most of the crime news took a backseat to a fiery election campaign, but there was no shortage of crime stories. The Caylee Anthony saga took us by storm and may prove to be one of the most followed crimes of the decade. And the most-publicized crime of the '90s was given a final chapter with last year's conviction of O. J. Simpson. The newly discovered DNA evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case kept us chirping through several posts, while Women in Crime Ink gave cases like those involving Becca McEvoy, Davina Buff Jones, and Belinda Temple the attention they deserve.

Of course, we haven't forgotten the disappearances of student Natalee Holloway or toddler Madeleine McCann. By offering new theories, we have attempted to keep these and other missing persons cases alive in the public consciousness.

Our regular contributors have also brought you some of our personal stories that led to our respective "lives of crime."

As serious and thought-provoking as we try to keep our posts, occasionally, we like to have fun with our readers. Were you one of those who fell for the April Fool's blog that Jimmy Hoffa's bones had been found in New York? You weren't alone—that prank post spread like wildfire in cyberspace, burning nearly all who read it. (Don't be caught off guard this coming April Fool's Day. . . .)

Also last spring, Women in Crime Ink had the honor of a brief "appearance" on Broadway, at least within the pages of the Playbill for the production of "The Judas Tree," the visually stunning true-crime musical based on the crimes of serial killer Dorothea Puente. (photo credit: Alex Moore)

Early this year, we stepped onto another stage, joining the Facebook frenzy. If you haven’t already, stop on over at our Facebook page and become one of our fans! There you will also find a bookstore where you can browse titles by our contributors.

Our fans and readers have also been contributors to Women in Crime Ink. WCI guest contributors have ranged from homicide detectives to a polygamy survivor. Who can forget our "Independence Day Series," which featured the harrowing first-person account of a man who was nearly executed for a crime he did not commit? And then there have been those special occasions when people we've written about—or their friends and family members—have surprised us with a response. Indeed, sometimes reader comments have taken over our posts. For example, the brief (130 word) announcement that Manson member Susan Atkins is dying of brain cancer has generated 25,000 words. Keep 'em coming. We love hearing from our readers.

So let us know your thoughts about our first year! Use the comments section to tell us what you like about the site . . . what you haven't cared for . . . stories you’d like to see more of . . . and any ideas you have as to how we can improve.

Thanks, everyone, for reading and for contributing to Women in Crime Ink. And a special thank you to Cole Stevenson for designing the site and to Rex White for creating our Justitia logo and original art. These talented men helped the women of WCI get up and running . . . and our contributors and readers have kept us going strong. Thanks!

Tweet

Why Crime History Matters

by Laura James

Unfortunately, the media often errs badly in its crime reporting because some reporters don't know a thing about the history of crime. And I guess they're too lazy to look it up before speaking on the subject.

For some reason, the natural tendency is to make it up—and get it wrong.

And that's too bad, because many times, some historical perspective might inform any given situation.

One example everyone knows: the press has erred badly in its coverage of the JonBenét Ramsey case on one small but perhaps important detail.

"Sex murderers never leave ransom notes." That's what the experts told us in the JonBenét Ramsey case. For years, in fact, that "fact" has been repeated.

It's always dangerous to talk in absolutes when the subject is human behavior, but there you have it.

And it wasn't true. One has to wonder just how much this error colored early perceptions of the case.

William Heirens was a sex killer. He left a ransom note. He kidnapped a little girl from the bedroom of her family home in the middle of the night, and later raped and killed her. Then he went on to kill again.

His name should sound familiar. No other inmate alive in a U.S. prison today has served longer than William Heirens, who went to prison in 1946. That's sixty-two years, and counting, behind bars.

While the press often get their precedents messed up, another type of error is more common: the tendency of some reporters to grossly exaggerate the historical significance of an event that is already, in and of itself, a very shocking crime that requires no exaggeration.

Reporters covering the terrible shooting massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 called it "the worst massacre in U.S. history." That's a verbatim quote from Newsweek and from Time and from many, many others. No adjectives were omitted. And it was just flat-out a misstatement of fact.

Was it hysteria that caused so many journalists to overstate the matter as they did? Really, "the worst massacre in U.S. history"?

Thirty-two people died at Virginia Tech (Wiki).

That is far less than the Oklahoma City bombing (168 victims), Wounded Knee (300 victims), Mountain Meadows Massacre (100+ victims), or 9/11 (2,998 victims).

Alas, the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech could not even be called the "worst school massacre in U.S. history," though dozens of media outlets in fact did call it that.

It wasn't. A sad record still stands. The worst school massacre in U.S. history remains the Bath School Massacre, which claimed 45 lives in 1927. Not everyone has forgotten them.

Tweet

Getting Away with Murder - Part 2

by Stacy Dittrich

Today, in Part 2 of Getting Away with Murder, I’ll be focusing on the cases of Natalee Holloway, Rilya Wilson, O.J. Simpson, and JonBenét Ramsey. (Click here to read Part 1) Out of these eight featured cases, only two bodies have been found (Simpson and Ramsey), and only three suspects have been arrested in the murders (O.J. Simpson, who subsequently was found not guilty, Geralyn Graham, and Casey Anthony, both who are currently awaiting trial). While watching the various experts commentating on most of these cases, I hear repeatedly how difficult it is for the prosecution to proceed with charges without a body. Not so, says Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Tad DiBiase, an expert in the area of “No Body Cases.”

DiBiase has tracked these cases as far back as 1834, when seaman Maurice Fitzgerald was murdered at sea and his body was never found. However, his killers were tried and found guilty of murder. According to DiBiase, this case and 279 others in the United States (excluding ID, NH and VT) tracked through November 2008, only resulted in 25 acquittals or reversals on appeal due to the fact no body was found. His contention is that it is a high probability of a conviction without a body, and the case should proceed.

Unfortunately, it seems that some prosecutors are “gun shy.” The possibility of a not guilty verdict or the suspect walking free is too great in their eyes. In the meantime, the murderer is out on the streets free to kill again. In this aspect, I say kudos to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in Florida for the arrest of Casey Anthony. If the evidence is there, take it and run with it.

Regardless, there are some circumstances that it would be highly unlikely any charges would come whether or not the body is found—these are few and far between. In the case of missing Alabama student, Natalee Holloway, sometimes politics plays a far greater role than a murdered high school student.

4. Natalee Holloway—Missing May 30, 2005, No Body Found.

I believe it’s certainly safe to say at this point that the Aruban government has thoroughly botched the investigation into missing American high school student, Natalee Holloway, 19, and failed her family miserably.

On Monday, May 30, 2005, Natalee Holloway was last seen alive in a bar in Aruba while on a senior class trip. There is no question that she was accompanied by then 17-year-old Joran Van der Sloot, and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe (pictured right with Holloway) as she left the bar. She was never seen again and her body has never been found. In the meantime, all three men have been questioned in the case and no formal charges have been brought. The fact that Van der Sloot is the son of a prominent Aruban political figure raises some eyebrows. Apparently, his father's influence is enough to erase the fact he recently confessed to the murder of Holloway on videotape. Smoking marijuana, the Aruban authorities claimed they could not proceed as he “was under the influence when making that claim.”

According to Women In Crime Ink’s Robin Sax, an L.A. Deputy District Attorney, it is not for the prosecution to question his frame of mind—it’s up to the defense to prove he was “muddled by the wacky weed.” But, like all of the other claims and witness statements in the case, the information was ignored. Just recently, Van der Sloot was videotaped taking part in a sex ring in Thailand. Allegedly, there’s more to the tape than that. FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren claims to have in her possession more of the tape which has Van der Sloot confessing to Holloway’s murder—yet again. She offered to bring it to Aruban prosecutor Hans Mos in person, but he refused. Why? He said there is nothing on the tape that has any substance—a claim made even though he has never seen it.

At this point, Joran Van der Sloot is laughing at law enforcement in his country, and at the Americans that believe in his guilt. Unfortunately, it may take this sociopathic animal murdering another human being before he is finally caught. Either that or the Kalpoe brothers need to grow a conscious and start talking. But, the question remains: even if they do talk, and Holloway’s body is found, will they even prosecute Van der Sloot then? I think not.

This sends a clear message to parents out there: If your child is taking a class trip or vacation with friends—send them to Florida.

5. Rilya Wilson—Missing, unknown month, 2000—No Body Found.

There are some people who actually have not heard of 4-year-old Rilya Wilson, but you may have heard the story. Rilya was the foster child in Florida who went “unnoticed” by the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Living at the time with foster mother, Geralyn Graham, DCF didn’t notice Rilya was missing until two years later. According to Graham, Rilya was picked up by a caseworker for a doctor’s appointment and was never returned. DCF authorities quickly established this wasn’t the case, but admitted they had “lost this child” within the system.

Furthermore, the outrageous actions of the DCF ultimately caused the resignation of the DCF chief, and news laws that require officials to track missing foster children and the supervision of caregivers.

In 2005, Geralyn Graham was charged with first degree murder in the death of Rilya. While incarcerated, she allegedly told a fellow inmate, “I killed it.” She claimed Rilya (pictured left) had demons and she dumped the child’s body in a ravine—authorities have yet to locate her remains. At this time, Graham is still awaiting trial and prosecutors are confident they will attain a conviction.

The case sparked outrage against DCF treatment of African-American foster children and is presently being used to help lobby a bill that would enact the “Rilya Alert.” Similar to the Amber Alert, the Rilya Alert would be geared towards missing African-American children within the foster care system.

6. O.J. Simpson—Found Not Guilty in the Murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, October, 1995.

Like most, the mere mention of Simpson’s name is difficult to say without vomiting in my mouth a little. One would be hard pressed to find a person that truly believed in his innocence, especially after he wrote a full blown confession in a book years later. His arrogance and mockery were never-ending (I’ve always seen a chilling connection between the attitude of Joran Van der Sloot and Simpson . . . blech). The case in which the famed football star brutally sliced and diced his ex-wife and her friend has caused prosecutors, and defense attorneys, to tighten their belts and get their acts together for the last decade. The world’s obsession with the O.J. Simpson case is never-ending. Just recently, Simpson (pictured right) was tried and convicted of armed robbery in Las Vegas for holding a memorabilia dealer in his hotel room at gunpoint. Some say it’s retribution for getting away with murder.

As Simpson sits whining away in his jail cell awaiting sentencing, he is appealing his conviction based on the fact he is black. However, some say this is precisely the reason he was acquitted in the murders over a decade ago and that he uses his ethnicity to his benefit when suited. Black or white, most prudent people of all colors believe that this is a man who deserves to live, and die, in prison. It looks like we may just get our wish. Simpson will no longer be remembered for his impressive football career—he will forever be remembered in the graduating class of the upper echelons of crime like Manson and Bundy. It would seem that miracles in the halls of crime really do happen—The Juice has finally been squeezed dry.

It’s at long last time to throw that used-up-piece-of-fruit in the garbage where it belongs.

7. JonBenét Ramsey—Murdered, December 26, 1996—No Arrests Made.

The case that, twelve years later, still is heatedly debated on the crime blogs and media, the Ramsey case is, undoubtedly, solved in the minds of many. However, it is the prosecutor who is most important and, apparently, they don’t have a clue who the murderer is. I wrote my own theory on the Ramsey case (view it here) that sparked outrage among the supporters of John Ramsey, the father of victim 6-year-old JonBenét. Referring to someone like myself as a BORG, which I think stands for “believer of Ramsey guilt.”

Either that or they’re obsessive Star Trek fans.

The small group of supporters launches an immediate attack for anyone pointing to JonBenét’s parents as the murderers—a fact I firmly believe. No doubt several of them will make an appearance in the comments section of this post.

No one but John and Patsy Ramsey (who is now deceased) really know what happened the night of December 26, 1996. After a lengthy Christmas day, they put their 6-year-old daughter to sleep, woke up the next morning, found her missing, and ultimately discovered her sexually assaulted and dead body in the basement.

The prosecutor has since cleared the parents and believes that, someday, DNA evidence will hit on a match to the true murderer. It’s my opinion that the human race will most likely witness The Rapture before an arrest in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. It’s a shame, but the man that brutally took the life of this small, innocent child has to look in the mirror every day and live with it.

But, if he can be so cold-hearted to commit murder he probably doesn’t care.

All eight of these cases have generated millions of dollars in movie, television, and book deals, feeding society’s hunger for a good crime story, and driving those at-home-super-sleuths into a frenzy for the need to solve. There may be several more that I didn’t touch on, but these are the ones that come to mind when I think of “crime stories.” Of course, it’s a historical fact that these cases will be replaced over the next few decades with a new class of innocent victims and barbaric heathens that will get away with murder—a sad, and frightening, fact.

I have always said during my tenure as a police officer that my job security was higher than anyone’s. Now, as a full-time crime writer, my opinion remains the same.

Tweet

WIN AT ALL COSTS? NOT REALLY

by Kelly Siegler

Why is it that the media and Hollywood seem to be obsessed with the idea that prosecutors are always after the "win," the "scalp," the conviction? How many times have we read a book or watched a movie that was all about some unethical prosecutor seeking to advance his or her career by convicting an innocent citizen? Not just about blurring the lines and disregarding the rules of evidence but flat out doing their utmost to convict someone who the make-believe prosecutor knows full well is innocent of any crime.

Oh, it all makes for a very touching and absorbing story. As well as feeding into the kinds of tales that Hollywood likes to tell.

The only problem with such stories is that nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact, from the standard, typical everyday problem that truly exists with prosecutors. Ask any veteran police officer or detective. Ask any long-time crime victim advocate. Ask any respected judge. They know what the true problem is with way too many prosecutors. And it has nothing to do with trying to convict innocent citizens.

The real problem is that far too many prosecutors are worried about taking on a difficult case, a case that is not a slam-dunk or a whale ("as easy as harpooning a whale in a barrel," as we say in Harris County, Texas). Too many prosecutors demand that the cases presented to them for the filing of charges come to them with all the questions answered and wrapped in a pretty, little bow. What prosecutors seem to forget is that the question they need to be asking is whether a jury of twelve, ordinary, normal, non-lawyer citizens would convict on the evidence presented to them or evidence easily developed by the prosecutor after the filing of charges.

Evidence easily developed after the filing of charges. Maybe it's laziness that's the problem. Or maybe prosecutors get away with rejecting charges because everyone forgets that a lawyer can work up a case and investigate it further just like the police officer who initially worked on the case can. There is absolutely no reason for someone preparing to go to trial to not try to make the evidence stronger. The truth is the truth and a prosecutor can find that one additional witness or one little piece of evidence just as easily as a cop can.

I betcha if you could interview a group of experienced detectives and ask them what their number one pet peeve about their job was, the answer you would get would be having to present their cases to prosecutors who have no guts. As a prosecutor with over twenty years of experience, I can't count the number of times I have heard well-respected police officers vent about this problem.

So why is this "chicken" attitude such an unknown problem? Simple. Primarily because prosecutors don't usually talk about it. And those same righteously upset cops don't typically tattle about it; they just try to figure out a way to work around the problem. So instead of officers being able to go to a prosecutor to seek advice on an investigation, what happens more often than you would ever expect is that the officers find the prosecutors they are forced to deal with to be an obstacle in their investigations.

And that is a tragedy.

What is even more tragic is the number of victims in our society who have been made to believe that the crime committed against them or against their loved one is a crime that does not merit the prosecution or filing of charges. It would be a rare case for a police officer to say to a grieving family member that he believed that there was enough evidence to file a charge and convict a guilty defendant BUT the PROSECUTOR he went to decided there was not enough evidence. Cops don't do that because all that does is cause a victim more pain. So in effect what happens is a cowardly prosecutor is shielded from having to make a tough call or take on a difficult prosecution. And a hurt or grieving family is left to suffer even more.

So let this serve as a wake-up call or a call to arms to victims. If you have a true understanding and appreciation of the evidence in a case that concerns you, ask your detective what he thinks about the state of the evidence. If necessary, complain. To the police officer's supervisor, perhaps more importantly to the prosecutor's supervisor. What if the prosecutor is the elected DA who has no boss? Then complain to your local media; that's a story they would love to jump all over. They would get a twofer: the ability to investigate a REAL crime and criticize the local prosecutor's office while showing them up. Besides, what do you have to lose by complaining?

What seems to get lost in all of this is the fact that prosecutors are like any other professionals. By that I mean that no two are alike. Do you think every teacher handles her classroom the same? Or every orthopedic surgeon agrees on when surgery is necessary? Is there a difference in attitude between NFL quarterbacks Brett Favre and David Carr? Or between Diane Sawyer and Nancy Grace? Same thinking applies to prosecutors and how they do their jobs. It's just that we don't seem to appreciate that personalities do affect their decisions, such as what constitutes enough evidence to file charges.

Prosecutors' differences are more apparent in the courtroom during trial. We need to realize that those same differences apply to their decision-making, especially when it comes to that initial decision on whether to take on a case that might well be more difficult than most.

In contrast to the very rare, despicable prosecutor like Mike Nifong (below), how many more are out there handling cases but refusing to accept charges when the evidence seems more than sufficient to you? Nobody truly knows ALL of the evidence in any case but the investigating officers. Do we really know ALL of the evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case? (See Stacy Dittrich's blog for an update.) Or Natalee Holloway's case? Or even in a case that concerns you?

Win at all costs? Funny. Unfortunately, the truth is, all too often, prosecutors won't even get in the game.

Tweet

Factual Evidence in JonBenét Ramsey Case Forgotten

by Stacy Dittrich

I have been commentating on the JonBenét Ramsey case over the past week on radio and television stations from coast to coast, and there seems to be quite a misunderstanding regarding the "new" evidence that was presented in the case. The misunderstanding? That the evidence is new or even reliable.

Perhaps this was Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's last-ditch effort to rid herself of the case once and for all. Since Lacy (pictured right) took office, it has been very apparent that this case was something she wanted no part of but conceded the parents needed to be looked at. Last week, Lacy issued a public letter exonerating John Ramsey of all suspicion in the murder investigation involving his daughter, JonBenét. Bad move, Mary.

The DA's logic when issuing this exoneration was that a newly developed form of DNA testing resulted in several skin cells on JonBenét's long johns matching a sample taken from her underwear at the time of the murder. Now, instead of having unknown DNA on one piece of the victim's clothing, the same DNA is on two.

Apparently, Lacy thought this was enough to disregard every other piece of evidence in the case. Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front. Mary Lacy is clearly not proficient in puzzle solving.

First, we must question how reliable the DNA testing that was recently performed is. It was done through a private lab and is fairly new. The FBI DNA database, CODIS, is compiled of DNA from local, state, and federal labs. As Atlanta District Attorney Eleanor Dixon pointed out, it is unknown if this could even be admissible in court.

Next, we have the initial DNA sample taken from the underwear at the time of JonBenét's murder. It was described by the Boulder DA's office as a significant blood sample. Not so, says forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee. The amount of the sample was so minute on the brand new underwear JonBenét was wearing, that it could have possibly come from the manufacturer itself. Did you take DNA samples from everyone at the manufacturing company, Mary?

The following is where I take the biggest issue. As we all know, the initial investigation into the murder was comparable to a street carnival. No sense of order or evidence preservation commenced in this "panic." Once the body of JonBenét was located by her father (pictured right), the body was handed off and touched by approximately three or four people before it was secured and evidence preserved. John and Patsy had two couples and their minister in the home by the time police arrived.

I'm curious. Did each and every one of these people submit DNA samples? Patsy admittedly pulled up JonBenét 's long johns prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

The DNA found in JonBenét's underwear only consisted of 9 DNA "markers." The FBI once used 13 to make comparisons. According to DNA expert Brent Turvy, 9 markers is enough nowadays. But comparing this small amount of markers to the new "spot DNA" is really pushing it.

As Mr. Turvy stated, "DNA alone is not going to tell you who committed the crime in a case like this." Are you listening, Mary Lacy? Has the District Attorney ever heard the term "totality of the evidence?"

Let's take a look at that evidence, shall we? I'll put it together in a simple timeline:

December 25, 1996 10:00 p.m. - John Ramsey is the last person in the family to see JonBenét alive. She was "on her bed."

December 26, 1996 05:52 a.m. - Patsy Ramsey wakes up, walks downstairs and finds a ransom note claiming to have kidnapped her daughter. The note claims she is being watched and not to call the police or JonBenét would be killed. Without hesitation, Patsy calls the police.

06:10 a.m. - The first officers from the Boulder Police Department arrive on scene. One of the first priorities in a missing child investigation is to search the house. They do not search the house at this point. Instead, they wait on a promised 10:00AM phone call from the kidnappers as stated in the ridiculous ransom note. They do, however, check the exterior of the residence and find it is completely locked, no signs of forced entry, and there are no footprints in the thin layer of snow and frost that covers the Ramsey lawn. An incredible feat for any experienced criminal to pull off.

01:00 p.m. - Officers in the home inform John Ramsey they are going to get a search warrant, and request that he check the inside of the home for JonBenét, and to see if any of JonBenéts clothing, toys, or items are missing. What does John do? He immediately heads to the basement, followed by his friends Fleet White and John Fernie.

(Apparently, JonBenét's bedroom slipped his mind. It also must have slipped the officers' minds to escort him to every room since it was becoming increasingly clear he or someone present was a "person of interest.")

01:03 p.m. - Fleet White comes screaming up the stairs for someone to call an ambulance while he goes to the back office to get on the phone (???). Female detective Linda Arndt ran to the basement door and sees John Ramsey running up the stairs holding the body of JonBenét. (No mention of what John Fernie was doing.)

John had found JonBenét in an obscure room off the basement underneath two blankets. In a monstrous house with a gazillion rooms in it I'd say that's damn good luck, John! (Now there's a guy that should play the lottery.)

Oh, did I mention he pulled off the tape that was covering her mouth? (evidence contamination #3,456) The autopsy report showed that JonBenét's pelvic area was most likely wiped off with a wash cloth as well. Did he do that too? (evidence contamination #3,457)

01:03 p.m. - John Ramsey lays JonBenét on the floor where she is moved by Det. Arndt and Patsy pulls up her long johns (contaminatecontaminatecontaminate).

Det. Arndt notes green garland wrapped in JonBenéts hair is most likely from the garland decoration wrapped around the staircase where the note was found. Funny, Patsy must have missed the shambled decorations on her way down to make pancakes—or write a ransom note.

Ah, the ransom note. Another key factor in the investigation. Granted, I'm not a profiler, but I've talked to enough barbaric child molesters to know that they wouldn't know what the word "attache'" means—let alone how to spell it.

I find it "off the beaten" path that a highly organized group of kidnappers seeking money would resort to low-grade child rape and murder. Or, on the flip side, a low-grade child rapist who has the "kahunas" to perform the rape and murder inside the home taking a high and probable risk of getting caught.

Most would be "out of their element" and transport the body to an outside location where they wouldn't be bothered. Most of whom wouldn't bother locking doors on their way out. Which leads me to my most prized theory:

JonBenét's body was hidden inside an obscure room underneath blankets where a "suspect" would assume she wouldn't be found. But, his plan fell through. Assuming law enforcement would be out of the home searching for the victim, would allow him plenty of time to grab his "stash" and go dump it somewhere. But when officers indicated they would search the house, the panicked "suspect" ran to his "stash" first. A likely scenario? Maybe.

The time of death is also a questioning factor. The autopsy showed rigor mortis in lower extremities and joints only, an effect that occurs five to eight hours after death. This would put JonBenét's death around the early morning hours.

Did Patsy Ramsey walk in on something? Giving all the benefit of the doubt, I contacted my most favorite and respected coroner's assistant. Since the body was in the basement, the cooler temperatures easily could have delayed the process. Still, it's another question.

The end result is that there are entirely too many unanswered questions in this case to exonerate anybody, especially John Ramsey. Whether his own hand was a factor or someone else's, I truly believe he has knowledge of what happened to his daughter.

If my child were brutally murdered, I couldn't comprehend flipping through the yellow pages four days later in search of a defense attorney. Actions and emotions are some of the largest factors of evidence in any investigation; something Mary Lacy clearly missed.

Oh, and the fact that the autopsy showed JonBenét had previous sexual trauma PRIOR to the night of her death is a clue. To exonerate a suspect in which the majority of evidence points to him is premature at best, and completely irresponsible at worst. Yes, there is always the possibility of an "intruder." But at this point, all of the options should have stayed open.

Tweet

A Touch of DNA

by Pat Brown

A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.

Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.

In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.

A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

Tweet