Do You Think We'll Ever Find Out What Happened To JonBenet Ramsey?

41 Inaccuracies from the "Carnes Ruling" (The Wolf v. Ramsey civil case, 2003)






1. On the drive home from the party, JonBenet and her brother Burke fell asleep in the car. Defendants put the children to bed when they returned home and then went to bed soon there after
Nobody in the Ramsey family (or anyone else) has ever said that "Burke fell asleep in the car". The fact that Carnes makes such an obvious error in her second paragraph is a good indication of her fact-checking abilities.

The notions that "Jonbenet ... fell asleep in the car", that Jonbenet was "put to bed" at all, and that John and Patsy went to bed, are all disputed. None of these things has been definitively proven (in fact the Ramseys themselves first told police that John read a book to Jonbenet before bed). These claims should not be presented as undisputed material fact.

2. JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her
The device tied around Jonbenet's neck was a piece of cord attached to a fragment of a wooden paintbrush. The judge should have recognized that "garrote" is somewhat of a misnomer.

Jonbenet's hands were not "bound". The word "bound" suggests the restriction of movement. In fact, a cord was loosely tied over her shirt sleeves and there was fifteen inches of cord between the two loops. Such a cord would not effectively "bind" anybody, and there were no injuries to Jonbenet's wrists to suggest that her hands were ever bound together or restrained in any way.

3. Jon-Benet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown.
False. Serological testing revealed the presence of trace amounts of Jonbenet's blood on multiple objects from the crime scene - including her shirt, the blanket, the cord and the tape.

4. JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte [sic] attached to her body. ... The slipknots and the garrote are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. ... Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords.
This is completely untrue. As James Kolar pointed out in his book Foreign Faction: “Investigators would also enlist the aid of a knot expert, John Van Tassel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He would eventually determine that the slip knots used in the wrist and neck ligatures were of standard fare. The end of the cord wrapped around the remains of the paintbrush were observed to be concentric loops and ended in a simple hitch that secured the knot in place. Again, there was nothing particularly fancy about the knots suggesting that a skilled perpetrator had been responsible for tying them."

Furthermore, as noted above, the wrist ligature would not have served any practical purpose whatsoever.

The idea that they were “bondage devices” is supported by only one source: Lou Smit. He produced no specific evidence to support this assessment, he simply noted “the appearance of bondage” and added “many perverts out there that are into the bondage scene”.

When asked specifically about the knots, Smit admitted he had not even identified what kind of knots they were. He was aware that the knot expert Van Tassel had examined the knots, but he claimed he “couldn’t recall” what his conclusions were:

Q: Now, with respect to the garotte, the so-called knot that was made by the garotte, have you been able to identify it yet?

Lou Smit: No.

Q: Do you know if anybody has been able to identify it?

Lou Smit: I believe that the knots were sent to a knot expert in Canada.

Q: Do you know if there were any conclusions?

Lou Smit: I don't recall what those conclusions are. There was some conclusions, I believe, but I don't recall what they are.

Isn’t it remarkable that Smit developed an entire theory based entirely on the “sophistication” of those knots (describing in great detail how “it was used to strangle her by degrees"), but admits he has not identified a single one of those knots, and has apparently made no effort to research the conclusions of the expert hired specifically to investigate those knots?

There was nothing in the posing of the body that suggested sexual "bondage". John Ramsey specifically said Jonbenet was "normally dressed" when he found her and her "clothes weren't askew". None of those knots were specialized bondage knots, or in any way associated with sexual bondage. In fact, the image of a cord around a person's wrists is an extremely common image of "kidnapping" in popular culture. Neither Lou Smit nor anyone else has provided any evidence for why those knots would connote “sexual bondage” any more than a simple visual indicator of a “kidnapping” of the sort referred to in the ransom note.

In spite of his failure to consult even a single expert opinion on this matter, and his complete lack of research or evidence, Smit’s theory of “strangling [the victim] by degrees” forms the basis of his entire theory of the motive, which he summarizes as a “vicious and brutal” sexual fantasy.

5. No evidence exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots.

The notion that two functioning adults who sailed recreationally were not able to tie a simple hitch knot is ludicrous. There were rolls of ribbon in Patsy's gift wrapping area. Christmas presents were tied with bows. The Ramseys have all been observed wearing lace-up shoes.

11. A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found.

False. On his Dr. Phil television interview in 2016, Burke Ramsey stated, “They showed me a picture of the baseball bat like on the side of the house or something. That was my baseball bat.” As Burke says this, they show the photograph Burke is talking about--it is the baseball bat on the north side of the house.

Carnes’ false statement comes directly from Lou Smit’s deposition. Anyone with access to Burke’s complete 1998 interviews would have been able to state that the bat was Burke’s , but nobody did. Thus, once again, Lou Smit’s inaccurate testimony found its way onto the record as “fact”.

12. A rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom of defendants' home, neither of which belonged to defendants.

This is also false, and again is directly lifted from Lou Smit’s testimony.

A rope was found in a bedroom used by John’s adult son John Andrew Ramsey (the Ramseys referred to the room as “John Andrew’s room” - only Lou Smit called it a “guest bedroom”). The rope was not found in a "paper sack" - it was in a backpack, but it was photographed on top of a police evidence bag which was made of brown paper. In 1998, John Ramsey specifically identified a perfectly reasonable source for this rope. In fact, he even volunteered the idea of it being in a “backpack”, without even being told about that detail:

LOU SMIT: John Andrew's bedroom, did you ever recall any rope or cord being in his room?

JOHN RAMSEY: Gee, it's possible, John Andrew loved the outdoors, he was there, I stayed in that room. I know he had seems like he had his backpack there for a while. So it wouldn't be -- I don't remember seeing any, but it wouldn't be … it wouldn't have been out of the question.

In the photograph shown to the Ramseys, the rope had been placed on a brown paper evidence bag. Numerous sources attest to this fact: Tom Haney said “the paper bag is a police bag”. Bryan Morgan said “the paper bag is just an evidence [bag]”. Lou Smit himself said “that's the bag it was put in for evidence”.

In his testimony in the Wolf case, however, Lou Smit has changed his tune. He now says: “It said it was in a sack”. He does not state explicitly who exactly “said it was in a sack”. Smit himself was never able to produce a photograph of his rumored “sack”, nor could he ever attest to having seen the “sack” himself. There is no “sack” visible in any photos or videos of John Andrew’s room, and no “sack” was ever taken as evidence.

Michael Kane, the prosecutor who prepared information for the Grand Jury, clarified that “it was a rucksack is what it was, with a rope in it”. Rucksack - backpack. Semantics.

The only kind of “brown paper sack” ever associated with that rope was the police evidence bag it was placed in by Boulder police.

13.Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom.

John Ramsey’s 1998 explanation--that John Andrew loved the outdoors and kept his backpack in that room--is a perfectly plausible explanation, yet Carnes was apparently not made aware of this.

Many people have ropes in their houses. I have a rope in my house. I do not consider that to be evidence that an intruder broke into my house. If I wanted to mislead investigators, it would not be difficult for me to deny that I had seen the rope before.

14. Small pieces of the brown sack material were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body.
As stated above, Brown paper sacks were used by the Boulder Police to bag evidence - providing a clear source for any pieces of “brown paper sack material” found in the bed. Brown paper bags were also placed around Jonbenet’s hands and feet during the transportation of the body. These brown paper bags are explicitly listed in the evidence lists and in the autopsy report itself, providing a clear source for any “brown [paper] sack material” found in the body bag.

Note that Carnes’ sole source for this claim, Lou Smit, specifically said “brown paper sack material”. Carnes chooses to leave out the word “paper” for some reason, and fails to mention the police’s use of brown paper bags.

Furthermore, the notion that any fibers were ever compared with the mythic “sack” is obviously false. No sack was ever taken into evidence. Its existence was merely posited by Lou Smit as a theoretical possibility. The notion that some fibers may have been consistent with the mythic “sack” is also nothing more than an idea proposed by Lou Smit.

Again this so-called “material fact” is nothing more than a rumor which originated in the fertile imagination of Lou Smit. I would have no problem with Carnes listing these things as “theories” or “ideas”, but to call them undisputed facts is misleading and irresponsible. Carnes herself makes reference to “hard evidence, as opposed to theories” - but she does not practice what she preaches.

17. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey ... Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under Jon-Benet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey … In addition, male DNA was found in JonBenet's underwear that does not match that of any Ramsey and has not yet been sourced … The Boulder Police Department has yet to identify the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene.
Carnes falsely creates the impression that the DNA found under the fingernails and the underwear were all full profiles traced to the same man ( “the male whose DNA was found at the crime scene”). This is a serious inaccuracy.

The unidentified DNA found at the scene comprised “six separate and independent DNA samples that belonged to unknown individuals, comprising a group that consisted of five males and one female” (Kolar, Foreign Faction). Even the Ramseys’ defense team do not claim that six intruders got into the Ramsey home that night. They accept that five of those unidentified profiles were simply trace quantities of “background DNA”, totally unrelated to the crime.

These were extremely small, trace quantities of DNA. The DNA found under the fingernails and the underwear were mixed samples comprised almost entirely of Jonbenet’s own DNA.

According to CBI documents from January 15, 1997, analysts identified only one genetic marker from the unidentified component of the underwear sample. From the fingernails, they identified a total of three markers. One marker is the weakest possible result you can get for a DNA profile, other than zero. Three is not much better. Statistically, a significant proportion of the Earth’s population could not be ruled out as contributing to those DNA mixtures.

We know that eventually, after restesting, analysts were able to deduce a 10-marker unidentified male profile from the underwear sample. This profile is today referred to as “unidentified male 1” and was later determined to be consistent with another low-quantity sample from the long johns.

According to Greg Laberge, the scientist responsible for extracting that 10-marker profile, the quantity of the original underwear sample was “half a nanogram”. For reference, remember that every time you touch an object, you leave behind up to 170 nanograms of your DNA. Half a nanogram is consistent with the amount of background DNA found on items of clothing even after laundering. Furthermore, as Carnes herself notes, the evidence in the Ramsey case was not properly handled and the potential for contamination of evidence was very high. Witnesses even observed unsterilized scissors being used to cut Jonbenet’s fingernails in the morgue.

There is no scientific reason to assume any of the trace amounts of unidentified DNA found at the crime scene were in any way related to the crime. Indeed, none of the scientific reports have ever stated that--the theory that “one of those DNA profiles must have come from an intruder” originates solely with the Ramseys’ defense team.

To quote Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, “Exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to even be connected to the crime is absurd in my opinion. You must look at any case in the totality of all the evidence, circumstances, statements, etc. in coming to conclusions.”

18. A Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary [sic - she means “axillary”]" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced.
James Kolar, who examined the entire casefile in 2005, notes that “mitochondrial DNA tests were run on this hair, and the FBI technicians determined that the hair shaft did not belong to an unidentified stranger. Patsy Ramsey could not be excluded as the source of the hair, and it was noted that it could have come from either her or someone else in her maternal lineage.” See my post for more background on this hair.

I will point out once again that Carnes’ “information” comes from Lou Smit. Smit retired from the case in 1998 and had no access to any test results after that time. Many of the things that were “unidentified” at the time of his resignation were later identified.

22. During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts….. All six experts agreed that Mr. Ramsey could be eliminated as the author of the Ransom Note [Carnes uses capital letters for some reason] … None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. … Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note.

Carnes’ statement about the six experts’ involvement in the case is false. In fact, it’s one of her most outrageous errors, because two of those six experts were in fact people hired by the Ramseys. The four experts consulted by the Boulder Police were Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford, and Richard Dusak. The other two, Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Rile, were hired by the Ramseys, and were introduced to the DA’s investigators at the suggestion of the Ramseys’ lawyers.

Does it seem fair to you say that the “District Attorney’s office consulted” these experts, without mentioning the key detail that those experts were hired by the suspects’ attorneys, and then brought into the DA’s office by those attorneys? Carnes falsely creates the impression that these were independent experts consulted by the DA’s office, while in fact, they were on the payroll of the Ramseys.

Carnes’ characterization of what the “six experts” concluded about the handwriting is also extremely misleading. Her statement that “none of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note” is false. Two of the experts have gone on the record expressing their strong opinion that Patsy wrote the note.

Chet Ubowski stated on numerous occasions his belief that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. At one meeting with police, Ubowski stated “I believe she wrote it”. Police officers Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo, Tom Wickman and John Eller were all present. According to Steve Thomas, “disguised letters and the bleeding of the ink prevented [Ubowski from making] a conclusive determination that could be stated in court”.

Leonard Speckin also identified Patsy’s writing habits and letter forms in the note. Here is a video of Leonard Speckin in which he strongly implies his belief that Patsy wrote the note. In spite of this, Speckin’s official finding was “lack of indications”.

The two other experts consulted by the BPD both returned the same officially-worded finding - “lack of indications”, meaning they could not positively identify her in court. Neither of them eliminated her as the author.

Carnes’ claim that “the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note” is completely false. The experts listed here were consulted separately - they did not confer together at any point and did not reach any kind of “consensus”. The word “consensus” comes direct from Lou Smit’s inaccurate testimony. The phrase “probably did not” was only ever used by one person - Howard Rile, one of the analysts hired by the Ramseys’ defense team. There is absolutely no indication that any of the experts consulted by police endorsed Rile’s conclusion. The portrayal of his statement as a “consensus” by all experts consulted on this matter is a blatant falsehood.

Carnes also conveniently ignores the circumstances in which that note was “discovered”. As Leonard Speckin put it, “there was only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would have handwriting characteristics so remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs”. The fact that the person who claimed to find that note also could not be eliminated as its writer is significant. The fact that the note itself claimed to be written by a “foreign” terrorist organization, which did not exist, is also significant. The fact that the note was also revealed to be written on that same person’s notepad, with that person’s pen, in that person’s house, is also significant. Patsy Ramsey is not a random woman pulled off the street who happened to have a few similar handwriting features to a note she had never seen before. It seems strange that Carnes decides to exclude all context and circumstances from her discussion of the handwriting.

It is also worth noting that not one of the “six experts” actually testified in the Carnes case--their conclusions were reported second-hand by the Ramseys’ lawyers and Lou Smit. In fact, Carnes’ statements about these “six experts” appear to be lifted directly from Smit’s testimony. Smit himself even admitted he had “no basis to know whether or not the methodology that was used [by the handwriting analysts] was correct or not correct”. Smit was also compelled to admit that even if handwriting analysts positively identified Patsy as the note-writer, it would not change his theory of the crime, because “I don't personally believe in handwriting”. Once again, it appears that Carnes has accepted Smit’s highly-questionable claims without making any attempt to verify them.

Two handwriting experts hired by Chris Wolf’s team were not permitted by Carnes to testify in this case. Both identified Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the note.

23. The police did not request to interview defendants separately on the day that JonBenet's body was found.

This is not accurate. Half an hour after Jonbenet's body was found, police officer Bill Mason overheard John Ramsey scheduling a private plane to leave the state that same day. Bill Mason told him he could not do that, specifically because police needed to interview the Ramseys formally. He also requested that the Ramseys go to a hotel that evening specifically so that they could be interviewed separately, and John Ramsey refused, famously saying, “Give us a day.”

The Ramseys were made well aware of the need to be interviewed separately (indeed, mere common sense would have informed them of the need for separate interviews) on day one. Yet it didn’t happen for months.

24. They did, however, question defendants jointly at various times on December 26, 27 and 28.

Police did not question the Ramseys at any point on December 28.

The Ramseys did answer a few basic questions asked by officers at the scene on the morning of December 26, when the crime was still considered a kidnapping. At 2:35 pm the Ramseys went to a friend's house and were not questioned again that day.

On December 27, police did not speak to John Ramsey until 9:30 pm, when they attempted to arrange formal interviews for the following day. Patsy did not speak to them at all. John spoke to them for a few minutes about the basement window, and informed them they would be leaving the state in two days and did not know when they would be back.

On December 29, as police were still desperately attempting to talk to them, the Ramseys flew out of state and questioning did not occur for four months.

The overall implication created by Carnes’ statement here (that the Ramseys were fully cooperative during the first three days of the investigation) is contradicted by all the police officers who worked on the case. Again, the source of this statement seems to be the Ramseys’ defense team, who have chosen to characterize brief conversations with the Ramseys as “police questioning”.

It is important to remember that 125 days elapsed before the first formal police questioning took place. 125 days elapsed before a single statement by John or Patsy Ramsey was recorded on tape (which means they were able to deny many of their previous statements which had been transcribed by police officers). During those 125 days the Ramseys left the state, appeared on CNN for an interview, and took a vacation in Spain. At one point during these 125 days, police flew to Atlanta specifically to speak to the Ramseys, and the Ramseys flew out of Atlanta the same day.

28. at least seven windows and one door were found "open" on the morning of December 26, 1997. [Carnes notes that “the term ‘open’ was not defined. It is, therefore, not clear if the entrances were ajar or unlocked.”]
The windows--I have tried to find out where these "seven open windows" were located, but nobody seems to know. In the 23 years since this crime, intruder theorists have only ever suggested one window (the basement window in the train room) as a viable entry point for the intruder. I know one other small window was open on a different side of the basement so that Patsy could plug in her Christmas lights - but this was a small window with bars over it and a person could not possibly have entered through it. Whatever these five other windows were, nobody has ever suggested any of them as a practical entry point for an intruder. This fact is also evident in the crime scene photos and videos. So I'm not sure why Carnes is treating them as relevant.

The notion of "one door" being found "open" comes from Lou Smit's inaccurate testimony. Smit falsely claims that family friend John Fernie found the door open. Smit says Fernie “arrived there shortly after 6:00. When he arrived there, he told his wife that the door to the butler -- the butler door was open."

In fact, according to sworn testimony by John Fernie himself, which he gave in a different case: "I drove my car into the--up the alley and parked in the back of the house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house [...] The door was locked."

A photograph does exist in the police files of the “butler door” and it is open, but Lou Smit is the only one who said this means the door was “found open”. (And remember, Smit wasn’t involved until three months later). It would be physically impossible for that photograph to have been taken before several police officers and family friends had already been moving through the house, so it’s dishonest to present it as evidence that a door was open when cops first arrived. None of the reports from anyone who was there that morning mention a door being open when they arrived and even John Ramsey specifically told police “all the doors were locked”.

This is yet another “statement of material fact” that is seriously contested, and based on nothing more than a Lou Smit theory (which he, in turn, seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of John Fernie’s statements). Smit’s theory was not even introduced into the investigation until at least three months after the day the body was found.

It’s also worth mentioning that Lou Smit’s theory is based on someone “gaining entry” through the basement window, though basic common sense tells us the suitcase could only have been placed under the window by somebody already inside the home. Lou Smit occasionally suggested that the intruder also used the basement window to exit the home, referring for example to a “tiny pea sized piece of glass [on the suitcase] which could have come off the shoe of the intruder” and saying the suitcase “would make it much easier to get out of that basement”. So it’s unclear what role, if any, the butler door actually plays in Smit’s theory. It seems that Smit can’t make up his mind on which mode of exit was used by his intruder--the door or the window--so he asserts both at different times.

29. The leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well.

Another of Lou Smit's unproven theories - again, it is disputed by the police and numerous independent investigators, and should not be presented as an uncontested fact.

Carnes neglects to mention the physical evidence contradicting Smit’s theory. Notably, the first police officers on the scene “examined the steel grate that covered the window well and found undisturbed cobwebs still attached from the grate to the bricks. The foliage around the grate also appeared undisturbed” (Thomas, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation). Both Sergeant Tom Wickman and Detective Mike Everrett saw “at least three strands” of this spiderweb. There were also cobwebs in the corner of the window frame, as well as an undisturbed “rectangular piece of glass” resting near the middle of the exterior window sill, and “a collection of pine needles and leaves on the top of the grate” (Kolar, Foreign Faction). To enter that window without disturbing any of these things would be impossible.

Carnes also neglects to mention Smit's long history of trying to find “intruder evidence” in this area. Initially he identified a "footprint", which Boulder police demonstrated to be a blemish on the concrete. Just two years before the Ramsey case, Smit had solved the kidnapping and murder of a young girl by identifying a fingerprint on a window-screen. It is obvious that he was trying, unsuccessfully, to use the same methodology in the Ramsey case.

Even if we put aside the argument about the cobwebs, Smit himself admits he cannot prove that any disturbance was recent. John Ramsey himself admitted breaking that window and climbing through it during the summer. Lou Smit acknowledges that even if the debris was “disturbed”, he could not prove “that a person went through that window that night”.

30. Leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window.

The crime scene video and photos do not depict any leaves and debris on the floor under the window. Again this comes from a Lou Smit quote (“there are leaves and debris on the floor") which apparently nobody attempted to fact-check. Lou Smit was not present at the original crime scene and had no involvement in the case during the first three months.

31. Likewise, a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered.

This originates from another statement by Lou Smit: "A lab report indicates a piece of popcorn-type material was found in the wine cellar. [...] There are not hundreds of pieces of popcorn in there. But what appears to me that could be the popcorn, and I don't know this for a fact, only by going by the lab report, but right in this area there is what appears to be perhaps a Styrofoam popcorn peanut."

Based on Smit’s highly uncertain language here, do you think it sounds like this is a statement of material fact? The fact that he says “I don’t know this for a fact” is a pretty big clue that he is putting forward a theory. Carnes, who claims to know the difference between “hard evidence, as opposed to theories”, goes right ahead and changes Smit’s statement into the much-more-definitive-sounding “packing peanuts … found in the wine cellar”.

32. The end portion of the paintbrush and the cord used to construct the garrote were never found in the house, or elsewhere, nor was the latter sourced to defendants … the sources for the duct tape and cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home.
We know that the home was searched and we have search warrant inventories that list every single item taken from that home. We cannot state as a fact that police literally searched through every single inch of that home. The crime scene videos attest to the clutter in that home. The “end portion of the paintbrush” was not considered an important detail during the first days of the investigation--police were simply not searching for it--thus it could easily have been missed. Also, the Ramseys themselves were not physically searched before leaving the home - we therefore have no idea what may or may not have been in their pockets, handbags, etc. We also know for a fact that Patsy’s sister Pam removed several suitcases and boxes full of items from the crime scene on December 28. John Ramsey was later overheard asking if she had picked up his golf bag.

Carnes’ implication here is that police determined definitively that the items were not in the home, and could not have originated in the home. That is false. The notion that every single item in a person’s home is traceable to some other item in their home is an obvious fallacy.

33. Some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina.

“Wood fragments” is a misleading term. Analysis of a slide of vaginal tissue under a microscope revealed that “a small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material”. This “birefringent foreign material” was later determined to be “cellulose”, which could be wood. The material was not definitively confirmed to be from the paintbrush, though James Kolar has noted that it was “consistent” with the paintbrush.

34. Given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male--as well as no DNA from any Ramsey--the defendants argue that the inference of an intruder becomes almost insurmountable.

There was no DNA recovered from Jonbenet’s body. The lack of family members’ DNA on her clothing tells us nothing of material value, since we know for a fact John Ramsey carried and held Jonbenet’s body after finding it, and Patsy threw herself over it. Both parents claimed to have been in close personal contact with Jonbenet before her death as well.

35. Although plaintiff disputes that a stun gun was used in the murder, he has failed to produce any evidence to suggest what caused the burn like marks on Jon-Benet. [...] the autopsy report clearly shows reddish, burn-type marks on Jon-Benet's neck and back.

This is a great example of how the “material facts” were skewed in this case. The plaintiff (Chris Wolf) had to suggest some other cause for the “burn like marks” (which were actually abrasions), otherwise it would be accepted as fact that it was a stun gun.

Wolf should simply have been able to point to the autopsy report which clearly states the marks are “abrasions” - and that “burn like marks” was an inaccurate and misleading term. The burden of proof should never have been on Chris Wolf to prove that they were not burn marks, especially since the autopsy specifically called them abrasions.

There are, by the way, hundreds of potential explanations for how abrasions could have been ended up on Jonbenet’s body. Pieces of “broken glass” and broken Christmas ornaments were found on the wine cellar floor (and unlike Smit’s evidence, are actually listed on the search warrants). Any of these could have caused an abrasion when the body was dragged or put down on the floor. It also could have been an impact abrasion incurred when she was attacked. James Kolar has even suggested train tracks could have created them. The assumption that those marks have some special significance to this crime is a theory that did not exist until Lou Smit got involved.

36. Detective Smit … has also testified that he has been unable to find any motive for defendants to murder their daughter.

There are thousands of possible motives that may cause a parent to murder their child. Smit has proposed no particular reason why none those motives could apply to the Ramseys, other than a subjective judgment about what “type of people” the Ramseys were (“a loving, caring, religious family that is very close”).

As any sensible investigator knows, the absence of a documented criminal history does not prove that a person could not have committed a crime, and definitely should not stand in the way of the physical evidence. Furthermore, child sexual abuse is vastly underreported. It is an invisible crime. A hidden crime. The exposure of multiple child sexual abuse scandals in recent years, some dating back more than 50 years, is a good example of how abuse slips under the radar.

Dr Suzanne Bernhard from the Boulder Department of Social Services, who interviewed Burke Ramsey shortly after the crime, observed clear indicators of a “dysfunctional environment” in his responses (though she did not think Burke was the killer). According to this expert's opinion, there was something hidden behind the Ramseys’ squeaky-clean public face.

The revelation that Burke Ramsey was diagnosed at age 12 with Attention Deficit Disorder is further indication that the Ramseys were prepared to lie and cover up any aspect of their family that was not “normal and perfect”. There is no indication that Carnes, Smit, or even the Boulder Police, were made aware of Burke’s behavioral disorder at any point in the investigation.

37. Defendants were prominent in the community and had thrown several large events at their home, thereby providing a large number of people the opportunity to learn the house's floor plan.

The general public was never invited into the basement of the Ramseys’ home, which was cluttered with literal heaps of broken and disused garbage strewn about on the floor. A very small number of people would have sufficient opportunity to “learn the floorplan” of that particular level of the house - which is where a large part of this crime occurred.

Housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh said herself she did not even know the wine cellar existed, and she had spent more time than anybody other than the family themselves on all the floors of that house. It was an extremely cluttered, large, complex house, and the notion that “a large number of people” had an opportunity to “learn the house’s floor plan” is absurd.

38. News articles were published that detailed the company's financial success and mentioned Mr. Ramsey in great detail.

He was not mentioned in "great detail". His daughter was not mentioned. His address was not mentioned. The crucial details from the note - John’s time living in the south, and the amount of his Christmas bonus - were not mentioned in any of these articles.

Post's Taken

Her family absolutely had something to do with it.
You'll never convince me otherwise.
Best guess is the brother hit her over the head, killing her, and the parents freaked out and concocted this BS kidnapping/ ransom story to deflect.

I think we know what happened.

But unless her brother chooses to confess, there will never be a conviction.

Brother did it case closed