I can’t believe I am going to recap this Dr. Phil episode that I literally forgot was on today, but he is bringing up some facts that I had forgotten. And it is more evidence against Burke. And I’m sorry but Dr. Phil wins with an in-depth TV interview with Burke over that shit show on CBS last night.
The Boot Print
They found a footprint in some mold (YUCK! Why didn’t they fix the mold problem?) of a Hi-Tech hiking boot that apparently belonged to Burke. Burke testified for five hours to the grand jury. Five hours. And in that time he admitted that he owned Hi-Tech boots. However, Lin Wood continued to state that no one in the Ramsey family had Hi-Tech boots.
When Patsy was interviewed in Atlanta in 2000 about the boots she denied that she bought them for him when they were visiting Atlanta. They attorney for the state, Mr. Levin asked her multiple times and even told her where and when they were purchased and that Burke and one other person has verified this. Lin Wood objected continuously until Mr. Levin finally had to explain it happened during the grand jury testimony in a round a about way. Wood figured he would not be able to use that information in an interview because it came from the grand jury. On Dr. Phil, Lin Wood still emphatically stated that no one in the Ramsey family had those boots. Meanwhile, Burke told Dr. Phil he did have the boots with the compasses on the shoelaces. He said he doesn’t remember the brand. In the interview with Patsy in Atlanta, Levin points out that Burke was sort of obsessed with the compasses and would point them in several directions. This would be something parents would remember about their kid and his interest in the compasses on his shoes.
Burke told Dr. Phil that he walked all over the basement, “So, if they determined that to be my footprint, that doesn’t really prove anything.”
Burke says that there have been people said that a nine year old could not use enough force to kill another child. Burke is very shifty eyed when answering where or not he hurt or killed his sister.
The Stun Gun Theory
They show footage of the stun gun theory that supposedly supports the fact that Jon Benet was tasered by comparing it to a practice tasing on a dead pig. They say “there are some differences but….”
I’m not really sure if this is the video where Kolar talks about the train track theory. But most of the stuff discussed here starts at the 25 minute mark where I have set this video to start. Kolar disagrees with Lou on just about everything.
There was mention of another person in the neighborhood who had a daughter “AMY” who was “attacked in her home by a ninja.” I think the show said she was six and lived a few blocks away. Here is the real info on that.
The “Amy” Attacker Theory
- Another possibility is the intruder who, just 9 months after JBR’s murder, surreptitiously entered a house while mother and daughter (known as “Amy”) were present and sexually assaulted a 14 year girl who attended the Dance West, the same dance studio attended by JBR; this raises the possibility that the same individual stalked JBR after noticing her at the studio.
Incriminating Evidence Against the “Amy” Attacker
- * 14-Year Old Dancer. “Nine months after the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, a girl who attended the same dance studio as the young beauty queen and lived just two miles away was assaulted in her bed by an intruder while her mother slept nearby.” Possible similarities to the JBR killing include:
- Attended Same Dance Studio. Girl performed at same dance studio as JBR took lessons: Dance West. Thus perp may have seen both girls at the same location.
- Public Performances. Like JBR, Amy had performed in several public functions in Boulder in the year before her death, giving the perp another potential opportunity or motive for targeting her.
- Close Proximity in Space and Time to JBR Killing. Amy lived 2 miles from Ramseys and the assault occurred on Sept. 14, 1997, only 9 months after JBR died.
- Ease of Entry May Denote Prior Experience. “He was like a ghost,” recalls Amy’s father. “We couldn’t figure out where he came from, or where he went.” “By the time the Boulder police arrived, the man was long gone. Because the intruder had gotten in and out of the house so easily, Amy’s father began to think this wasn’t the first time he had done something like this.”
- Family Away When Perp Entered House. The family was out of the house from late afternoon on the eve of the crime, until after dark. “That night, Amy’s father was out of town. After catching a movie, Amy and her mother returned home late. What they didn’t know when they entered the house was that there was already an intruder inside” (CBS News).
- Perp Waited 4-6 Hours Before Entering Bedroom. The intruder may have waited at least four hours before entering Amy’s second-floor bedroom. “Amy’s father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: “My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding” (CBS News).
- Sexual Assault Occurred at Night While Parent Sleeping. The perp found Amy in bed and assaulted her in the house while mother was sleeping. “Before going to bed, Amy’s mother turned on the burglar alarm. Around midnight, Amy woke up to find a man standing over her bed, his hand over her mouth. “She remembered the intruder addressing her by her name,” says Peterson. “He said, ‘I know who you are.’ He repeated those things a few times, apparently. ‘I’ll knock you out. Shut up.'” (CBS News).
****Exculpatory Evidence Favoring the “Amy” Attacker****
- Age Discrepancy. Pedophiles typically focus on victims of similar age. Normally, a pedophile whose interest was in 6 year olds would not be particularly interested in 14-year-olds.
- No “Personal” RN Left in Amy Attack. This theory does not explain the ransom note containing “personal” language directed at John Ramsey; no similar ransom note was found in the “Amy” case, although it is not clear how things would have turned out had the mother not interrupted the attack. “Peterson says Amy’s mother heard whispering, and proceeded through the doorway, and saw a person, who just brushed her aside and quickly made his escape by jumping out a second-floor window” (CBS News).
The whole Amy thing sounds made up to me. Aside from the fact she is too old, there were a lot of people coming forward that seemed like they were encouraged to make the intruder theory seem possible. Money can do that. The defense was always “They never investigated the Intruder theory!” But they did. This is just my opinion.
I am not sure on what planet that a fragment of some DNA from any number of possible sources means that the Ramseys are excluded from the list of killers. It has nothing to do with whether or not the whoever the DNA belongs to being the killer. There could be any number of reasons that bits of touch DNA were present on her underwear and leggings. It just excludes them from being related to the DNA!
They talk about how the DA refused to prosecute after the grand jury indicted the parents. Lin Wood is still arguing that random DNA found in tiny amounts at the crime scene exonerated the family. Lin Wood calls it an undisputable fact that the Ramseys are excluded. Plenty of people continue to dispute that to this day. And most of the people who dispute it feel that there has always been a huge coverup to protect the Ramseys from any prosecution.
This is why, “There are two outstanding issues. First, is the DNA even related to the death of JBR or did it instead come from contamination by some innocent outside source? Second, even if the DNA is related to the perp, is its nature and quality such that a future perp could be convicted based on this evidence?
And then this happened… On September 1 of this year.
A Denver prosecutor got Richard Eikelenboom to admit he “had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency tests in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was ‘self-trained’ in running DNA profiles,” the Denver District Attorney’s Office said in a statement Thursday.
The DA’s office said the man had been debunked.
“Testimony in Denver District Court earlier this week revealed that Eikelenboom has committed fundamental DNA analysis errors by not following accepted scientific standards in the DNA field,” the DA’s office said.
Eikelenboom was rejected as a DNA expert by a Denver District Court court judge after the testimony.
Eikelenboom’s purported areas of expertise are DNA and bloodstain pattern analysis and trace recovery. He works with his wife, Selma, at Independent Forensic Services, a private laboratory in the Netherlands.
Eikelenboom was the guy who was suddenly able to analyze the fragments of DNA,
This is not a DNA case. There is no DNA that can clear anyone. Anytime a murder trial involves a “forensic specialist” that testifies often in trial that garner a lot of media attention, they should be treated with the same skepticism as all the other bottom feeders that crawl out of the woodwork.
In my opinion, allegedly, both the police and attorney’s for the Ramseys leaked false stories to the media to benefit their side of the investigation.
John Ramsey says that the reason the date on the tombstone was December 25th and not the 26th is because the killer who wrote the note said, “I’ll call you tomorrow.” I guess that makes sense. Sort of. It’s horrible that people desecrated JonBenet’s grave.
John Ramsey believes that JonBenet was murdered to punish him. He feels that an article on the success of his company five days before the murder triggered the attack on JonBenet.
I’ll leave this with the WTF quote by JonBenet’s father.
“The real story here is not that a child was murdered the real story here is what was done to us by an injust system.” ~ John Ramsey
SOURCE: Most of the facts I’ve inserted in this post originate from this site which for years collected all of the evidence and credible discussion in one place. Many links are broken, but the site includes arguments both in support of and detractors from all of the major theories and facts of the case.
In addition, I did not watch the second part of the CBS “investigation” because I found it theatrical and woefully incomplete in scope.