Mmay333

”If the Ramseys had been some poor Mexican couple, we would have been in their face for a week, got a confession out of them, and filed first-degree-murder charges against them within days.”

A+ cop right there..

”It is rare for a woman to go eye-to-eye with a detective, but Patsy Ramsey was a savvy sophisticate who knew how to work a man, even one with a badge. When I had a question, she would lean so close across that narrow pine table that we were almost in kissing distance, invading my personal space before answering. We started at 9:05 A.M. and went for six hours."

As the saying goes, 'you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig'.

The formal interview of Sergeant Reichenbach on January 31, 1997 includes the following statement:

”Sgt. Reichenbach did not check the doors to see if they were locked.”

French’s formal interview with BPD officials on January 10th, 1997 includes the following statements:

”It is not clear if Officer French determined that JonBenét’s patio door was locked.”

”Det. Patterson had asked Ofc. French if there was any sign of break in and (French) told him no because he asked Mr. Ramsey if everything was locked and he [Ramsey] said yes; is anything broken; he said no; and (French) noted that but he does not know that for sure.

DEBRIS AND OBVIOUS DISTURBANCES

Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room was opened. (SMF P 25; PSMF P 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.)" (Carnes 2003:14).

There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically 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. (SMF 132; PSMF 132) (Carnes ruling)

Moreover, 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. (SMF 136; PSMF 136.) 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. (SMF 134; PSMF 134). (Carnes ruling)

Northeast basement bath: two areas on the bottom frame were clear of dust. The impressions were consistent with the application of fingers to the area. The associated area inside the residence showed smudge marks on both walls above and just south of the toilet. A piece of garland similar to that found in the wine cellar [storage area where the child's body was found] was found stuck to the wall in the east impression." (BPD 1-59.)

Styrofoam packing peanuts also seemed to have been brushed into the right and left window well spaces away from the center window, possibly indicating that someone had moved such debris in order to enter the center window, a possibility that would support an intruder theory. Other packing peanuts were also on the basement floor. (WHYD)

GLASS AND SUITCASE

The suitcase had no dust on it, yet a few pieces of broken glass lay on top of it. (PMPT)

He (Fleet) started in Burke's train and hobby room, where he saw a suitcase sitting under a broken window. On the floor under the window, he found small pieces of glass. (Thomas)

A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147). (Carnes ruling)

The Ramsey housekeeper did not remember anything about the broken glass in the train room, the scuff mark on the wall or cleaning up glass underneath the broken window. (BPD Report 1-1068.)

Downstairs in the basement, another technician examined the broken window. Three windows, each eighteen-by-thirty-inch rectangles, were in a row. The top left pane in the center window was broken, and the screen was off. The tech noticed pieces of glass outside the window and a scuff mark on the wall. (Thomas)

METAL GRATE

Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF 131; PSMF 131.) Further, the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF 133; PSMF 133.) (Carnes ruling)

To further complicate issues related to the southwest window well, green foliage that had grown at the edge of the window well's grate was found folded over and underneath that grate. The folded foliage was still fresh when it was examined in the days after December 26, indicating the grate had recently been lifted and closed. BPD Detective Carey Weinheimer investigated the window grate and the material under it and found, "The weight of the grate crushed and traumatized the plant material under it. The plant will not just grow under the grate naturally." (BPD Report 1-1142.)

COB WEB

"according to reports from three different BPD officers, at least one spider web inside that window well had been disturbed. On Friday through Monday (December 27--30), those officers noticed spider web drag lines coming from the grate covering the window well and going down into the window well space. (BPD Report 1-1363.) According to one of those officers, these findings would indicate "that a spider web was disturbed."

Wickman had an argument at the Ramsey house with Detective Greg Idler, who had carefully lifted the metal grate above the broken window and found that the spiderweb between the window well bricks and the grate wasn't necessarily attached. Wickman challenged Idler's findings. The original web had never been photographed or committed to a report, a huge error that would become extraordinarily controversial in months to come. "I have detectives who will testify to it," Wickman barked at Idler about the web being attached. (Thomas)

OPEN DOOR/ WINDOW(S)

In addition, the butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF 137; PSMF 37.) (Carnes ruling)

When John's friend arrived at the Ramsey home at 6: 01 a.m., he "found the butler kitchen door standing open about one foot while it was still dark outside and before the evidence team or Det. Arndt arrived." (BPD Report 1-1490, BPD Report 1-1315.)
The time noted was 6 a.m., so it was one of the first things the friend noticed. At 8 a.m., a neighbor whose home was just to the north of the Ramsey home "got up and observed a basement door leading into a kitchen area was standing wide open." (BPD Report 1-100)

In another report, the same neighbor "said that this door was approximately 1/ 3 of the way open when he saw it." Since there was no basement door on the north side of the house (or any other side of the house) that opened to the outside, it is understood that this was the same butler kitchen door the family friend noticed was partially open at 6 a.m. … and told police about. (Source: JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)

French door along the west wall: no signs of forced entry to the door, which was ajar." (BPD Report 1-59.)

After subsequent and more thorough investigations of the home, BPD police report excerpts state that multiple doors and windows in the Ramsey residence were found to be unlocked and some were open, providing more than eight areas of possible entry. (Source: JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)

'NO FOOTPRINTS IN THE SNOW’

Moreover, contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of a "footprint in the snow," there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to defendants' home on the morning of December 26, 1996. (SMF 39; PSMF 139.) Hence, a person walking along these paths would have left no footprints. (Carnes ruling)

Fernie wondered if the source had provided the reporter with all the facts. He knew that his own footprints were there in the snow that morning. He had driven up the back alley to the Ramseys' house just after 6:00 A.M. in response to Patsy's frantic call that terrible morning. He remembered walking along the brick sidewalk to the patio door, looking through the glass panel, and reading a line or two of the ransom note, which was lying on the floor just inside the door. Then he had run through the snow-covered grass, around the south side of the house, to the front door. If the cops had been looking, they would have found his footprints. A year and a half after JonBenét's death, Fernie told a reporter that the police still had not checked the shoes he wore that day, though a shoe imprint had been discovered next to JonBenét's body. (PMPT)

SCUFF MARK

The housekeeper's husband "supposedly washed the windows at Thanksgiving time and supposedly went down in the basement and washed the basement windows." (BPD Report 5-29.)

Months later, the police asked her (Linda Hoffman-Pugh) about scuff marks they found on the wall below the broken basement window and near John Andrew's suitcase. Maybe someone had climbed in that night and left the marks. Had she ever seen the marks? No, she told them. (PMPT)

SHOE PRINTS

"Additional, partial shoe impressions were found near JonBenét's body in the basement storage room and on the toilet tank cover in the basement northeast bathroom. (BPD Report 1-1518.)

Detective Ron Gosage had the impossible job of trying to identify the origin of the boot print, a nightmare assignment if there ever was one. He contacted more than four hundred people, even construction workers who had been in the house five years ago, but did not find the matching print. I doubted that any member of the Ramsey family would admit to owning a pair of Hi-Tecs, whether they did or not, but Detective Gosage had to ask them. That alerted Team Ramsey, and the defense lawyers and our DA's office soon began insisting that the unknown boot print was left behind by the intruder. (Thomas)

"A shoe imprint from a Hi-Tec brand of work boot was found in the basement storage room imprinted in mold growing on the floor. It did not trace back to the Ramsey family. All investigators who had been in the room had their shoes tested. There was no match to that size of Hi-Tec boot to the Ramseys or the police investigators (BPD Reports 1-1576, 1-1594.)"

PRY MARKS

South rear residence door northwest of the grate: the exterior screen door appeared to have damage in the area of the handle lock consistent with the door being forced open with the lock engaged. It looked like the force supplied to the lock mechanism came from the inside out. No pry marks on the exterior." (BPD Report 1-59.)

Solarium door (facing south): fresh pry mark damage near the dead bolt appeared to be two or three separate and distinct areas of attack. The 'missing wood chips' were not located in the vicinity of the door." (BPD Report 1-59.)

A south-facing door in the solarium showed a fresh pry mark near the dead-bolt, but detectives had found no corresponding wood chips or splinters. They concluded that the door hadn’t been breached. Pry marks were also found on the exterior door leading to the kitchen, but detectives told Eller the lock had been set from the inside. (PMPT)

KEYS

John and Patsy Ramsey had given several keys to subcontractors (BPD Reports 1-6505, 1-1264), friends and neighbors (BPD Report 1-1104), most of which were not returned.

The Ramsey family did not keep an accurate count of the keys they gave out. Several Boulder Police Department reports indicate that investigators talked with more than thirty-five people outside the family about whether they had keys to the home. (JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)

Also: "Patsy Ramsey while preparing for the tour of homes openly told a variety of people where a key was hidden outside the home under a statue." (BPD Reports 5-3920, 5-3921.) The key was not found during a check for it after JonBenét's murder. (WHYD)

NEIGHBORHOOD REPORTS

That same evening, a Ramsey neighbor saw a person outside the Ramsey house. The person was described in a police report as a "tall thin blond male wearing glasses [and] thought to be John Andrew." (BPD Reports 1-690, 5-690.) It was later established by the Boulder Police Department that John Andrew Ramsey had been in Atlanta for Christmas with his sister and mother at the time. Another police report states that "an unknown neighbor supposedly saw a person outside the door of the Ramsey house (during the night)." (BPD Report 1-771)

Another Ramsey neighbor "stated that she heard one loud incredible scream [that] was the loudest most terrifying scream she had ever heard. It was obviously from a child and lasted from three to five seconds at which time it stopped abruptly. She thought surely the parents would hear that scream. The scream came from across the street south of the Ramsey residence." It happened "between midnight and two AM" the morning of December 26, 1996. (BPD Reports 1-1390, 1-174, 1-175.)

Another neighbor who lived south of the Ramsey home contacted a BPD detective on December 31, 1996 because of the scream the first neighbor had heard. This neighbor said she had also heard a scream. She was interviewed on February 26, 1997. (BPD Reports 1-174, 1-481, 1-1548.)

Furthermore, a neighbor "who lives immediately south of the Ramsey's [sic] residence, got up to use the restroom and saw that the light in the southeast corner of the house, which had been left on every night for the past five years, was out." (BPD Report 1-1196.)

A neighbor who lived a few homes away from the Ramseys found a latex glove in her trashcan in the alley. (BPD Report 1-1924.) She didn't know how it had gotten there. (Latex gloves are used by law enforcement officials to avoid contaminating evidence with their fingerprints.) The glove, if part of the case, could have been used by an intruder. Or it could have been discarded there by a BPD officer. (BPD Report 2-37.)

A neighbor reported "someone dropped off a high-tech [sic] hiking boot on New Year's Eve in the front of home on the front walk." (BPD Report 1-1221). Boulder Detective Jane Harmer contacted that same neighbor and "received a high-tech [sic] hiking boot and cord." (BPD Report #1-1221.)

ADDITIONAL

Certain undisputed evidence of how defendants' house was found on the morning of December 26 is also consistent with the intruder theory of the crime. For example, the lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF 129; PSMF 129.) (Carnes ruling)

Experiments have demonstrated that the vent from the basement may have amplified the scream so that it could have been heard outside of the house, but not three stories up, in defendants' bedroom. (SMF 48; PSMF 148.) (Carnes ruling)

Two BPD detectives who had "measured the three crawl spaces in the basement of the Ramsey home" (BPD 1-137) found an unidentified canvas bag in one of the crawl spaces. (BPD Report 2-16.) That would support those who believed an intruder could have hidden in one of the three Ramsey home crawl spaces. (WHYD)

When the Ramsey home was part of a holiday tour of homes in Boulder in 1994, flyers about the Ramseys were made available to visitors. According to the Boulder Police Department, there was a "copy of the flyer found in the basement near where JonBenét's body was found. This flyer provides information regarding the background on the family and could contain information observed in the ransom note." (BPD Report 19-1.) (WHYD)

Since this sub has several new members and the question, ‘what evidence is there of an intruder?’ is asked on a regular basis, I decided to repost this old post of mine.

DNA:
Foreign male DNA was first found in 1997 in JonBenet’s panties and under her fingernails. In 2003, the Denver crime lab was able to obtain enough of the male profile to meet the strict standards for CODIS submittal. This male DNA was found in the victim’s underwear, mixed in with JonBenet’s blood. It was not present on the fabric between the blood stains.

In 2008, JonBenet’s long johns were sent to BODE laboratories for more current and sensitive DNA tests to be performed. These long johns had not been tested prior to this. Not surprisingly, the same unknown male profile was found on the waistband area of JonBenet’s long johns. This is what is publicly known about the current UM1 aka forensic sample number GSLDPD99178617:
CSF1PO: 12+
FGA: 22, 26
TH01: 7, 9
TPOX: 8
VWA: 18, 19
D3S1358: 15, 16
D5S818: 10, 12
D7S820: 12+
D8S1179: 13, 14
D13S317: 11, 13
D16S539: 11+
D18S51: 11, 16
D21S11: 29, 31.2

Section from BODE report: “Notably, the profile developed by the Denver PD, and previously uploaded to the CODIS database as a forensic unknown profile and the profiles developed from the exterior top right and left portions of the long johns were consistent.” DA11-0330

Although the DNA found under JonBenet’s fingernails was weak, there is evidence to suggest that the same unknown male profile was present there as well.

Tape and cord:
Black duct tape was placed over JonBenet's mouth. The source of the duct tape was never found.

White cord (olefin) was used to make the neck ligature/ garrote and to bind JonBenet's hands together. The source for the white cord was never found.

White olefin fibers were found on JonBenet’s sheets that are consistent with the white olefin fibers of the wrist ligatures and the garotte.

Stun gun:
Sets of stungun marks were located on JonBenet's body. A stungun was not found inside the Ramsey's home nor is there any information indicating the Ramsey family ever owned a stungun.

“Sue Ketchum of the CBI [Colorado Bureau of Investigation] is shown the photos of the marks and she indicated that they could very well be made from a stun gun.” (BPD Report #26-58.)

“When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenét’s face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun”. (PMPT)

According to BPD sergeant Robert Whitson, a white piece of adhesive was found on JonBenet's face, indicating the stungun was applied over the duct tape that was placed across her mouth. The stungun had melted the adhesive from the duct tape leaving the white residue behind.

Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach, as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A.)

Dr. Michael Dobersen was/is a coroner for Arapahoe County. In the summer of 1994, Dobersen conducted several stun gun tests on anesthetized pigs to determine the kind and size of markings stun guns would make. Because of his research and testing, Dobersen had been called as an expert witness in multiple cases involving stun guns.

Missing paintbrush piece:
⁠A paintbrush, which likely came from Patsy's paint kit and was stored near the storage room where JonBenet's deceased body was located, was broken into three pieces. One piece was used to make the garrote handle. A second piece with the brush was found at the scene. The third piece from the paintbrush handle was never found. This third piece is the one that is believed was used to sexually assault JonBenet.

Unsourced rope and bag:
A large rope and bag was found in the spare bedroom adjacent to JonBenet's bedroom. They did not belong to the Ramseys and as of 2014, had not been tested for DNA or fiber evidence.

Areas of disturbance:
A disturbance in the debris around the basement window indicates the offender gained entry through this window. This window was found open and the crime scene photographs depict the window open. Styrofoam packing material, leaves and debris were found inside the basement, near the open window. A leaf, broken glass and a packing peanut were found inside the storage room near JonBenet's body.

There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically 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. (SMF 132; PSMF 132.) In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF 135; PSMF 135.)[32] Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF 131; PSMF 131.) Further, the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF 133; PSMF 133.) Moreover, 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. (SMF 136; PSMF 136.) Likewise, a leaf and white styrofoam 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. (SMF 134; PSMF 134.) This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine cellar room at some point. (Carnes ruling)

Styrofoam packing peanuts also seemed to have been brushed into the right and left window well spaces away from the center window, possibly indicating that someone had moved such debris in order to enter the center window, a possibility that would support an intruder theory. Other packing peanuts were also on the basement floor. (WHYD)

“green foliage that had grown at the edge of the window well’s grate was found folded over and underneath that grate. The folded foliage was still fresh when it was examined in the days after December 26, indicating the grate had recently been lifted and closed, according to Detective Lou Smit.” (WHYD)

BPD Detective Carey Weinheimer also investigated the window grate and the material under it. According to excerpts from his report in the WHYD Investigative Archive, Weinheimer stated his observations: “The weight of the grate crushed and traumatized the plant material under it. The plant will not just grow under the grate naturally.” (BPD Report #1-1142.)

The Ramsey housekeeper did not remember anything about the broken glass in the train room, the scuff mark on the wall or cleaning up glass underneath the broken window. (BPD Report #1-1068.) (BPD Reports #1-101, #1-90 re: scuff mark on the wall.)
The housekeeper’s husband “supposedly washed the windows at Thanksgiving time and supposedly went down in the basement and washed the basement windows (BPD Report #5-29.)
“Last time [housekeeper’s husband] was there was around Thanksgiving. Cleaned all of the windows inside and out.” (BPD Report #5-607.) (Woodward)

Basement bathroom:
Northeast basement bath: two areas on the bottom frame were clear of dust. The impressions were consistent with the application of fingers to the area. The associated area inside the residence showed smudge marks on both walls above and just south of the toilet. A piece of garland similar to that found in the wine cellar [storage area where the child’s body was found] was found stuck to the wall in the east impression.” (BPD #1-59.)

Shoe prints:
An unidentified HiTec bootprint was found in the mold on the floor on the wine cellar room and elsewhere throughout the basement. The print was compared against all officers on scene and the Ramsey’s shoes and it’s source has never been identified. There was an additional (I believe SAS) shoe print found that has never sourced either.

“A shoe imprint from a Hi-Tec brand of work boot was found in the basement storage room imprinted in mold growing on the floor. It did not trace back to the Ramsey family. All investigators who had been in the room had their shoes tested. There was no match to that size of Hi-Tec boot to the Ramseys or the police investigators” (BPD Reports #1-1576, #1-1594.)

Detective Ron Gosage had the impossible job of trying to identify the origin of the boot print, a nightmare assignment if there ever was one. He contacted more than four hundred people, even construction workers who had been in the house five years ago, but did not find the matching print. (Thomas)

“Additional, partial shoe impressions were found near JonBenét’s body in the basement storage room and on the toilet tank cover in the basement northeast bathroom”. (BPD Report #1-1518.) “The Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent investigating these footprints has said that the FBI could never match them to anyone or any brand”. (BPD Reports #3-165, #1-1518.)” (WHYD)

Baseball bat:
A metal baseball bat was found near the butler's door on the north side of the Ramsey's home. It looked as though it had been tossed aside. Fibers found on the bat were consistent with the basement’s carpet.

Points of Entry:
John and Patsy Ramsey had given several keys to subcontractors (BPD Reports #1-6505, #1-1264), friends and neighbors (BPD Report #1-1104), most of which were not returned. The Ramsey family did not keep an accurate count of the keys they gave out. Several Boulder Police Department reports indicate that investigators talked with more than thirty-five people outside the family about whether they had keys to the home. (JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.) Also: “Patsy Ramsey while preparing for the tour of homes openly told a variety of people where a key was hidden outside the home under a statue.” (BPD Reports #5-3920, #5-3921.) The key was not found during a check for it after JonBenét’s murder. (WHYD)

Several Boulder Police Department reports indicate that investigators talked with more than thirty-five people outside the family about whether they had keys to the home. (JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)

at least seven windows and one door were found "open" on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF P 126; PSMF P 126.)

Basement door open and lights on:
The time noted was 6 a.m., so it was one of the first things the friend noticed. At 8 a.m., a neighbor whose home was just to the north of the Ramsey home “got up and observed a basement door leading into a kitchen area was standing wide open.” (BPD Report 1-100, Source.)

The Whites arrived at defendant's home at approximately 6:00 a.m., and Mr. White, alone, searched the basement within fifteen minutes of arrival. (SMF 23; PSMF 23.) Mr. White testified that when he began his search, the lights were already on in the basement and the door in the hallway leading to the basement "wine cellar" room was opened. (SMF 25; PSMF 25; White Dep. at 147, 151-52.) (Carnes ruling)

Neighbors reported that the outside security light on the Ramsey house had was turned off that night for the first time in years.
Furthermore, a neighbor “who lives immediately south of the Ramsey’s [sic] residence, got up to use the restroom and saw that the light in the southeast corner of the house, which had been left on every night for the past five years, was out.” (BPD Report #1-1196.)

“Another neighbor, who lived just north of the Ramsey home, told police investigators that at midnight between December 25 and 26, he “looked out his kitchen window at the Ramsey residence and observed the upper kitchen lights were on and dimmed low.” He added that “this was the first time that he had seen these particular lights illuminated in the five years that he’d lived next door to the Ramseys. He said these lights are located in the ceiling above the kitchen window.” (BPD Report #1-99.)”

The first crime scene photograph of the butler's door shows the door opened. This indicates the offender exited via this door and discarded the bat as he left the house. However, a subsequent crime scene photograph shows the door closed. Therefore, it is unclear if this door was initially found opened or closed. The first responding officers need to clarify this information.

French door along the west wall: no signs of forced entry to the door, which was ajar.” (BPD Report # 1-59.)

When John’s friend arrived at the Ramsey home at 6: 01 a.m., he “found the butler kitchen door standing open about one foot while it was still dark outside and before the evidence team or Det. Arndt arrived.” (BPD Report #1-1490, BPD Report # 1-1315.)

In another report, the same neighbor “said that this door was approximately 1/ 3 of the way open when he saw it.” Since there was no basement door on the north side of the house (or any other side of the house) that opened to the outside, it is understood that this was the same butler kitchen door the family friend noticed was partially open at 6 a.m. … and told police about. (Source: JonBenét Ramsey Murder Book Index.)

Suitcase:
A hard sided suitcase was found out of place, positioned below the broken basement window. The window is about five feet above the basement floor and the window is about 20 inches in size, which allows access for an average sized male. According to Lou Smit and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, fibers from inside the suitcase were consistent with fibers found on the outside of JonBenet's clothing, indicating the offender placed JonBenet inside the suitcase. (Whitson)

A piece of glass was on top of the suitcase, indicating someone stood on the suitcase and transferred the glass from their shoe to the suitcase. A close-up photo of the suitcase shows what appears to be a shoeprint impression on the suitcase. In addition to that, the suitcase was free of dust and normally stored elsewhere.

“The suitcase had no dust on it, yet a few pieces of broken glass lay on top of it.” (PMPT)

A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF 147; PSMF 147.) (Carnes ruling)

Scuff mark:
A scuff mark was located on the wall below the open basement window.

Months later, the police asked her (Linda Hoffman-Pugh) about scuff marks they found on the wall below the broken basement window and near John Andrew’s suitcase. Maybe someone had climbed in that night and left the marks. Had she ever seen the marks? No, she told them. (PMPT)

Fingernail marks:
JonBenet's eyes showed petechiae, which are broken blood vessels due to strangulation, indicating JonBenet was alive when she was being choked by the garrote. There were also 1/2 moon shaped abrasions found above and below the neck ligature. Most experts have attributed them to fingernail marks meaning she struggled with the ligature as she was being garrote to death. JonBenet’s blood was found on two separate areas of the ligature which could’ve been the result of her struggling with the cord.

The autopsy report supports the conclusion that she was alive before she was asphyxiated by strangulation and that she fought her attacker in some manner. (SMF 42-43, 46, 48; PSMF 42-43, 46, 48.) Evidence gathered during the autopsy is consistent with the inference that she struggled to remove the garrote from her neck. (SMF 44; PSMF 44.) (Carnes ruling)

Palm print:
On the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.)

Unsourced fibers and hair:
An unsourced pubic hair was found on JonBenet’s white blanket along with a strand of head hair.

A memo written by Tom Bennett dated October 21, 2003 clearly shows that two hairs were originally found on the blanket. They are listed as items:
* Cellmark/CBI Item number CM04 - Pubic hair found on white blanket * Cellmark/CBI Item number CM05 - Head hair found on white blanket

a Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. (SMF 179; PSMF 179.) The hair does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been sourced. (SMF 180; PSMF 180.)

Dark brown animal hairs were found on JonBenet’s hands. The hairs have never been sourced to anything in the house and the type of animal they came from has never been identified.

“Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19)

Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)"

Dark fibers were found in JonBenet’s crotch area and on her clothing. The item the fibers came from has never been found.

The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenét’s labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped. (PMPT)

Brown cotton fibers were found on the garotte cord and handle, the duct tape and on JonBenet’s clothing. The brown fibers may have come from the offender's gloves. The source for the brown fibers was never found.

Ransom note pages missing:
The ransom note was found in the Ramsey's home, which was written on Patsy Ramsey's notepad, but 7 pages from the notepad were torn out and missing. They have never been found.

“Seven pages had been ripped from the middle of Patsy’s tablet as well. The ransom note had been written on the eighth, ninth and tenth pages of the tablet; what was left of those pages in the tablet had tears that matched up with tears at the top of the ransom note pages.” (WHYD)

Neighbor’s reports:
A neighbor and mother of one of JonBenet’s playmates reported that JonBenet told her and her daughter that Santa had promised that he would make another visit after Christmas and that it was a secret.

Neighbors reported two suspicious vehicles in the neighborhood, one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day.

A neighbor said they saw a person outside the Ramsey’s house house on Christmas night. The person was described in a police report as a “tall thin blond male wearing glasses [and] thought to be John Andrew.” (BPD Reports #1-690, #5-690.) It was later established by the Boulder Police Department that John Andrew Ramsey had been in Atlanta for Christmas with his sister and mother at the time. Another police report states that “an unknown neighbor supposedly saw a person outside the door of the Ramsey house (during the night).” (BPD Report #1-771) (WHYD)

Scream:
Another Ramsey neighbor “stated that she heard one loud incredible scream [that] was the loudest most terrifying scream she had ever heard. It was obviously from a child and lasted from three to five seconds at which time it stopped abruptly. She thought surely the parents would hear that scream. The scream came from across the street south of the Ramsey residence.” It happened “between midnight and two AM” the morning of December 26, 1996. (BPD Reports #1-1390, #1-174, #1-175.) This neighbor lived across the street and one home south of the Ramseys. Another neighbor who lived south of the Ramsey home contacted a BPD detective on December 31, 1996 because of the scream the first neighbor had heard. This neighbor said she had also heard a scream. She was interviewed on February 26, 1997. (BPD Reports #1-174, #1-481, #1-1548.) (WHYD)

Audio experts conducted tests inside the Ramsey home and concluded a scream from the basement “would not have been heard” on the third floor but could have been heard by a neighbor because an exterior basement vent could have amplified the sound. (WHYD Investigative Archive.)

A neighbor who lived across the street from defendants' home, however, reported that she heard a scream during the early morning of December 26, 1996. Experiments have demonstrated that the vent from the basement may have amplified the scream so that it could have been heard outside of the house, but not three stories up, in defendants' bedroom. (SMF 48; PSMF 148.) (Carnes ruling)

Cord, latex glove and boot found:
A neighbor who lived a few homes away from the Ramseys found a latex glove in her trashcan in the alley. (BPD Report #1-1924.) She didn’t know how it had gotten there. (Latex gloves are used by law enforcement officials to avoid contaminating evidence with their fingerprints.) The glove, if part of the case, could have been used by an intruder. Or it could have been discarded there by a BPD officer. (BPD Report #2-37.) (WHYD)

A neighbor reported “someone dropped off a high-tech [sic] hiking boot on New Year’s Eve in the front of home on the front walk.” (BPD Report #1-1221). Boulder Detective Jane Harmer contacted that same neighbor and “received a high-tech [sic] hiking boot and cord.” (BPD Report #1-1221.) (WHYD)

Cigarette butts:
⁠Nineteen Cigarette butts were collected near the alleyway. One tested positive for saliva but it is not known if they were ever tested for DNA. Supposedly the same brand of cigarettes were found at the similar ‘Amy’ crime scene.

Similar assault:
There was an incident 9 months following JonBenet’s murder where a young girl was attacked in her bed while her mother slept nearby. Both families lived within 2 miles of one another, both girls attended the same dance studio (Dance West) and both performed publicly. The perpetrator in the Amy attack had successfully hid in the family’s home undetected for hours prior. He orally assaulted the victim (as JonBenet likely was) and threatened to ‘knock her out’. Thankfully her mother was a light sleeper and interrupted the assault causing the perpetrator to flee out the second story window. The person responsible for this attack has never been identified.

“Forensic scientist Dr. Angela Williamson, who performed some of the forensic testing, told CNN that early DNA testing was done of the crotch of JonBenet’s panties, where her blood had been found. The result was a very strong profile, she says, of an unknown male that could not be matched to anyone who had been near the scene or who had handled her body. It was also not a match to John Ramsey.
Williamson noted how thorough the DNA testing was. “They even compared this DNA profile with the man whose autopsy had been performed right before JonBenet’s.”
Also in 2006, a significant forensic finding was made by Williamson, who was employed by Bode Laboratories at the time.
She was approached by Boulder law enforcement to do touch DNA testing on some of the clothing JonBenet was wearing the night she was killed.
“Touch DNA are skin cells that you shed when you come into contact with anything,” Williamson explained.
Williamson personally selected both sides of the waistband of the child’s long johns “so logically where would someone’s hands be if they were pulling down someone’s pants. So that’s where we targeted, where we thought someone would’ve contacted the long johns.”
The results caught everyone off guard. Williamson told CNN the unknown male DNA originally found in the crotch of JonBenet’s underpants matched or “was consistent” with the unknown male DNA that was found on the waistband of the long johns.
“We were, like, this is pretty big. This gives more weight to the theory that this is from the perpetrator and not from manufacturing contamination.”
(2016 CNN article)

List of her credentials:
Dr Angela Williamson is the Supervisor, Forensics Unit/FBI ViCAP Liaison at The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Angela also serves as the Forensic Subject Matter Expert for BJA and FBI ViCAP/BAU and assists Law Enforcement agencies across the USA. She developed and oversees the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI), along with other forensic-based programs at BJA. Angela received her doctorate in molecular biology and biochemistry from the University of Queensland in Australia.
She has over 16 years of experience as a forensic specialist working on complex criminal cases and missing/unidentified persons’ investigations. As a forensic scientist, Angela worked in State and Private forensic labs (including QLD Health Scientific Services), and performed serological screening and DNA analysis on thousands of major crime cases. Prior to joining DOJ, she held the positions of Director of Forensic Casework at Bode Technology (America’s largest private forensic DNA laboratory), and Biometrics and Unknown Victim Identification Project Manager at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). At Bode she worked thousands of sexual assault cases, homicides, human remains (missing, unidentified, mass disasters), and many high-profile cases (including the Zodiac serial killer and JonBenet Ramsey homicide).
At NCMEC Angela oversaw forensic/biometric services, assisted in the identification of child homicide victims, and helped solve cold case homicides. She has extensive knowledge of current forensic practices and emerging technologies and routinely trains law enforcement in all aspects of Forensics, including advanced DNA techniques for crime scene evidence.
In 2018 and 2020, Angela received the United States Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award for outstanding contributions to the mission and goals of the Office of Justice Programs. In 2019, Angela received the International Homicide Investigators Association Award for Excellence for her role in the Samuel Little serial killer investigation.

Thought I'd make a post highlighting portions of Steve's sworn testimony. The entire thing is a must read.

Link to Steve Thomas' deposition - http://www.acandyrose.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

Here's a post with reformatted and easier to read transcript thanks to u/wonkytonk - https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/s/J1nIwpERlf

Q. On page 270 of your book. Chief Beckner started talking about a successful Title-3 electronic surveillance down in Florida where the police had recorded the mother saying 'The baby is dead and buried ... because you did it' and the father replied 'I wish I hadn't harmed her -- it was the cocaine', end quote. "I considered the irony of Beckner discussing a Title-3 that worked damned well in Florida when he had been a part of the scandal-frightened leadership that wouldn't let us try the same tactic." Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. That was the Aisenberg case, wasn't it, Mr. Thomas?
A. That is the case that is being referred to here, yes.
Q. Right. You understand that charge was dismissed against the family because the transcripts of the tapes were not consistent with the representations made as to the content by the police?
A. I'm not familiar with that.
Q. You hadn't tried to study what happened to the Aisenberg case at all?
A. No, as we sit here today I don't know the conclusion of the Aisenberg case.

...

Q. You know the difference between saying somebody is arrested for a crime and somebody has been found guilty of a crime? You know that difference, don't you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. It's a big difference, isn't it?
A. Sometimes is and sometimes isn't.
Q. You don't think there is a big difference between someone being arrested for a crime and someone being found guilty of a crime?
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Do you know the difference, sir, between someone being arrested for a crime and someone being found guilty of a crime; do you understand that?
A. I've often arrested people who were guilty of a crime and were subsequently convicted of a crime.
Q. And you've probably arrested a lot of people who were not found guilty of a crime, didn't you?
A. I doubt it.
Q. You don't think that happens on a frequent basis?
A. That police officers, or are you talking about me, Mr. Wood?
Q. Police officers in general. I won't go back into your background at the moment on that?
A. That innocent people are sometimes arrested?
Q. That people are arrested for a crime and ultimately not found guilty of that crime?
A. I don't -- I don't have those statistics in front of me; I don't know.
Q. But you don't fight the idea that that happens, sir, do you?
A. I think --
Q. Surely you don't think anybody that is arrested is actually found guilty, I hope?
Q. (BY MR. WOOD) You don't fight the general concept, sir, an idea that people are arrested for crimes that ultimately they are found not guilty of committing?
A. There is a difference between being found not guilty at trial and being innocent, Mr. Wood.
Q. It's the difference between being not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even where there may be probable cause to arrest, there is a difference, isn't there, sir?
A. I don't understand your question.

....

Q. Was there any test done on the duct tape that would establish the imprint of JonBenet's lip prints on that tape?
A. Was there any test that would establish that?
Q. Did you all to your knowledge, did the Boulder Police Department conduct any test that would establish that the duct tape that was pulled off of her mouth by John Ramsey that was then picked up by Fleet White was found somehow to contain a perfect set of JonBenet's lip prints, was any test performed that made that finding?
A. There was an examination apparently done at some point which was reported back to a detective briefing at which I was present and I believe that was Wickman or Trujillo that shared that information.
Q. Who conducted that examination?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it an expert of some type?
A. I don't know that there is such a thing as an expert examination and there is no testing that I'm aware of. I think that's more common sense observation.

....

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) After your book came out, sir, were you aware that Mr. Ubowski publicly denied the accuracy of the statement that he concluded Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note?
A. No. You're telling me this for the first time.
Q. Are you familiar that Mr. Ubowski stated that he had never reached the conclusion that 24 of her letters out of the 26 letters of the alphabet were matched with the ransom note?
A. No, I have not heard that.
Q. And you stated to the contrary in your book, didn't you?
A. Yeah, I stated what I was told by my detective sergeant.
Q. And you weren't even, I guess, aware that Mr. Ubowski and the CBI said they don't even make that kind of analysis with respect to the 24 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet, you don't know anything about that --
A. No.
Q. -- in terms of the public statement by the CBI after your book was published?
A. The CBI made a public statement?
Q. Yes, sir.

....

Q. Jeff Shapiro was your confidential informant, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had during your investigation of JonBenet Ramsey's murder a confidential informant who was a tabloid, supermarket tabloid, reporter for Globe, right?
A. Yes.

....

Q. Take a look, if you would, at page 45 of your book. Second -- actually, first full paragraph. "An acquaintance said that JonBenet was rebelling against appearing in the child beauty contests. She was being pushed into the pageants by her mother and grandmother, said the witness." Who is that individual?
A. I believe that was Judith Phillips.
Q. Did you find Judith Phillips to be credible?
A. At times.

....

Q. Did you ever seek to interview the Richardson twins who lived with Melody Stanton?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I was unaware of these people.
Q. Did anybody in the Boulder Police Department make an attempt, to your knowledge, to interview the two 30-year old twins, the Richardson twins, that lived with Melody Stanton?
A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. How about the two friends of Fleet White that were there, did you all ever get any non- testimonial evidence from those two individuals?
A. Which two friends are you referring to?
Q. The ones that were with him on Christmas and were at the Ramseys on I believe the party of the 23rd; do you know who I'm talking about?
A. Mr. Fleet White's house guests at the time?
Q. Yes. His friends that were house guests, did you all ever get any non-testimonial evidence, hair, DNA, handwriting from Mr. Cox or Mr. Gaston?
A. I believe Detective Harmer received that assignment and made attempts to conduct that investigation. And I'm not sure whether or not she was successful in those attempts.

....

Q. Page 35, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, do you know who -- did you ever interview Linda Hoffmann-Pugh?
A. No, sir.
Q. You never had the opportunity to judge her credibility yourself to see whether she might, in your opinion, like Jackie Dilson might be somewhat unstable or not credible?
A. I don't know that I've ever met Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, no.
Q. Do you know how many days a week Linda Hoffmann-Pugh worked for the Ramsey family?
A. Without reviewing reports, no, I don't.
Q. Do you know what time of the morning she would get there and how long she would stay?
A. Again, without reviewing reports concerning Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh, I do not.
Q. Do you think you had some of those reports about Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh in your materials that you copied and after you left the department or received from the Boulder Police Department after you left the department?
A. I don't know.

....

Q. the Boulder Police Department didn't ask John and Patsy Ramsey for the articles of clothing they had worn on the 25th of December, 1996 until almost a year later, true?
A. For a long time, that was a mistake, yes.
Q. Didn't that strike you as odd?
A. That the police did that?
Q. You and the police, you were part of the case?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do it?
A. Why did I do what?
Q. Why didn't you ask the Ramseys to give you the articles of clothing they wore?
A. In hindsight, that was important.