The Victim's Shoes- Episode 3

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Victim's Shoes - Episode 3

Title: The Victim's Shoes
Hosts: Lexi and Jessa
Release Date: October 8, 2020

---

Introduction

In Episode 3 of The Victim's Shoes, hosts Lexi and Jessa continue their deep dive into the perplexing JonBenet Ramsey murder case. Drawing from their unique perspective as the granddaughters of Detective Lou Smit, they present a compelling argument supporting the intruder theory. This episode meticulously breaks down various pieces of evidence, debunks prevalent myths, and reinforces the notion that the Ramseys were not involved in their daughter's tragic death.

---

The Scream Heard by Neighbor Melody Stanton

One of the pivotal pieces of evidence discussed is the scream heard by Melody Stanton, a neighbor across the street from the Ramsey residence.

• Evidence of the Scream:

  • Lexi states, “Witness Melody Stanton... heard a scream in the early morning hours of the 26th. It was the most terrifying child scream I have ever heard...” [01:15].
  • The scream lasted three to five seconds and ceased abruptly, allegedly emanating from across the street.

• Sound Transmission Explanation:

  • Jessa explains how the mansion's architecture and an open basement vent facilitated the sound travel to Melody’s partially open window [01:15].
  • An experiment conducted by Detective Lou Smit in June 1997 confirmed that sounds from the basement vent could be heard clearly across the street but not within the master bedroom, supporting the idea that the Ramseys did not hear the scream [03:24].

• Additional Observations:

  • Melody Stanton’s husband reported hearing the slamming of a grate, potentially linking to the intruder's entrance point [03:24].

---

Debunking the Pineapple Theory

The hosts address the infamous pineapple evidence, aiming to demystify its significance in the case.

• Clarifying the Pineapple:

  • Lexi asserts, “There is no mystery surrounding the pineapple. It has been blown completely out of proportion...” [07:00].
  • A bowl of pineapple with Burke and Patsy's fingerprints was found, alongside undigested fruit fragments in JonBenet’s stomach.

• Scientific Perspective:

  • Jessa cites Dixie Lawrence de Foya, explaining that cellulose from fruits like pineapple cannot be fully digested and suggests JonBenet likely consumed the fruit earlier in the day, not near the time of her death [09:32].
  • This challenges the theory that the killer fed her pineapple to imply familiarity [07:00].

---

Foreign DNA Evidence Supports Intruder Theory

A substantial segment of the episode delves into DNA evidence that bolsters the intruder hypothesis.

• DNA Findings:

  • Lexi details the discovery of foreign DNA in JonBenet’s fingernail clippings, panties, and long johns, which did not match any Ramsey family members [09:32].
  • District Attorney Mary Lacy acknowledged the DNA pointed to an unknown male, exonerating the Ramseys officially [09:32].

• Expert Analysis:

  • Jessa emphasizes the strength of the DNA evidence, noting that 10 identifiable foreign markers were entered into CODIS, a national DNA database, with no matches found [14:41].
  • C (presumably Detective Lou Smit) explains that advancements in DNA technology could eventually identify the intruder [14:41].

• Notable Quotes:

  • Lexi: “Why do people still think that someone in the family was responsible and that the intruder theory is incorrect?” [14:13].
  • Jessa: “It's very, very important in this case.” [18:02].

---

JonBenet’s Injuries Indicate Alive During Assault

The episode provides a thorough examination of the physical injuries sustained by JonBenet, underscoring the brutality and premeditation of the crime.

• Stun Gun Marks:

  • Lexi and Jessa discuss rectangular marks on JonBenet’s body resembling stun gun prongs, supporting the use of a stun gun by the intruder [18:02].
  • Experiments replicated the marks using stun guns, matching the patterns found on JonBenet [21:23].

• Strangulation and Sexual Assault:

  • Jessa describes the garrote used to strangle JonBenet, noting scratch marks that indicate she struggled while alive [25:01].
  • Evidence of petechiae (small hemorrhages in the eyes) further confirms that JonBenet was strangled while still alive [28:10].

• Blunt Force Trauma:

  • Lexi highlights severe skull fractures found during the autopsy, inconsistent with staged injuries and indicative of intense violence [29:03].

• Notable Quotes:

  • Jessa: “These are electrical type burns. So why are people making this so difficult?” [25:01].
  • Lexi: “This was an intense blow to the head... you can't just ignore pieces of evidence because it doesn't fit the theory that you like.” [29:03].

---

Absence of Evidence Against the Ramseys

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the lack of any substantial evidence implicating the Ramsey family.

• No Signs of Abuse:

  • Lexi mentions that family members, including siblings and the family doctor, reported no history of abuse or bad character [38:27].
  • Jessa reinforces that there was no motive, such as bedwetting-related anger, supported by no evidence of prior issues [38:27].

• Statements from the Doctor:

  • C cites Dr. Booth, who treated JonBenet extensively and found no evidence of past sexual abuse [33:50].

• Staging Contradictions:

  • Jessa questions the logic behind the Ramseys staging the crime scene and then later un-staging it, highlighting inconsistencies [41:06].
  • C elaborates on the improbability of staging efforts aligning with the evidence of live injuries [42:25].

• Notable Quotes:

  • Lexi: “The Ramseys have absolutely zero motive or evidence of bad character...” [38:27].
  • Jessa: “Why would the Ramseys stage the murder and sexual assault only to unstage it later?” [41:43].

---

Staging Arguments and Final Thoughts

The hosts dismantle theories that suggest the Ramseys could have staged the crime scene, emphasizing the lack of credible motive and conflicting actions that undermine such claims.

• Inconsistencies in Staging:

  • Jessa points out that actions taken by the Ramseys after the crime contradict the idea of staging, such as searching for JonBenet and removing evidence [41:06].

• Final Exoneration:

  • Lexi and Jessa assert that the overwhelming evidence supports the intruder theory, arguing that the Ramseys are victims themselves [43:34].

• Call to Action:

  • The episode concludes with a plea for listeners to support their investigative efforts through donations and social media engagement [47:27].

• Notable Quotes:

  • Jessa: “If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. It's as simple as that.” [47:45].
  • Lexi: “We wanted to share the facts and stray evidence of this case to show you... evidence pointing towards an intruder and away from the family.” [43:34].

---

Conclusion

Episode 3 of The Victim's Shoes presents a meticulously crafted argument for the intruder theory in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Through detailed analysis of auditory evidence, forensic DNA findings, physical injuries, and the absence of credible motives against the Ramseys, Lexi and Jessa aim to shed light on the complexities of this enduring mystery. The episode not only seeks to inform but also to advocate for justice, urging listeners to reconsider established narratives and support continued efforts to uncover the truth.

---

For More Information:

• Instagram: hevictimshoes
• Donation: GoFundMe page linked in their Instagram bio.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Lexi: “Why do people still think that someone in the family was responsible and that the intruder theory is incorrect?” [14:13].
• Jessa: “It's very, very important in this case.” [18:02].
• Jessa: “These are electrical type burns. So why are people making this so difficult?” [25:01].
• Lexi: “This was an intense blow to the head... you can't just ignore pieces of evidence because it doesn't fit the theory that you like.” [29:03].
• Jessa: “Why would the Ramseys stage the murder and sexual assault only to unstage it later?” [41:43].
• Jessa: “If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. It's as simple as that.” [47:45].

---

Attribution:

The audio clips used in this podcast are courtesy of and used with the express permission of the Lou Smit Archive.

Transcript

[A]

In 1996, a little girl named JonBenet Ramsey was six years old.

[B]

She was brutally assaulted and murdered on Christmas night in the basement of her home in Boulder, Colorado.

[A]

Hi everybody. Thanks for coming back. We're so excited to be back after a little break. Even though we've taken a break from recording for this podcast, the team hasn't taken a break from looking for JonBenet's killer. They have still been pursuing leads and we've been working on other projects to get the truth out about this case. Thanks for your patience as we do our best to keep you all informed. Anyway, we're going to get right down to business because we still have a lot to talk about. Our last episode we started talking about the evidence of this case and we are going to continue with that through this episode. There's a lot more evidence to cover and more myths to debunk. So let's get started.

[B]

First, let's talk about the scream, which just gives me chills to even say there's evidence of a scream taking place the night JonBenet was murdered. Witness Melody Stanton, who lived across the street from the Ramseys, states she heard a scream in the early morning hours of the 26th. She stated it was the most terrifying child scream I have ever heard and that the scream lasted from three to five seconds and stopped abruptly. She said that the scream sounded like it came from across the street. Now how could this be possible? Well, to start, Melody Stan slept with her window partially open. There was also an open vent in the Ramsey's basement that leads out to the front of the house towards Melody Stanton's house. This allowed the sound waves of the scream to have an easy travel path straight to Melody's window where she was sleeping. Now I'm sure you're asking, as many others have, if Melody heard the scream, how did the parents not hear it? First you need to remember that this house was a mansion. A straight up mansion. The basement where the murder took place was a full three floors down from the master bedroom. Not only that, but there were no windows on the side of the house on the third floor where the vent was in the basement, meaning there was no straight route for those sound waves to travel to the master bedroom. To prove this theory, our grandpa, Detective Lou Smit Detective did an experiment in June of 1997 where he had someone yell, scream and even whistle in the basement of the Ramsey's house while Lou stood in the master bedroom and then later stood in Melody Stanton's house across the street. When Lou was in the master, he could barely hear anything when he stood across the street. He heard the scream clearly. Therefore explaining why John and Patsy would not have been able to hear the scream, especially if they were asleep. On a side note, Melody Stanton's husband also claimed to have heard the slamming of a grate. Could he possibly be talking about the grate over the window? Well, if you guys recall from our second episode, we mentioned that there is a grate over the window. Well, where it is suspected that an intruder got in and out.

[C]

This is the boiler room, what I call the boiler room. This is the paint tray. This is where the carpet fiber was and the paint, little piece of paint like John Bonet was lying right here at some time. There's a window in a vent right here. Okay. This is the door to the wine cellar. In other words, open that door and throw JonBenet into the wine cellar. Close the door and put on the lock. That is a picture of an open vent. It was a dryer vent. And it's within a couple of feet of that paint tray right there. And where JonBenet was lying right there. And that's when she was probably when she was sexually assaulted there with that paintbrush. I bet when that was inserted into her, she screamed like crazy. This is almost like a megaphone. It's got an open bottom. It's six inches or so in diameter. It goes right out the front of the house right here. That's where that vent exits the house. And Melanie Stan is right across the street. Okay, so what Trip and I did when we noticed the vent there, I stayed in the basement. Kirk went over to the, to the Stanton's place. I yelled and whistled and just yelled and whistled. He could hear it clearly over there at Stanton's in the yard upstairs. Then he went upstairs and listened. You couldn't hear it. You know why? This is the second floor of the house. That's where Burke was sleeping. Okay. Right there, this is where the Ramses are. Notice no glass on this side of the house at all. These windows are double and double paned storm windows. On these windows, you can't hear anything there. So that's one of the reasons you wouldn't hear it from the vent. And yet you could hear it through the open window of Melanie Stanton's place. Also, according to one of the magazines I read, Luther Stanton was the husband. I guess she wakes them and they don't hear anything. At that time it was like it was a terrified child scream loud and suddenly cut off. That's when the gro was put in place. It had been low first and then when she screamed, that's what this handle and everything was for. You could pull that baby. And it just immediately stopped her screaming. Shortly after that, Luther Stanton hears the sound of metal on cement. Okay, is that the great beam opened, put back down on the. Back down in place. I don't know. And it was really kind of unique. They did a neighborhood trip, you know, after this crime occurred. And you're supposed to contact every residence, talk to the people who lives here. Did you hear anything or anything like that? And they did. They went to different houses, but a lot of houses people weren't home. It was Christmas holiday or something. Weren't home. And a lot of houses they never went back to. In fact, within a block area there am 65% of the homes were not counted.

[A]

Okay, now onto this often discussed topic of the pineapple. First, we want to start by stating there is no mystery surrounding the pineapple. It has been blown completely out of proportion, making it seem like it is this big deal when truly it's a topic that can't give any guidance to this case. Now if you have no idea what we're talking about. There was a bowl of pineapple found on the dining room table with Burke and Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl. Apparently that bowl was served earlier to Burke. There was also evidence of some sort of fruit found in JonBenet's stomach. Notice I said some sort of fruit. It can't be confirmed that it was even pineapple that was found in her stomach. It was just some sort of fruit fragment. So one absurd theory is that JonBenet ate some of Burke's pineapple and Burke got so angry about it that he hit JonBenet in the head and killed her. We know that this didn't happen because the way she died tells a very different story. But we'll get into that a little bit later. Another theory was that because fruit was found in Jomine's stomach and there was a bowl of pineapple on the table that someone fed her pineapple in the middle of the night. This led people to believe that she knew her killer. This piece of evidence unfortunately cannot provide any clues to this case because it's unclear when she could have eaten this fruit. It could have been six to eight hours before her death, which means she could have eaten it at the whites Christmas party or possibly even before going over to the Christmas party. The evidence that there was fruit in her stomach also showed that this was not the last food that she ate. So if the killer fed her pineapple, where is the other food he fed her? According to Dixie Lawrence de Foya, vice president of Trisomy 21 Research Foundation. Cellulose makes up the walls of the little cells you can clearly see in citrus fruits. The human body cannot digest cellulose as it has no known function in any biochemical process. So we do not possess an enzyme called cellulase to break it down. What you get when someone is in excited state and they eat a piece of pineapple without chewing it into microscopic fragments is a fairly recognizable chunk of undigested cellulose. In this case, peristalsis would have been greatly slowed due to stress excitement factors. So it is absolutely possible and probable that based on sound science, that JonBenet ate that piece of pineapple or whatever fruit it was early in the day, not in the middle of the night. This would be an entirely different scenario if they had found recognizable barely digested chunks of pineapple in her stomach, indicating she had consumed pineapple shortly before her death.

[B]

Now onto one of the biggest pieces of evidence proving the intruder theory. The Foreign DNA Foundation Forewarning. What we're going to talk about is graphic. Please use caution when listening to these details. There were multiple places where foreign DNA was found. In fingernail clippings on both the left and right hand of JonBenet, in her panties and in her long johns from the fingernail clippings of the left hand. The results were reported as follows. The data indicate that the DNA from more than one individual was obtained from contents of the tube identified as left hand fingernails. The primary source of the DNA obtained from the contents of the tube identified as left hand fingernails is female. A secondary source of the DNA is male. Patsy Ramsey and Melinda Ramsey are excluded as primary sources of the DNA obtained from the contents of the tube identified as left hand fingernails. JonBenet Ramsey cannot be excluded as the primary source of the DNA obtained from the contents of the tube identified as left hand fingernails. John Ramsey and other male members of the Ramsay family are excluded as the secondary source of the DNA obtained from the contents of the tube. The report for the right hand fingernail clippings was exactly the same. That the primary source is female, the secondary source is male. And that Patsy, Melinda, John and other members of the Ramsey family were all excluded as sources of the DNA. To recap, the DNA in the fingernails has a major component matching JonBenet proving the fact that she tried to take the cord off of her neck and scratched herself. And a minor component that was foreign and male. And was not a match to anyone in the family. Now, moving on to her panties. There was blood in the crotch of her panties. Two spots of blood contained a mixture of DNA. In one blood spot, the primary source was from the victim. And there was also a weak secondary source. In the other blood spot, there was a stronger mixture. The victim being one source and the other a male. In the right leg band of the pannies, alleles were found. That were consistent with other samples found in the crotch of the same panties. In the left leg of the panties, alleles were found. Which were consistent with other samples Found in the right leg waistband and crotch of the same panties. But no control dots were found, so this sample was insufficient. From the back of the waistband of the victim's panties, an allele was found. Which was consistent with another sample Found in the right leg of the same panties. But no control dots were found. So this sample was insufficient. As for the long johns, the previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenet at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns. Now, I know that that is a lot of information and kind of hard to keep track of. So to Summarize, there were 10 identifiable foreign markers found. And this information was entered into CODIS. These 10 identifiable foreign markers were all male. And did not match anyone in the family. Around 2008, a new method of DNA testing called Touch DNA emerged. And a private lab was able to determine that genetic material Left on the waistband of the long johns. That JonBenet was wearing when her body was found matches DNA left in her underwear. District Attorney Mary Lacy said unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing. Worn by the victim at the time of the murder. Makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Mary Lacey then goes on to exonerate the Ramsay family after this. In a letter to John Ramsey, she said, new DNA evidence supports the theory that an unidentified man killed the child. We do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife Patsy, and your son Burke. To be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might be involved in this crime. I am deeply sorry. We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime. With the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. Those are some powerful words. Yet people still like to point the finger at the Ramses. So my Question to our listeners. Why do people still think that someone in the family was responsible and that the intruder theory is incorrect?

[A]

I know that piece of evidence right there. I mean, the fact that there's foreign DNA and it doesn't match anyone in the Ramsay family, like, well, and I. I don't get it.

[B]

For people to continue to point their fingers at the Ramses. Where did this foreign DNA come from? Like, how are they just ignoring that? They're just completely ignoring that piece of evidence. So, yeah, that's the biggest piece of evidence that proves an intruder theory.

[C]

There have been 10 complete markers found in the second blood spot. That is sufficient to put that result in codis. C O D I S. That is a national data bank of DNA. This is being tested every day. When new samples come in, it's compared with the number from that 10 markers. In John Vinay's hands, they have, like I say, cleared over 60 people already in that DNA. It's not them. That's what they're using as a basis for clearing suspects. The killer brought something in, left something, and took something out. He left behind, I believe, part of his DNA. It's not the full 13 markers that they've been able to find, but they found 10. That is enough to identify anybody out of millions of people. There's also fingernail clippings at the scene. When they did the autopsy on Jonathan, they clipped her fingernails. And there are foreign markers under her fingernails. And some of the foreign markers match the markers in the paintings. Now there's only maybe two or three markers altogether. And they're very weak. Under her fingernails. They're there. You can't get around it. It's evidence, just like the DNA in the paintings. People want to throw it away because they say it don't mean anything. Because if the Ramses did it, it couldn't be the killers. So they keep wanting to throw this evidence away, but they can't. It's there. It's going to be there forever. And so is it an artifact from some guy sneezing in the panties in Bangkok or when they were, Thailand, wherever they made these panties? Or could it be our killers? It's mixed right in with the blood. I believe it's strong, strong, strong evidence that it's not somebody sneezing, but that it is our killer's DNA. So it's going to be there. There's some markers under the fingernail that match the markers in the panties. The DNA is strong enough to put into codas. Someday there's going to be A match to that DNA. And when they get even more developed DNA procedures, someday, Dan, they can be able to trace that back into a person's family. And if they have enough samples, they're going to say, hey, this came from your family somewhere in the past. Did you have a relative in Boulder in December of 1996? Was he ever arrested as he did? Is there a way of getting DNA from you that we can compare with the DNA? Someday? That DNA, when they get that really fully developed, is going to be able to tell a lot about guy, his hair color, Caucasian, Mexican, who knows? They'll be able to tell a lot from that. They'll be able to tell if you're bald, probably, you know, eye color, I don't know many, many things, complexion diseases in your family. Who knows what they'll be able to tell from just that little DNA zone. But it's very, very important in this case.

[A]

Okay, so this next topic is one of the hardest ones for us to discuss, but it is also very important and very worth mentioning. It adds to the character of the killer and provides possibly an explanation of how that night went. We're going to discuss Jomine's injuries. Again. I'm going to warn all of our listeners that this is very graphic. As our grandpa stated, this was a brutal, premeditated murder, not just a little doink on the head covered up by perverted staging. Let's start by discussing the marks found on JonBenet's body. There were two sets of marks found. Marks on the left side of the back and marks on the right side of the face. They were the same distance apart, reddish in color and rectangular in shape. At the beginning of this investigation, there was an official statement stating a stun gun was not used on JonBenet. And apparently law enforcement still believes that to this day. So then what is it? It is their job as investigators to figure out what it is. So if you are going to ignore all of these amazing clues that clearly point to a stun gun, then what do you think it is? You can't just say it's not a stun gun and that's the end of the conversation. Why do you believe it's not a stun gun? No one has ever been able to explain that. So let's continue with our grandpa's belief that it was a stun gun and explain the evidence that so clearly proves that it is. We mentioned that the marks were rectangular in shape. They were the exact same shape as the prongs on a stun gun. The distance between the marks on her body and the distance between the prongs on a stun gun were very, very close. In autopsy photos, you can see that one of the marks on her face close to her ear was larger than the other mark. This is because if the stun gun is not making good contact with the skin, the arc of electricity will dance, disrupting the capillaries of the skin, causing a larger size mark. Also to note, different manufacturers of stun guns have different voltages and measurements between contacts. However, they were able to find a specific stun gun that was very close match to the marks on JonBenet. Our grandpa didn't stop there. He researched more. He looked into a man named Gerald Boggs who was murdered in Boulder and a stun gun was used. This case was known as the Boulder Black Widow case. He had marks on the same area of the face as JonBenet and he had the same type of marks in which there was one mark that was bigger than its counterpart. He also looked into the stun gun attack in Douglas county and found that those marks were also very similar. He also looked into an experiment performed using stun guns on pigs. These marks were also the same as the marks found on JonBenet. So the marks on Gerald Boggs, the pigs and JonBenet were described the same way. They were not cuts. There was no bleeding, no swelling, no blistering, no bruising. They were electrical type burns. So why are people making this so difficult? Are they unexplained abrasions or are they stun gun marks? This brings back our grandpa's whole motto that things are usually what they seem. Don't make it complicated. Also, wouldn't it explain how someone could have easily taken JonBenet from her bed without her making a sound? If a stun gun was used, it would have knocked her unconscious, allowing them to take her peacefully from her bed. We mentioned before how the marks were reddish in color. This means that the stun gun was used when she was alive.

[C]

Now, what I'd like to show you is what I think is one of the most important clues left behind by the killer stun gun. There's marks on John Bonet. If this is a killing where Patsy just loses it and hits her on the head with a flashlight and stages everything, why would you have to use a stun gun as part of the staging? And so the Boulder Police Department issues a statement and has said this at all types of meetings. A stun gun was not used on JonBenet. Supposedly they have an expert that says it's not a stun gun. And I'm going to show you where that expert is wrong. There's marks on the face and body of Johnny. Those are marks on her back. They're red. Those are marks on her face. Remember the picture I showed you before? There was no marks on that side of her face that morning. So something caused those marks to be placed under that day. And you have to look close because do you see two marks? There's one there and one down there. And there's one right there, which is a very small mark. And what happened was that we're looking at those marks. What made the marks. And I'm talking to Trip to mute. And both of us at the same time. You know, could they be stun gun marks? Because we were looking at the ruler and they're the same distance apart. The marks on the face and the marks on the back are the same distance apart. Something made those marks. And one of the detectives, when he was at the autopsy said they're slightly rectangular in shape. If you look, they're slightly rectangular and shape this one and that one. Reddish in color before death. Marks on the back. The individual marks themselves are the same. Similar with each other in size, shape and color. Color is the same. A little smaller, but about the same size. On the face. They're different. Look at that. That's a big mark. That's a little mark. The marks are different in size and shape by the same distance apart as the marks on the back. Again, pointing at the marks. Two sets of marks. So we did some stun gun polymer. We just got the idea it's a stun gun. So we have to find a stun gun that'll leave marks like that. And we came up with an air Taser. They have different manufacturers, voltages, measures between the contacts. And even the contacts are. Some are round and some are slightly rectangular. This is slightly rectangular because of just the way that an air Taser is about as close as we can find. And this is an air Taser. While the electricity is being applied, it's just high voltage between two contacts. That's about it. I want to show you something. And again, I've been criticized for this, but I see something on a photograph and don't mean anything. Maybe, I don't know. You notice how that arc was on that thing? Look real closely here. You'll almost see a blue line where there's a destructive. It's not the arc of electricity, naturally, but maybe it's the cells themselves that have been damaged. When the arc of electricity went through.

[B]

It all, right onto the garrote. A garrote is a weapon. In this case, a handheld length of cord used to strangle it was found around JonBenet's neck. It was made out of a broken paintbrush found in the basement. The knots were very well constructed. So whoever did this knew exactly what they were doing. They were also very sadistic. Sometimes these garrotes are used in sexual fantasies. This specific garrote allows the person in control to control how much oxygen is being cut off from the victim. There is also evidence that this garrotte was applied when Jomine was alive and conscious. Because there were scratch tight marks on her neck. Jominae had tried to take the cord off of her neck and scratched herself. How could she do that if she was already dead?

[C]

Notice above the ligature marks, you're going to see something else. Fingernail marks. According to the corner, fingernail type marks are above the ligature. This isn't our killer's fingernail marks. These are JonBenet's marks. Alive, well aware of what's happening to her as she's being slowly strained. This is not a little duck on the head. And I think I killed my kid. And then everything staged. JonBenet is alive. And the killer is watching JonBenet do this. JonBenet is struggling and squirming and trying to get that off of her neck. She's alive as can be. She is struggling against her killer. And it is in the basement of that house, not upstairs. Not where Patsy would have access to her, have her dual of this. There is just absolutely no reason for that to have happened to begin with. John Vinay is taken to the basement and killed. And she's alive during all of this. And the photographs tell the story.

[B]

Also. The indentation of the cord was so red and so deep. And again, red means alive.

[C]

This is where the cord removed. Look how deep that was embedded in her neck. This is not a lightweight thing. Somebody is very strong and somebody wanted to kill John Bonaye. But you'll notice another thing after the ligatures are removed. Notice how red that is underneath there. Red is before dead. John Bonnet was pumping her blood right as hard as she could against that literature mark. Very deep. This is the back again. She was strangled brutally with that ligature. And I'd like to show you some. Just a little thing here. After death, when you're lying on something, there's no blood flow. It leaves these white marks. See how white they are? Now, if she had been Strangled after death. You had a white mark there, not a retina. It is very brutal and vicious. This is a brutal, vicious death. She was slowly strangled and then she was viciously killed.

[B]

Finally, there was evidence of petechiae. Petechiae are small pinpoint hemorrhages of the eye seen in strangulation cases and can only happen when the victim is alive, when strangulation occurs.

[C]

Petechiae Petechiae are small hemorrhages that occur in the eyes when a person is strangled. Detectives always look for this on a dead body. That shows that the person was alive, number one, because it burst the blood vessels. And number two, they were strangled. So if you see a dead body without any injuries and you look underneath their eyes and their eyes, you'll see petechia. And that's what coroners look for too. And there are petechiae noted in the coroner's report, meaning that JonBenet was alive when she was str. Okay, not dead, not staging.

[A]

There is also evidence of blunt force trauma. There were no visible head injuries when first inspected. But when autopsied a large fracture was found on her skull. Like falling from a three story building. Again, not just some doink on the head. This was an intense blow to the head. This is very important because it tells us how she died. If she was alive during this blow, there would have been blood on her head and also somewhere in the house, but there wasn't. There are a few myths out there that the head injury occurred first and resulted during a fit of rage. If that were true, where's the blood? The manner in which she died is such a key piece of evidence that most people kind of just ignore. And you can't just ignore pieces of evidence because it doesn't fit the theory that you like. The order of her injuries as well as the foreign DNA found on her body are the two biggest pieces of evidence in my mind that prove the intruder theory. All of these pieces of evidence tell us a story and it infuriates me that people just ignore that story.

[C]

Here's her head injuries. Now she's lying upstairs. John brought her up. And then she's put in the living room by Linda Arndt. And they just see the. You can see the cord embedded in her neck and even on her back where she's lying on the cord. You can see where the handle of that carot is a white mark where the handle is in her back. But there's no indication at all head injury. And I, like I say I worked with the coroner's department for three years, I've seen hundreds of autopsies. I've seen hundreds of crime scenes and I've seen hundreds of injuries to the head. When you have a head injury, first of all, you have a ton of bleeding. A lot of times from the outsider. You also have a bump or you'll have a split where you'll have. Have a huge bruise or swelling or something to show that there's a head injury. When I looked at John Van, there is no sign of it. Later on they find out that JonBenet her head had been completely crushed. That's when they do an autopsy. They cut off the skull cap. Okay, this is what they observed with JonBenet skull cap when they got. They remove it a depressed skull fracture where the bone is literally knocked into the brain. There's also a crack that runs all the way from the back, this is the back to the front of JonBenet that shows a tremendous blow to the head. Now, if that would normally happen, if there was any bleeding at all afterwards, let's say that stuff Steve Thomas said that Patsy Heater wouldn't flashlight because of bad wetting. Well, if JonBenet was still alive when that happened, you'd have all kinds of swelling and you'd bruising and you'd have seen something on the sun even during that initial physical thing. And you would have a ton of blood inside that cavity. With that type of an injury, there's only two tablespoons of blood. That was a tremendous blow. And it happened last. Last, not first, like Steve Thomas put in his book or how they theorized Patsy did this. Patsy killed John Bonnet over bedwinning. And it was. They thought that they had killed her and they'd be brought in for child abuse. So they staged the whole kidnapping and staged everything and staged to me and even the, even the sexual assault on her daughter because we know she was sexually assaulted to make it look like staging. And I think that that's completely ridiculous. I've been a police officer for 40 years in law enforcement and in my whole career I've had one case of staging. And that's when somebody put a gun underneath the guy's hand on a chair. It's just not done. And to have massive staging or over something whereby it could have been covered up by pushing her down the spiral staircase would have been just as easy.

[B]

There is also evidence of her being sexually assaulted. There was a tear of the hymen at the 7 o'clock position, bleeding from the vagina and material similar to the wooden Paintbrush used in the garrotte found in the vagina. There are theories out there that she was sexually abused in the past. But the family doctors said there was absolutely no evidence of any kind of abuse. Also, the autopsy gave no evidence of any prior sexual assault. No prior bruising, scarring, damage, no indication of healed scars. Therefore disproving that her parents abused her in any way.

[C]

Dr. Booth saw JonBenet 27 times between March 1993 and November of 1996. Most of those visits were for sinus infections and colds. There was one for an injured finger and another after a fall in a grocery store. This is her own doctor. After the murder, Dr. Boof issued a statement. My office treated JonBenet Ramsey from March 1993 through December 1990, 1996. Throughout this period, there has been absolutely no evidence of abuse of any kind. The doctor has gone public and said there was no prior abuse. Her siblings have gone public and said there was never anything like that. Other family members say it just never happened. The family wasn't like that. Dr. Booth. I saw absolutely no signs of sexual abuse. I had no suspicion of it. I always think about sexual abuse with any child who comes through this practice. Because it is such a terrible, destructive thing. In JonBenet's case, I saw absolutely no evidence. The autopsy gives no evidence of any assault before the time of the murder. Verheim was torn that night and lay.

[B]

We will also mention that duct tape was placed on her mouth. And her wrists were bound with cord.

[C]

But it's a slip tight knot. In other words, if I. If I tied this knot, and I'm not a knot guy, I would have tied it on there. And I'd have tied a granny knot. Or I'd have tied a square knot, some kind. But a slip knot suggests something very strong. That the ligatures on her hands were made beforehand. They were made so you could slip it on the wrist to jump in, pull it tight. You could slip it on this wrist and pull it tight. Somebody knew what they were doing when they constructed these hand ligatures. And these ligatures are off the same piece of rope where the ground was made up.

[A]

To furthermore prove the intruder theory. There were things taken from the house. The broken end of the paintbrush, the remainder of the cord. Seven pages from the ransom notepad. The roll of duct tape. And any prior application of the duct tape. Where are these items? The only possible explanation is that the intruder took them with him when he left.

[B]

Although not much has come from this evidence, we still want to note it as it is still physical evidence. There are baseball bats found outside that don't belong to the family. And also fiber from the basement carpet found on the bats. We're not sure how this plays in or if it even does play into the murder, but it's worth mentioning.

[C]

Now, we don't know where JonBenet was hit. Okay. Most people seem to think it's a flashlight. I do too. A very heavy flashlight. But there were also baseball bats, plural. Foundation. In er. John, the name. Okay, here's a baseball bat that Burke identifies. And it's in a play area where a bat would be found. It's in a play area and he identified that bat. There's another bat. This is on the side of the house where the, where the butler door is and where the disturbance is at that window. Remember that window? And it's not where kids play, even close to where they play. And there's not even any area to play there. It's just kind of a ledge that goes up. Look real carefully. That's the window. That's the bat. And if you look at it, that's where it's laying right there. Now this bat, when they bring it in, they bring it in to the lab. And on this bat is a fiber from the basement carpet. On that bat, was that used to hit John Vinay in the head? I don't know. Was it used by the intruder? I don't know. It was not identified by Burke as being his bed. He says he had one bat. So where did it come from? I don't know. A year later, there was another woman killed with a baseball bat in Boulder. It's an unsolved murder. I'm not saying that it's the same. I'm just saying that maybe that baseball bat has something important.

[A]

Now we want to move on to a different kind of evidence. We've only talked about physical evidence, but now we want to talk about how there is no evidence of bad character from John or Patsy. This kind of evidence plays a big role in solving murder cases. It allows the detective to know what kind of people they are, if they have anything to hide, if they have a history of criminal behavior, etc. As far as the Ramseys go, there is absolutely no evidence of bad character. The Ramseys showed no signs of being abusive. John's ex wife, brother and sister in law gave statements to media and categorically denied that John had ever abused any of his kids. His kids even said the exact same thing. The family doctor, like we mentioned before, said there were absolutely Zero signs of physical or sexual abuse. There is a theory that JonBenet was murdered by a family member over bedwetting. Just pulling a motive out of the air. Such as anger over bedwetting or abuse. And stating it as fact without substantiation is not evidence. It's only a guess. Furthermore, this is the most investigated family in the world. So if there were any real flaws. Someone would have come up with something by now.

[C]

But there is no motive whatsoever for the parents to do this bedwetting. John didn't wear her bed. And it was not every night, but it was she had had a problem with. So they say that that's an indication of the child was poorly taken care of. And was afraid of their parents. And had a psychological trauma problem. There is no evidence of that at all in John Bonnet's background. Or in Patsy's background or in John Ramsey's background. No, there is no evidence of bad character with the Ramses. Not only no motive, but there's no evidence of that character. That everybody in the world has tried to find something wrong with this man. Some individual at this family is somehow psychologically abusive to their mother. Or physically abusive or sexually abusive. Nothing has moved on in 10 years that would even suggest that. So that's not that. Give me a motive. If you can't give me a motive, give me evidence. And if you can't, however evidence of bad character. If you can't give me evidence of bad character, then give me evidence. So the Ramses have absolutely zero motive or evidence of bad character. And then evidence. Now I see evidence of an intruder because of a stun gun. All of the things that are done in that house. And he injured the John Bonnet.

[B]

To add on to the topic of the theory that John and or Patsy and or Burke were involved. We want to discuss staging. People who believe John and or Patsy killed their daughter. Believe it was over bedwetting. And then staged to look like an intruder. People who believe that Burke killed JonBenet. Believe it was over the Pineapple. Or whatever stupid reason they can come up with. And then John and Patsy staged it to look like an intruder. So we want to ask you listeners the following. Why would the Ramseys stage the murder and sexual assault only to unstage it later? When Jon went down to the basement to look for Jon Monet.

[C]

He.

[B]

He noticed the train window was open and he closed it. Therefore unstaging their staged murder. Why would John confess to having broken the train window earlier that year. If the family was trying to make it look Like a kidnapping. Why would John take the tape off of JonBenet's mouth, therefore unstaging what had been staged? Why would John pull the wrist ligature from her wrist, therefore unstaging what had been staged? Why would he take her upstairs? Therefore unstaging what had been staged? As our grandpa said, staging is a very rare occurrence. In his 32 years and over 300 investigations, only two were staged.

[C]

If you look at it real close, you can see it even more pronounced. This is a picture of the front of Jonathan Vanessa. Now, if JonBenet is killed over bedwetting and then everything is staged to make it look like a kidnapping, then JonBenet would have been dead already. Right now, notice all of the injuries to JonBenet. What color are they? They're red. Anytime you have red injuries on a body, it's an abrasion where burn. It's because she was alive. JonBenet was five when the ligature was put on the lower part of her neck. JonBenet was alive when that ligature was drug up her neck with the chain. And the final placement of the ligature is deeply embedded in her neck. Red. Red is before death. Chopin has. So the thought of her being killed and then a staging act afterwards is not possible.

[B]

All of the evidence we talked about are what made our grandpa introduce the intruder theory. There was so much evidence pointing to an intruder and none pointing to the family. The family has gone through so much since this has happened and have had people call them killers for over 20 years. They deserve to live in peace. And that's truly our goal with this episode. We wanted to share the facts and stray evidence of this case to show you, our listeners, the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing towards an intruder and away from the family. We hope you learned new things and we hope we debunked some of the myths circulating out there. If you have any questions, please reach out via Instagram hevictimshoes. We will also continue to post pictures of some of the evidence mentioned in both the last episode and this episode. And again, if you feel so inclined to help our team in their efforts to find Jomine's murderer, please donate to the GoFundMe page linked in our Instagram bio. Thanks for listening.

[A]

Bye bye, guys.

[C]

They've invited me to their place and I got a chance to look at the Ramses and talk to the Ramses and evaluate the Ramses and do everything what a detective would do. And they let me right in their midst. If they did this horrible crime, they really, really made A mistake, because they allowed a detective into their midst. And people have said, well, Lou, you're too close to their enemies. That wasn't true at all. You're too close because you're a Christian and you believe what they believe. That's not it at all. Yes, I'm a Christian, and if somebody asks me if they'll pray with them, I don't do that. But the Ramses were also being observed by me, and I'm sure I was being observed by them the same way. But they never. They let their guard down, and they allowed me right in their midst. And I got a chance to watch and look at the ramses for almost 10 years. And I never once in that whole time saw or heard anything that would tell me that Ramses did this. Not one word, not one innuendo or statement that I could take even out of context. And I know that the Ramses, they say, well, you know, they wouldn't. They wouldn't tell you about it anyway. And I even was there. And I can say that now. I was even there. When? In the summer of 2005, just before Patsy died. Let's see, that would be. When did Patsy die? 2006. I was there the summer 2000, about six months before she died. And they expected her to die that night. She was in the hospital, and I was in Atlanta, and I was visiting John Ramsey's parents, and I got to go to the hospital, and I held her hand in the hospital. And the last words that Patsy said to me were, I don't have much time left. Please catch this guy in Bright Eye now, people think that maybe I was there to hear a dying declaration, and I did. Her dying declaration was catch this guy, not I did it. And so that's just another thing that shows you that the Ramses did not do this. And if it's not the Ramses, then it's an intruder. It's as simple as that. This case dwells down to intruder or Ramses. Can't be anything more than that. Either the Ramses or an intruder. And if the Ramses didn't do it, then it's an intruder. And if it's an intruder, the intruder's still out there. He's either dead, he's in jail for another crime, or even a similar crime where he's out there murdering locals.

[B]

The audio clips used in this podcast are courtesy of and used with the express permission of the Lou Smit Archive.

[C]

SA.