The DNA evidence and chronic sexual abuse

The DNA evidence speaks for itself. Everywhere except Boulder. There have been numerous debates on this matter with elaborate apologetics coming from the RDI/PDI camp in an effort to ‘explain’ the DNA evidence. DNA samples were taken in a droplet of JBR’s blood found inside her underwear (possibly originating from the perpetrator’s saliva) and from skin cells located on the waistband (a so-called “pressure point” which is scraped by a blade to extract cells) of both sides of the long john pants she was wearing that night. No semen was found on or in the vicinity of the remains. The DNA from all samples indicated that they came from a common source. Presumably, an assailant would attempt to remove the long johns by grabbing them at these locations and pulling them down. That the DNA found on two different items of clothing is commonly sourced indicates a very strong likelihood that JBR was sexually molested and/or attacked by the owner of that DNA, a Caucasian male who is, at present, unidentified. That is not for lack of trying. Numerous DNA samples have been taken from friends and family of the Ramseys. The DNA profile has been entered into the federal CODIS database (which includes DNA profiles from some 5 million persons in the United States who were required to provide DNA consequent to an arrest or conviction). As of present, no match has been found. The IDI theorists present this as their strongest evidence thus far. And, as we noted, we agree on its face.

But the DNA evidence remains controversial. Taken by itself, we surmise it more probably reflects the presence of a Caucasian male in areas where he should not have been. But how does one view this same evidence if, hypothetically, a preponderance of evidence speaks against the DNA implication? The obvious approach then is to look to the next less likely scenario. Suppose, for example, that a Caucasian male, for whatever reason, had been handling JBR’s blanket (thus leaving a public hair on it), her long johns and her underwear. If folding clothes was an explanation (we’ll introduce you to someone who did just that) it is likely the long johns would have been grabbed at the hip area. Another question arises when we look at the type of test done, to be examined infra. Some other possibilities include perverse fantasy, laundry or folding of clothes and the blanket. Could this have been Nathan Inouye. We’ll introduce him shortly. If so, was the presence of his DNA malicious or innocent? We note that Bode Technology, the company that performed the DNA tests in question, has had a history of contamination. So, we know it is not an improbable event. The following correction was published by the Associated Press:

Correction: Chandra Levy investigation story
Associated Press
10/20/09 11:25 AM PDT

WASHINGTON — In an Oct. 17 story about the Chandra Levy murder investigation, The Associated Press erroneously reported the employer of an analyst who got some of her own DNA on evidence while reviewing the case. The analyst worked for Bode Technology, not the FBI, which hired the outside laboratory.

Other reports have indicated that the Bode Technology analysts could not find Levy’s DNA on her own clothes, nor the DNA of her attacker. The only DNA found was that of the Bode analysts themselves.

More detail on this Bode flop:

"Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, last year the government submitted certain items of evidence from the crime scene to BODE Technology in an attempt to determine whether it was possible with new technologies to attempt to recover any incidental DNA. What undersigned counsel have learned since then is that in light of the condition of the items of evidence when they were recovered, and the handling of the items since their recovery, it is essentially impossible to recover now any DNA that may have existed or been deposited on the items of evidence at the time of the murder. This fact was demonstrated when BODE, using what is sometimes referred to as "touch" DNA technology (to locate skin cells, or "incidental DNA") in an attempt to recover DNA from certain items of evidence, found some female DNA on Ms. Levy's sports bra and a mixture of DNA, THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR OF WHICH WAS A MALE, IN MS. LEVY'S TIGHTS.(Not Guandique's DNA) As it turned out, the female DNA recovered from Ms. Levy's sports bra was the DNA of the BODE examiner conducting the test. Similary the government has reason to believe that the mixture of DNA found in Ms. Levy's tights DID NOT COME FROM THE CRIME SCENE, BUT IS RATHER PRESENT IN THIS ITEM OF EVIDENCE NOW AS A RESULT OF CONTAMINATION THAT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE ITEMS WERE RECOVERED.

We have decided to try to resolve this controversy by examining the issue ourselves to the extent that we can. We begin with a thought experiment. Let us suppose we would like to examine the contents of a bedroom, say, the jeans lying on the bed. The sensitivity of our instrument is such that when used properly we can isolate and preserve no fewer than 100 human cells each of which contain usable DNA. In order to do that we have to scrape some area on the jeans, let's say a 2 cm sq. area. And when we analyze the DNA within each cell we realize that instead of 100 DNA strands from one person we have 10 DNA strands each for 10 people.

Then we define the sensitivity to be a ratio; which, in this case, is given by 100 strands for every 2 cm sq., or 50 for every 1. That is, sensitivity is the minimum number of human cells per unit area required for the DNA analysis in question.

Apropos, we define a "discrimination coefficient" to be the TOTAL number of DNA strands statistically predicted to appear for some given area of scraping. That is, the discrimination coefficient is an experimentally determined value that redounds to the number of human cells that are statistically predicted to appear on a given surface under given conditions. The ratio of sensitivity to the discrimination coefficient determines the probability that the suspect DNA is statistically significant; i.e. if there was enough of that DNA at that spot to stand out from the others. We'll call this probability "p". Without statistical significance the DNA evidence is of no use.

But, alas, this necessarily requires a statistically determined value for the discrimination coefficient based on building construction, humidity, temperature, the material upon which the scraping is performed and who knows what else. In other words, this coefficient can only be determined experimentally. And as far as we know no one has developed these elaborate probability tables and it is thus impossible to have confidence in a DNA match for any set of values in p sufficiently small; i.e. successful discrimination waxes improbable as p approaches zero. The methodology of LCN is thusly flawed, which is what I sought to show.

Translating this into the implications for the Ramsey case is that anyone who came within whiffing distance of the evidence likely contaminated it, which includes a lot of people. This is because of the relatively untested and novel forensic method known as Low-Copy DNA (LCN), referred to in the article above as “touch DNA”. For example, the coroner, the investigators, etc. This number is likely high due to the age of the evidence as well. It appears to the lay eye that when using LCN the sensitivity levels exceed the discrimination levels. Based on these general findings about LCN, and due to its relatively legally untested nature, we dismiss this evidence for the purpose of a best-fit. Greater discrimination could be had if similar tests were run on the garotte stick, rope, etc. and would build our confidence in the data significantly. We believe in that case a complete review of this case would be in order, from our perspective.

Related to this issue of sensitivity levels that exceed discrimination levels is the fact that discrimination ability is diminished further if the two items of clothing are worn by the same person in the same location on the body. The purported saliva source could simply bleed through the underwear and deposit and dry in the waistband of the long johns. There is nothing to tell us that that didn’t happen. This draws us back to the question before this later DNA development. Where did the saliva come from? Did it necessarily come from an assailant? Was it actually saliva to start with? It is very hard to know for sure. One argument supporting the IDI claim has been put forth which is predicated on the fact (if it is true) that the DNA in the underwear is actually mixed in the blood in two blood drops on the underwear. Therefore, if the DNA was found only in the blood drops it must have been mixed with the blood before it was deposited. But alas, this is a non-sequitir. It does not follow that the deposition was made prior to the blood spot. Rather, it follows that either the remainder of the underwear were not tested for DNA, only the blood spots (which is actually the usual procedure) and / or that there could be an artifact of the chemistry involved such that blood preserves the DNA better; recalling that DNA degrades over time and its environment affects that degradation rate. Even if the entire pair of underwear were tested, it does not follow then that this DNA should be found on the fabric of the underwear as well as in the drops.

We can put forth what one might call an executive summary of our analysis of the forensic LCN evidence as follows. It is more likely than not that the source of the DNA isolated was transferred in trace amounts from the underwear to the waistband of the long johns worn over it. This arrangement placed pressure between the long johns and the underwear, facilitating transfer. Because the LCN process suffers from obvious and very serious limitations in discrimination that inevitably occur at the high sensitivity levels by which LCN is defined, it is highly unlikely that two articles of clothing worn one over the other and compressed to each other under pressure would remain contamination free from underwear to waistband or vice versa. We are unable to explain or rationalize the methodology employed by Bode Technology in this case, but assert that it is confounded enough to doubt the results.

The IDI camp is an emotional bunch with sometimes zealous defenses of the Ramseys. We respect the fact that they are sympathetic to the plight of the Ramsey family, which has been a horrible, long experience. Having made that proviso, we emphasize that we are not trying to advance any particular theory and we certainly are not concerned about this DNA evidence because we want to “make it fit our theory”, because there isn’t one. We maintain that there are serious concerns as mentioned that necessarily exclude this evidence from a best-fit analysis. The PDI theorists will, of course, exploit this questioned methodology but that is not our motive. We will review this again when and if a better methodology is employed. We look forward to the application of yet another new technique in which the physical characteristics of the owner of a sample of DNA can be deduced from genes that have been mapped to phenotypes. The obvious goal is to be able to tell what someone looks like given only a DNA sample, but we don’t know as yet if the samples in this case are sufficient for examination of DNA regions different from those used to identify the donor. But as with LCN, it is a new technique (called “DNA photo-lifting”) and it is thus fair and reasonable – hence necessary - to evaluate its efficacy before taking it on face value as we would for most DNA evidence.

Evidence that might weigh against this view of two independent attacks is that the sexual abuser seemed to have habitually inserted objects into the vagina of JBR at a “7 o’clock” position which was repeated the day of the murder, leaving a fresh wound on top of the previous epithelial erosion (chronic wounding). But this artifact deserves greater analysis since it isn’t clear to us that this position is necessarily an open choice for the assailant and that it may be an artifact of the mechanics of sexual assault. Readers may care to add to this but for us it’s a bit much into which to sink our minds.

Attempting to isolate an identity best-fit for a sexual abuse perpetrator leads us into a somewhat tangential effort but is worth mentioning should this person take on greater significance later. We noted that the perpetrator is likely a close family friend whose existence was less acknowledged by the Ramseys. This individual would likely be someone with regular access to JBR and someone who has not been DNA tested. If discovered later we would expect the Ramseys to vouch for his character and innocence – presumably something about investigating him could uncover something about the Ramseys (consistent with his existence being withheld). Only one such person has been identified. His name is Nathan Inouye. While the Ramseys were liberally sharing names of potential suspects with police just after the murder, it took them 4 years to mention this man, and only by his first name buried in a book they wrote. In 2000 investigators in Atlanta, meeting at the office of Ramsey attorney Lin Wood, asked them who he was. The interview went thusly:

DETECTIVE JANE HARMER: "You mention a kid by the name of Nathan that was living with the Stines. Was he living with them prior to December of '96?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes, he was."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "And at any time did he look after Burke or JonBenet?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He would, on occasion, take them to school in the morning."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know anything more about him, his last name?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "Inouye, Nathan Inouye."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Do you know how to spell that?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "I-N-O-U -- maybe Y-E or E."

DETECTIVE HARMER: "Is he a white male?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He is an American, but of Japanese descent, I believe." [editor: possibly exculpatory for him]

DETECTIVE HARMER: "How old is he?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "He has graduated now and is doing missionary work, I think. Susan would know exactly where he is, but at that time he was a college junior or senior."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Wood, can you facilitate getting the information to us so we can contact him?"

John Ramsey's interview immediately followed Patsy Ramsey's interview:

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Mr. Ramsey, your wife told us that there was a college student that was staying with the Stines, I believe named Nathan Inouye? Had you, prior to the murder of your daughter, had you any contact with him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yeah. We would see him at their house. He would drive the kids to school occasionally in a carpool. Patsy would take them, sometimes Susan would, or Nathan would take them."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Was there anything unusual about his conduct -- and I am asking for your contemporaneous impression, and then I'm going to ask about the post-murder impression. Your contemporaneous impression of Mr. Inouye I assume was favorable if you let him drive your kids to school?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Yes. He was a very, very kind, nice person."

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "Keeping in mind you told us that you are suspicious of everyone, is there anything in particular about Mr. Inouye, using the power of hindsight, that causes you to be particularly suspicious of him?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Nothing specifically in terms of his actions or what he said. Have I eliminated him? No, I haven't. I thought about that from time to time, But I don't consider him of strong, strong interest."

consider him of strong, strong interest."

This story of Nathan Inouye overlaps with a secondary story about one of the Ramsey friends. Inouye was living with Glen and Susan Stine, friends and neighbors of the Ramseys. Inouye was a full-time student at the University of Colorado, Boulder. During the Christmas holidays Inouye purportedly had an alibi as being out of state at the time of the murder, but the alibi seemed to be based solely upon affirmation of his family and might not have covered the entire holiday period. So, it isn’t clear to us that he was actually out of state. Readers might be able to provide more information on the basis of this alibi. A male pubic hair was found in the blanket used to cover JBR but it has never been sourced. In any case, after the murders the Ramseys decided to move in with the Stines which included JR, PR and BR for a period of about 5 months. The friendship between the Ramseys and Stines seemed to grow tighter after the murder and possibly suspiciously so. Before the murder all the expected friends names appear on their phone list except for the Stines. When the Ramseys moved to Atlanta the Stines, holding relatively prestigious appointments at the University of Colorado, Boulder, decided to resign and move to Atlanta right after the Ramseys did. Though not remarkable by itself, the nexus with Inouye makes us wonder whether something remarkable or noteworthy was occurring in all these friendships.  A story involving a reporter for the Globe tabloid paper clearly demonstrates a fiery loyalty of Susan Stine to the Ramseys. According to those close to the events, this reporter knocked on their door and asked to speak to JR. Susan’s response was vitriolic and abusive and she called the police falsely reporting him as a “stalker”. The police arrived and the situation was finally resolved, but it demonstrates the degree of loyalty Susan Stine felt for the Ramseys.

As it turned out, PR was likely mistaken (she qualified her statement about his “missionary” work with “I think”) about the exact disposition of Nathan years later. He had worked for the Peace Corps in Jamaica and had returned to California to earn his Masters in Teaching. He presumably is currently a High School teacher. It could be that Inouye misled PR, PR misunderstood Inouye or that PR simply did not remember Inouye’s exploits accurately as he related them to her or as they were related n’th hand to her. We confirmed Inouye’s activities after the murder through an internet search on him. He also has a facebook page.

We aver that Nathan Inouye should step forward immediately and offer a DNA sample. We suspect that he will be found to be an innocent DNA contributor. We are not sure how the DNA results will read for persons of mixed heritage, say Asian and Caucasian, but that is obviously something to address in the case of Inouye since the DNA is believed to be “Caucasian”.

But what about the “epithelial erosion” noted by the coroner? A possibility is that BR was abusing his sister and that the DNA represented evidence contamination rather than reflecting a real event. So, we will reserve any unique conclusion but we feel confident that it is most likely the case that either BR or some other Caucasian male was engaged in chronic sexual abuse of JBR. Which we choose depends on the veracity and nature of the DNA evidence. But one thing we know for certain is this; causality precludes this sexual assault from having happened during the murder. But the evidence takes us even deeper than that.

By our previous considerations we have unwittingly discovered another interesting causal problem. The coroner’s report indicates that the victim’s pubic area had been wiped, to include the thigh area in which blood deposited there was wiped away. After death, the long johns the victim was wearing were soiled with urine and the skin on the inside of both thighs at the crotch had a red dye or ink stain on it. The voiding upon death was apparently ignored by the killer. But this begs the question; in what order was the blood wiped from the thigh? If we suppose that it was done after a bedwetting then it suggests that two cleanings were performed, one to remove urine and another to remove blood. If done once and at the same time, then the assailant sexually assaulted the victim in a sticky, urine stench. This doesn’t seem likely (particularly if the deposited DNA was from saliva). And why would a killer, after having already wiped the urine from the child, sexually assault the child and then wipe the blood from her thighs, only to allow her voiding stains to remain? There is only one solution to this riddle that is causally sensible. The blood was wiped before the bedwetting incident hence proving that the sexual assault and the murder were two, distinct events. Thus far the question of the source of the inner aspect crotch stain remains unresolved. It was not in the right location to have been the turtleneck sweater PR stated that JBR had gone to bed wearing. A solution to this mystery follows later.

Evidence that at first indicates BR was not involved in the injuries to JBR’s sexual organs dissipates when we consider events outside the manner of their conventional understanding. The reasoning goes, why would BR attack JBR with what was likely a wooden paintbrush (we know it was organic plant material and that trace amounts of paint chemicals were found in the vagina) and her mother then murder JBR using almost the same idea for asphyxiation? That seems improbable. But we’re ignoring the obvious. If BR, a frequent wood whittler, had whittled a paint brush previously and used it with JBR prior to her death that night, PR may have discovered the item in JBR’s bedroom when she entered to initiate her premeditated plan. Realizing that this may have been more suited to the “garotte” she was going to put together than what she had originally envisioned using, she may have simply adopted it knowing that it also created the illusion of a sexually motivated murder. There is simply no way for us, based on the information available, to resolve this apparent coincidence with certainty. But perhaps we can tighten up the odds a little?

Now, much that was seen darkly before becomes clear and focused. Perhaps JR stated that his daughter was asleep when he arrived home to “lawyer” his defenses. But perhaps there’s a simpler but darker explanation. If JBR were asleep when they arrived home then BR could not have molested JBR that evening in the home. This could be construed to mean that he did. That’s right. Everyone went to bed right away that night. You could hear nothing but the sound of the house creaking.

Of course, as with almost every point we discuss in this work, there is a seemingly infinitely long line of discussion and conjecture about the supra facts, some of it centering on subjective analyses of the sexual probity of the Stines. The subject of human sexuality in American culture is one loaded with insecurity, fear and distrust of sex itself. It can be evidenced in the reactionary responses seen regarding homosexuality, significant age differences in partners (at least from puberty on), infidelity and faithfulness as a monogamous concept. This taints and distorts assumptions people are willing to make based on limited facts. One observation has been that the Stines did not seem to measure up to the measure of propriety one researcher assumed was an absolute, thus implying the Stines were capable of the sexual assault of a 6 year old child purely on the basis of an open and liberal view of human sexuality possibly adopted by the Stines. This is a non-sequitir in that the one does not follow from the other. And it is also non-secular, a violation of our 25 standing criteria. We’ve ignored these kinds of analyses due to their subjective and culturally biased nature for the purposes of a best-fit. Humorously, one of the researchers putting this view forward stated that the only element missing to tie them in to the murder of JBR was a pedophile connection! That connection is the only element that would indicate capacity so the researcher has achieved zero. This saturnalia of conjecture is astonishing in its capacity to speak so much of the one making the conjecture.

The Judge Carne’s ruling is a 90 or so page statement from a federal judge of the 11^th District who examined the JBR case in consequence to one of the many lawsuits filed after the murder. We read the statement and noted that, though the Judge stated her intent to rely only on undisputed evidence, started with a body of undisputed evidence that was incomplete and that, in sum, favored the Ramseys. We also noted over 100 examples of the following criteria errors:

1.)  absence of proof is not proof of absence

2.)  people tend NOT to incriminate themselves (hence, information they offer, directly or through an assign, that is exculpatory to their guilt is generally not reliable)

3.)  It is not possible to know the state of mind of another person

4.)  Scientific evidence from competent, disinterested third parties is likely accurate (a rule she invokes then violates repeatedly)

Overlooking such a simple set of basic rules of logic so many times in only 90 or so pages is astonishing. When done by a federal judge it is frightening. But it can in fact suggest something yet worse. The judge is well-educated and clearly doesn’t suffer from any handicaps in basic logic. This many basic errors brings the judge’s motives into question, we have concluded but cannot prove. That is, this is our opinion. The same problem can be seen with the Boulder DA’s office and certain individuals working there. Without naming names, we conclude that the most likely explanation is that corruption is involved. We state this only as an opinion of the authors. The reader must reach their own conclusions.

Having noted these problems, the Carne’s ruling is vital in that it is a statement coming from a third party who likely had access to more information than is publicly available. Indeed, she seems to reveal that fibers from a bag containing a rope, found on the bed in the room adjacent to JBR’s, were vacuumed from JBR’s bed after the murder. Carne’s also seems to agree with us that this murder was premeditated. She makes the valid point that preparation appeared to be occurring in the area around JBR’s bedroom. We concur.

The crime scene

Finally, we’ll examine the crime scene itself to see if any best-fit information can be gleaned from it. All components of the known murder weapon most likely belonged to PR; that is, the stick used in the garotte, the rope and the unique black duct tape. The stick was found to have been fashioned from one of PR’s paint brushes found in her paint “tote” located in the proximity of the location of death. The rope and black duct tape were most likely purchased by PR about one month before the murder from a local Boulder hardware store using her American Express card. This is one of the lesser known facts about the case, so we’ll examine it here in more detail.

Basement window with grate from outside

Basement window from above, outside

They continue, “JBR had been supposedly gagged by duct tape so they asked PR’s art teacher if Patsy ever used that kind of tape. During a formal police interview after the murder, PR had denied ever buying duct tape, and authorities were frustrated because they never found a roll of duct tape at her house. However, during the investigation of PR’s McGuckin hardware store purchases, they hit pay dirt. They found she had in fact made a purchase for $1.99 in the section where duct tape was on sale, for that very price. The duct tape used on JBR was a very rare black type -- the same kind on sale at McGuckin's. The manufacturer revealed that type made up a mere 2 percent of all its duct tape. Experts determined it had been manufactured in November 1996 -- only a few weeks before the child's death.” The reader should keep in mind that there is a misleading aspect to this, however. The purchase of tape and rope was not positively identified. In other words, the American Express exchange nor the store records indicated what items were purchased. It was inferred by the matching prices and the type of product it was, both of which were recorded. But, given the odds, the investigators felt confident that this was indeed what it appeared to be (recall that two items, not one, matched in price and general product type. These items then appeared at the murder scene as murder weapons).

And there’s more. That the Ramseys would use a rare tape like this is consistent with its presence in the home the night of the murder. The Ramseys did in fact use black duct tape in their home, probably purchased from its likely unique source in Boulder, McGuckin’s Hardware. Internet poster WhyNut has done a screen capture from a report by Trip DeMuth showing that black duct tape was found on some Ramsey pictures, but that this tape was from a different production run than the tape found on JBR.

Regarding the actual use of the tape, it was later forensically supposed that the tape was placed on JBR’s mouth after she expired and not before. This is based on the observation that typically when a person is gagged as such impressions from the lips and mouth area are always left behind. These indicators were not present, indicating a gagging placed after death or at a point when the victim was too weak to move her mouth at all (and likely not breathing). Having noted this, evidence of it having been placed on JBR’s mouth at all is not wholly convincing and is based on the observations of Steve Thomas. An impression was certainly on the tape, but we are not sure what it was.

Black duct tape similar to the black duct tape found at the crime scene. This author is not certain of the degree of similarity in all precise respects, but this image approximates the appearance of the tape.

Additionally, four fibers on the duct tape have been linked to the red and black jacket that PR wore the night before and the morning of the murder. Fibers are a tricky thing in that they greatly increase the odds of exposure to a specific item, such as PR’s jacket, but they are not fingerprints. Fibers from a very similar object could be substituted without altering the forensic evidence findings. But this is unlikely and a fiber match most probably indicates a match between the supposed donor object and the fibers found. Some objection has been raised here because JR removed the tape from the body before bringing it upstairs when the body was “discovered”. This then, contaminated the fiber evidence. The problem with this objection, in our view, is that it supposes this same donor object fiber was innocently present on the floor of the “wine cellar” room. Possible but not probable. Fibers from this same donor object were found entwined in the garotte knotting, meaning that the object donor of these fibers was present during the knotting and tightening of the rope. Additionally, these same fibers were found in related areas. Probably most odd is that Beaver hair was also found on the adhesive side of the duct tape. PR was known to own a pair of Beaver fir boots. Those boots were never recovered by police. Given the fibers and the murder weapon’s provenance, it is most likely that PR was present during the death of JBR and that the actions were, at least in part, perpetrated by her after some amount of premeditation (having purchased the murder weapon some time before the murder). The vector of guilt is pointing in a direction no one dreamed possible, but point it does. Premeditation? That’s the best-fit. Number 7.

Finally, it is fair to inquire as to the likelihood of an intruder in the home given the evidence for an intruder compared to the expected forensic body of evidence that would normally be created by an intruder. We are hard pressed to find any forensic evidence of an intruder. If any reader can provide some that does not speak to state of mind, is not overly subjective in interpretation, and has a credible source, we’d love to see it. The simpler, more likely explanation for the “burn” marks on JBR’s remains is that it was petechial hemorrhage. The more likely explanation for the presence of Caucasian male DNA is that JBR was sexually molested at some time other than the murder. The basement window evidence is unreliable since JR was in this room alone before it was documented. He could have broken the glass himself, and arranged whatever he needed to fabricate evidence. He could have even used the suitcase curiously located beneath the window to reach the grate. We are not saying that is what happened, just that we cannot exclude that possibility. Thus, all conclusions reached regarding the basement window are inherently suspect and we exclude it for the purposes of a best-fit analysis. Given these facts, we cannot identify, at this time, any evidence for the presence of an intruder during the murder.

As we have stated, most of the information about this case is in the public domain today. Just recently (October, 2010) there appeared to be corroboration of previous rumors that a child’s doll was found with the remains purported to have been found in the wine cellar. This also corresponds with the decision by the BPD in this time frame to re-open the case once again. The confirmation of a doll being present can be attributed to an internet poster whose handle is “KoldKase”. What this shows didn’t surprise us at first blush. But we realized this was more likely an act of genuine empathy, as opposed to self-righteous, pseudo empathy designed to make the killer feel innocent. It is a discontinuity in form to the other body of spiritual ritual associated with the remains and would not likely serve as a comfort to the Narcissist in deluding themselves into believing that what they did was “good” and “right”. Because this doll was considered (and indeed had been) super-secret and held tightly, it is believed to be crucial for interrogation. This is why we think an attempt to reach out to BR was made in this time frame, since the “secret” was now public domain. However, we feel the full connection between BR and the doll is still murky and not publicly known. Our suspicion is that BR may have learned of JBR’s death later that morning and asked that this doll be buried with her. However, as all this regards state of mind, we have disregarded it for the sake of a best-fit. We do not, however, suggest than a non-intimate associate of JBR’s could have placed this doll as knowledge of its significance to her is unlikely, even though the murderer’s state of mind, however warped it may have been, might have been inclined to do so had they possessed such knowledge. Because the doll departs from the purely spiritual overtones of the other embellishments, we believe this act to include the doll was one derived of genuine empathy and came from BR, not JR or PR; or JBR by happenstance.

Since it was held so tightly, we are compelled to further ask if the doll might have harbored some kind of physical evidence inculpatory to someone. While this is possible, the simpler explanation is that BR requested this as a last minute condolence upon learning of his “wife’s” death just before the police arrived.

What we see here is a motion picture frame capture of a pile of photographs. In one of them a doll can be seen in the wine cellar where the remains were ostensibly “found”. We believe this doll was originally placed in an air cargo container, which we discuss elsewhere in this report. It was intended as part of a burial ritual.

A close-up of the same frame capture reveals that this is clearly a doll; a Caucasian, blonde haired female wearing an outfit in Christmas colors and what may be a earth-tone skirt. In any case, it is unlikely to have been placed by someone lacking empathy for the victim or who, lacking empathy, was intimately known to the victim. We think the latter option is more likely.

Finally, as regards the crime scene, there are two more anomalies that are worthy of mention. In any case, these are two issues that are, strictly speaking, state of mind, but we mention them here as tantalizing and explicable under a best-fit analysis. First, the Ramsey’s owned at least two bats. One of them was found outside the home. Because it was steel/aluminum, it was most likely a women’s softball bat, but that cannot be stated absolutely. This is because softball bats are typically made out of steel. Examining the picture, this does in fact appear to be in the shape of a softball bat, as opposed to a baseball bat. It appears wider and shorter than most baseball bats. It was likely heavier than a typical baseball bat, crucial for the mechanics of this murder as the impulse pushes the bludgeon weapon to the highest permissible weight.

All of the Ramseys have categorically denied any knowledge of the black bat found outside the home whereas the bat belonging to BR has been readily acknowledged as such by the Ramseys on multiple occasions. This means that had there been an intruder, we’d have to imagine an intruder who had the presence of mind to take the bat with them on the way out of the house but who then, inexplicably, dropped the bat just outside the house. On the other hand, if there were no intruder, the fact that everyone in the house is denying any knowledge of the bat suggests that this particular bat is sensitive to them. That further suggests that it was in fact the murder weapon and someone in the house knew that. Because this all speaks to state of mind, we have excluded it for the purpose of best-fit but simply note that it is readily explained by the best-fit as a “sensitive” item that we would expect each occupant to distance themselves from, as they did. But here is an even more subtle point to make here. Assume the IDI perspective. Then someone initially attempting the kidnap this child entered the home with a weapon that had little purpose other than killing. A garotte, rope or other similar device lends itself well to explanation as a control or sexual deviance device. But a bat doesn’t fit this picture. Thus, why would the intruder bring a bat to the scene? To kill their sugar girl? Possible, but not likely. Now we can zero in on real best-fit information:

The other anomaly is more subtle, but also speaks to state of mind. However, pointing it out could be helpful. If we are to imagine that this was a premeditated act in which the original plan called for killing the child solely by strangulation, and if the child was attacked in the boiler room as planned, why did the killer choose this location? To answer this it might be better to ask, “what is so special about the “boiler room”? Why not just kill her in her bedroom? We know the rope and other materials were present there. No, something about the bedroom was wrong … not suitable to the killer. All we can say is that we can list out the unique properties this location held for the killer. First, it was the most secluded area of the house. It was a natural hiding place with sufficient room for two occupants and an attack on one. This suggests that someone within the home was “out of the loop”. In the case of an intruder, this follows naturally since everyone in the home is “out of the loop”. And by “out of the loop” we mean that not only was it sufficiently secluded to conceal the attack, it was also a place that no occupant would likely happen upon through normal movement through the house (this more strongly supports an intruder theory as an intruder would be especially concerned about this because of lack of knowledge of family habits). Related to that is the fact that it would seem to buffer sound travel more than any other location. This, by itself, suggests that at least one person in the home was not privy to the events and this conspiracy, if it were one, was limited inasmuch as at least one occupant was not supposed to know what had happened.

If we look closely at the floor plan, this area is particularly interesting for the degree of control it gives the attacker, it is a small space in which anyone entering would be forced down a hallway, making a happenstance discovery easier to thwart (as opposed to, say, the open area of the play room in the basement). One could almost pass right by the boiler room and not notice it. We note that our earlier observation that PR and JR may have been conning their own son, BR, is sufficient to explain this location as one of the choices contrived in the premeditation of this murder. Had it not been for state of mind, we could have used this to demonstrate that, at minimum, the entire family was not involved in this murder. However, we cannot reach that conclusion on this basis alone. At the end of the day, we cannot know why the killer made this choice and to apply our own logic is to impute that logic on the killer, which is not necessarily valid. The better way to analyze this is to ask if it is explained naturally by the best-fit. And it is. BR would have been the object of this decision, and the killer, PR, would choose this location to keep the attack insulated and hidden from BR.

Continuing in this line of reasoning, one other observation regarding this choice is noteworthy. By its nature, this area with a concrete floor and an almost pillbox style structure allowed for much greater control over forensic evidence (both by how much is deposited as well as how easy it would be to clean it up). Whether the killer cleverly took this into account or not cannot be stated with certainty. In either case, it would point in no particular direction other than to amplify the impression that this killer had a strong need for control and was very clever. This choice has the interesting effect of creating fear for a six year old child. It is secluded, dark and in the basement. In this narrow “back alley” beyond the water heater, the child has no means of escape around the chair, as the attacker is standing there to block. Again, control comes to mind. It almost forces the victim to a forward gaze, into the darkness of the back of the “boiler room” where any attacker approaching cannot be so easily identified as they might be if the room was larger where the child could lift and turn the chair to face her attacker. Our only conclusion is that this location is consistent with any best-fit evidence showing a need to optimize absolute control over the victim. The degree of control this suggests is so extreme that it is consistent with the idea that the killer intended to attack the child in such a manner as the child wouldn’t know who was attacking her. This is consistent with the best-fit showing that the victim previously knew her attacker. It further suggests, but is limited by its nature as state of mind, that the killer’s motive was born of shame (and that is what the best-fit shows). And this would work per plan, but probably did not work once a bat entered the picture. The bat is indicative of struggle and a bollixed plan. We believe that based on the psychological profile of PR, the need to conceal her identity from the victim was indeed significant. Perhaps the gig was staged as “Santa is coming to see you and you are not allowed to see him”. But Santa, of course, never showed up.

Finally, the mechanical best-fit strongly suggests that the attacker began their attack in the back of the “boiler room” where the clearance was about 7 feet 6 inches. This evidences a clever ploy by the attacker to remove items stored there then replace them when done. It would serve the purpose of distracting investigators from that area as a possible location for the attack. Could it have served a dual purpose of providing clutter to block the hallway at its opposite end and prevent an interruption or escape? We think so. It also means the struggle continued after the head blow with a heaving and dragging melee that continued for the full length of the “boiler room” and ended up on the carpet in the hallway where the victim voided. At that point, the attacker had run out of room to continue the attack. Their back was to the wall and to turn would put their back against the clutter in the hallway. But it was just enough. Of course, this length was not planned and the location of death couldn’t be covered up with a seemingly “random” pile of stored junk if it were blocking the hallway. This expiration location was off-plan. The clutter was returned to the back end of the “boiler room” as per plan. The door of entry to the hallway, likely closed during the attack, was opened afterward. Given the acoustics of such an area, the child’s scream would have traveled readily through the open duct all the same.

Using state of mind once again to guide our focus, but not to reach a conclusion, we further note that the movement of personal items from one area to another seems, at first glance, unlikely for an intruder. The purpose of the exercise, at least partly, is to suppress forensic evidence, not amplify it. An occupant’s fibers and fingerprints found on these items would raise no suspicion, but that is not the case for fibers and fingerprints from an intruder, forensic evidence that an intruder would leave if they moved these items. And it seems unlikely that one would rationalize that this risk was outweighed by the advantage of privacy. Since this speaks to state of mind, we have excluded it for the purposes of a best-fit. Therefore, assume the IDI perspective. Then the intruder is cluttering up the hallway and preventing his own escape if found. An occupant has no similar focus of purpose on escape. For an intruder to block their escape evidences a state of mind that causally contradicts their state of mind evidenced in their efforts to suppress forensic evidence (by, for the simplest example, not turning themselves in, not to mention moving the clutter around). This intruder fully intended on not being caught, as his own state of mind shows.

The reader may care to note that all these conclusions stem from the mechanical best-fit, in particular, the refined analysis based on new information about the height of the overhead in that area.