If he was on the outs with his parents, they wouldn't have expected a visit from him anyway. If he wasn't, then how could he be in town and not visit his elderly parents?

Why was he there? Does he have a wife and kids, or is he a single? Does he live in Boulder? What did he do on Christmas day? Where did he spend it and with whom?

His father's dna raised questions. Have they tested Joe Jr's? Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Could he have been jealous of his father's neighbor and the attention he gave to John. Maybe he was a disappointment to his dad and John was everything he was not.

He would know the dog was not at the Ramsey's. His father had a key to the house. His parents knew of the Ramsey's plans.

My question is... was he really not in good terms with his folks? Enough to have to lie about where he spent Christmas? If he was, then he wouldn't have known the Ramsey details, because he wouldn't be speaking to his parents at all. But did he really need to know them to pull this off? Not really.

HE LIED a BIG lie...It is not a lie an innocent person would tell to the polcie.

I think he could be involved in it, if NOT the killer himself.

I really hope he's being investigated.

Someone like him would be close enough to know the things that were in the note, And be brave enough to leave his handwriting, or possibly an accomplices. Yet, far enough away to think of himself not to be considered a suspect in any way.

What is his job?... does he have a record...mental problems? SO many questions. I wish we could get some answers.

He's now my number one suspect!

Parents neighbor is a fatcat. Could he be involved in drugs. Maybe owed someone money and thought he would score with the Ramsey's? But it went horribly wrong. OR, he was a druggie and criminal and didn't like little girls,or liked them too much. And didn't like fatcat's?

If he was involved, I don't think he did it alone. So, just who was he with in BOULDER on Christmas day 1996???

Can't we get some ansers?

From what I can tell, they were questioned a few times about the situation - - Barnhill Jr. admitted he lied. Then said he was in Boulder - but innocent.

I just wouldlike to know his handwriting and DNA was checked.

As always, if neither is a match I would like to see LE simply say so.

If I was in his shoes, I would appreciate that statement.

I think police prick their ears up when they hear things that are implausible or known lies. It doesn't matter what the content of the lie is. It is simply something that raises suspicions. Often for the wrong reasons, however.

I think the perpetrator was 'far' in the sense that he is someone who can leave handwriting, albeit disguised, at the scene of the crime and not worry about someone showing up in the next few days to say 'You are not a suspect, but we would like to know where you were and we would like a sample of your handwriting'. I think the perpetrator thought he would be "off the radar scope".

I do admit that this 'didn't want my family to know I was actually in town, but did not want to spend the holidays with them' sounds plausible. That doesn't mean its necessarily the true reason.

There's a big difference. Someone that has nothing to hide, would have said: Yes, I was here, but me and my parents aren't on good terms and we didn't let them know we were in town.

Actually he didn't even need to relay that information at all. All he had to do was tell them was where he was. They weren't asking him anything else. But for some reason he didn't want the cops to KNOW he was in BOULDER. Why?

Very fishy to me.

They had to be staying somewhere in Boulder. Did they live in Boulder or in another state? If they lived somewhere else, that means they were in a hotel? Or at someone's home? Or maybe in a car,maybe a van, perhaps? A brown van. Didn't John spot a brown van close to the Barnhill's home.

Now how weird would that be to spend Christmas in a van or a hotel in a city that you don't even live in.

If they lived there in Boulder all he had to say was that we were home. His wife could have been his alibi.

I'm not getting why he lied AT ALL. Maybe I just have it all wrong. But this is REALLY, bothering me.

So if he was the one to lie to the cops, wouldn't his wife be very concerned about that? If she also said they were somewhere where they were not, why?????

I hope they got a handwriting sample from her.

So are you saying he did NOT LIVE in Boulder, CO? If not, why was he spending Christmas there and with who, if anyone? If with no one, why was he there?

Makes no sense.

And WHAT about the match with Barnhill's SR. dna. Why is no one addressing that anymore? Where's the explanation for that? It can't just go away unanswered, can it?

How many people actually handPRINT as opposed to handWRITE in their everyday activities? In his everyday life, do you think he PRINTS everything? I don't. I think there are a lot of people who have very few or NO witnesses to what their PRINTING looks like.

But what if, HIS WIFE wrote the note and there was another "gentleman" with her husband, that being the "two" gentlemen who don't particulairly like John.

Could they have possibly been in the basement with good old Glenn. And mom and pop didn't know they were there? Maybe...they were holed up in a motel room with some other perp involved.

There were too many things left behind for it to have been one perp, imo. Whoever it was, knew the neighborhood enough to feel comfortable that he could come and go undetected.

Could the second perp have had more of a heart, and he was the one who wrapped her body in the blanket. Because in my mind, the vicious killer would NOT have done this.

BTW, jams, THANKS for some of the answers!

I don't know about the majority of people, but my husband handprints everything. He says his cursive is too sloppy to read. Personally, I write in cursive.

If you were to ask a handwriting analyst, as opposed to document examiners, they would say handprinting means a person who does not wish others to know them well.

??? Who is bootman ???

This is from an old copy of jameson's TimeLine. I thought I would share it - - can't say what is beind the ***** but that is something that I hope is located one day - it was in the photograph, never found, and could be related tot he murder - - so angry that the BPD didn't respond to this properly.

February 14th
.
Michael Helgoth, age 26, was found dead in his bedroom. He had been shot in the chest and it was termed a suicide. There were a pair of High-tech boots by the body, a stun gun lay on the bed and there was a ******** nearby. The coroner called the sheriff. The sheriff requested that the BPD do some investigating, but the BPD refused to get involved. The family was not questioned about "Boots'" possible involvement in the Ramsey case. A friend of Boots called the authorities and said he felt there was a reason for the authorities to seriously investigate the lead. The police refused. More than 3 years later, in July of 2000, the friend would give the boots and other materials to the Ramsey investigators. When the city was going to demolish the house (for a park) and not search, the friend broke into the house to gather possible evidence, was put off by the police then arrested!
.
Still, in the summer of 2000, the police were forced to give the boots to the CBI for examination and the media picked up the story on the "suspect" who was never investigated - the reason never explained by the authorities.

She mentioned this bootman character and that there was a boot match and that the suicide was extremely suspicious.

As far as her overall knowledge of the case, it was pretty much just getting background information on the case prior to analyzing the note. She concluded that it was transcribed. She explained what she meant, but it went so far over my head that it may still be ricocheting around my living room.

Maybe it's just cop optimism, but they think it is a solvable crime that will be solved.

Sorry Lou if I'm flapping my lips too much.

But even printed it still represent 'evidence' left at the scene and therefore a belief of some degree of its not being able to be traced to him, thus indicating he is atleast somewhat removed from immediate consideration by the police.

Ashley, I see your point now about the alternative he had. All he had to do is say where he was and keep his yap shut about any reasons or any alternative place he could have been. "I was at home" is all the police care about, not "I was at home because I didn't want to go to a family dinner".

Also, I print lots of times because my handwriting gets so bad when I'm writing something long because of hand cramps from a repetitive motion injury. It gets very shaky and hard to read. Maybe this guy has something like that going on?

Ok, could someone smart please explain it to her. I forgot how it goes.

Ashley, you're right, why lie to police about your whereabouts if it will help solve a murder? If this is true, what was he thinking, or hiding? All I know is you're a way better detective than Steve. :)

I've always considered this 'two contributors' to be a merely theoretical construct reserved for desperate defense attorneys.

I can't see two people doing the crime and I sure can't see two of them each leaving a minute quantity of either blood or saliva at the scene, much less in the same blood spot on the panties.

If the dna is planted, it would almost certainly be from one individual.

I've never thought that two people skilled enough to avoid noise and being seen entering the home as well as skillful enough to avoid leaving fingerprints would suddenly each leave a dna sample.

I also don't see the note as 'two people' despite many others who do.

As a matter of fact, I don't see this crime as the type of thing you take a co-conspirator along with you on.

But...something tells me it is. I don't understand the dna, if two people WERE involved how does old Barnhill come up. Does it mean one of the contributors could be him, or related to him?
Why do two people have to be the source for his dna to matter.

Sorry, I am lost when it comes to this.

As far as the dna being planted. No way...they would have done a much better job and it would not be co-mingled with her blood.

He left his dna behind, no doubt about that, but he certainly didn't mean too.

>I don't understand the dna, if two people WERE involved how does
They are not saying there is any indication of two people being involved or any indication of two separate people contributing to the dna profile.
All they are saying is that it is theoretically possible since the combination of markers is such that BarnhillSr. is excluded only if ALL the foreign dna came from one person.

>No way...they would have done a much better job
Most likely, yes. And left far more of a sample. No use planting evidence that is likely to be overlooked.

>I've never thought that two people skilled enough to avoid
>noise and being seen entering the home as well as skillful
>enough to avoid leaving fingerprints would suddenly each
>leave a dna sample.

Well, I think "gloves" easily explain the lack of fingerprints, and I think it's quite possible more than one person was involved. We all have different theories and opinions on the case. Some of the most infamous kidnappings I can recall involved more than one perp.

>We all have different theories and opinions on the case.
Sure do. I have several different theories myself.

>Some of the most infamous kidnappings I can recall involved more than one perp.

Yes indeed.
Its usually necessary to keep the kid alive for ransom negotiations to proceed (a scream sure helps a recalcitrant parent) and its a bit hard to drive and keep some kid quiet.
If this crime had the least bit of anything to do with a kidnapping, I could well imagine multiple offenders.

Interesting, though, the minor component seemed to cause trouble for Barnhill, Sr., NOT any of the Ramseys.

EVERYTHING written and said seems to EXCLUDE the Ramseys as donors of any part of the DNA mixtures (whether it was JonBenét's mixed with one other donor or more than one). One poster seems to be trying to implicate the Ramseys on the basis of multiple donors to the minor component on the basis of the 48 Hours screen capture info, but he is filling in the "blank" with a male Ramsey rather than Barnhill, Sr, which would seem more likely, as per the information we have from PMPT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

PMPT pb p 182
"During the same week (note: Jan 1997), the CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenét's panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenét's DNA was the major component, but there was a minor componenet consisting of DNA from another person - or possibly more than one. The CBI told the police that the Ramseys' neighbor, Joe Barnhill could not be eliminated if the minor component originated from two or more sources. Further testing would take several months, the lab said."

The CBI tests were PCR (PMPT pb p240) "The CBI had already (note: prior to Feb 1997) determined that the stain on JonBenét's underpants ... was not solely hers. A D1S80 DNA test showed that the stain came from at least two different sources. {Footnote: A D1S80 test is a PCR-based test that measures the genetic marker known as D1S80 on the DNA strand.)"

Then the evidence was transferred for further examination to Cellmark. (PMPT pb p227) "Test results can take from several days to weeks using the PCR method of testing, RFLP typing takes months. In some cases it can take up to ten months to obtain test results because the lab is so backlogged.

ST - JBITRMI, pb p204
"When the preliminary DNA results came back from the CellMark labs, .... That early report was very ambiguous. We would get a more thorough briefing in five months and would hold this early material as confidential." (note: confidential as in out of the hands of the DA's office)

I KNOW that some of us do NOT leave fingerprints wherever we go, all day long, as easily as others. I know this based on newspaper print and living in a household with members of the family who (a)not only pick up the newsprint on to hir fingers, but (b)"track" fingerprints wherever hir touches things, while the rest of us (the MAJORITY) DO NOT pick up the newsprint and leave a trail of fingerprints wherever we go. The same household example applies to mirrors. Some may easily leave a fingerprint smudge on the mirror, while the majority of us do not (you know those tri-fold mirrors over the bathroom vanity, where you fold one side or the other out to look at the back/side of your head/torso ... or the bi-fold mirrored closet doors ...). Like the Ramseys, we live in a very dry climate in the winter months.

Test yourself. Are your natural (without moisturizer or having touched an oily substance) fingertips oily or dry? Do you leave prints wherever you go?

Latex gloves abound nowadays and drug stores sell zillions of them.

With all the allusions to true crime in the ransom note it is likely the author is somewhat familiar with fingerprints, after all, just about anyone who watches television is now somewhat familiar with a variety of forensic techniques.

So although it is possible that the intruder was not gloved, I would think it unlikely. True, many of the surfaces he touched were touched or cleaned by various guests or police personnel but I still think he wore gloves of some sort, simply because he would be too bright to go wandering around the house without gloves on, even if he knew his fingertips were always dry and his prints had never been taken anywhere for any purpose.

It calls Ashley's attention to him. It calls the BPD attention to him.

It seems a strange thing for a clever perpetrator to not have a better alibi arrangement already in place.

I understand that one person's DNA comingled with another person's DNA makes it a little harder to get a clear picture, but, apparently, they were able to.

THIS is the first time around. DA-Keenan's investigation is the first investigation. It is obvious the BPD never really looked too hard at anyone other than the parents.

I would have some doubts as to motive for Joe Barnhill Jr. I would also wonder as to how someone clever enough to pull the job off would botch up the alibi portion and the talking to the police. Sort of David Westerfield sweating while talking to the cops outside his home. He was ofinterest when he started talking, but when he started sweating, he was of even greater interest.

I will admit that entry into the house is easiest for someone who lives in the neighborhood: they can walk around and even approach the house and its not suspicious. They belong there and are not noticed.
Also ofcourse a man who can be in the area has the opportunity to view the home and know when its empty or when lights have gone out.

Either he simply wanted to molest and murder JB, or it went a little deeper. His father befriending John and spending time with him. A rich successful man around the same age as himself? Maybe Joe Sr.'s talk of John held him up in a higher esteem, making Joe Jr. feel inferior?

Could be a motive alone.

Just pondering ideas...

Maybe him was verrrrry jealous!

They think they're way smarter then everyone else, including the police. Only they lie and say and do really stupid things.

The "too excited to sit down" that Lou Smit spoke of is real, but it does wear off and as the excitement tapers off, they probably become outwardly no longer appearing agitated but are still on a 'high' that makes them feel invincible.

Trouble is, I have alot of doubts about this particular suspect.

What are your doubts, Don? I don't know very much about Joe Jr. To say he's the one. But he sure looks suspicious to me.

Another thought I had on the motive was this: What if it really was his father he hated and he knew his father was close to John and JB. He even had her little dog. What better way then to hurt his dad.

He may have taken his anger out on her. There's just no way of knowing what goes on in a disturbed mind like the killer's.

I just don't see this 'getting back at his father for unknown reason by killing the daughter of a neighbor with whom he was mildly friendly'. Barnhill's major reaction to the murder was probably annoyance at all the media that showed up. Thats not much 'revenge' for the son.

>just no way of knowing what goes on in a disturbed mind like the killer's.
IF the killer has a disturbed mind!

To me, it would have to be something so ridiculous that only a VERY disturbed mind would contemplate.

I don't think it would neccessarily be out of revenge.

Could be Saved by the Cross or by the child. Victory is used in descibing religious power, isn't it! I'm not saying this was about religion at all. But could be merely mocking it!

The killer is "close" from his point of view and yet the killer is also "far" from the Ramsey's point of view. A man who became angry for some reason and sought some type of vengeful action would have to have been 'close' (atleast in his own mind) at some point in time but in order to remain undetected he has to in actuality and in the minds of the family be 'far'.

Physical presence in the neighborhood is always a sufficient 'close' designation. Someone who either lived there or visited there frequently. He can observe the premises that interest him without really being noticed. No one calls the cops if he walks by or parks his car on the street. No one really notices him after a while.

OR: perhaps it is really someone far? Did he travel and did he travel WITH the roll of duct tape. Perhaps those 'new' rolls of duct tape were shipped, but not shipped all the way to Boulder? Did they arrive in Denver first? Or some other city? While he was travelling did he stop along the way in a distant city to buy the duct tape?