Who killed JonBenet Ramsay?

@ rainbow and baconbutty - thanks Had never heard she had a half sister. Interesting question about the foundation though.

Rainbow wrote .................. 'It hardly matters though does it what the public believe,it is what the law believes that counts.'

Really?

Then, one gathers from your statement above, that you are definitely not one of those selfless people whom we could count on to help during a campaign to release those who has been wrongfully convicted then, Rainbow?

Which means you are unlikely to have been on The Guildford Four's Christmas card list, Nor Barry George's.

No probs candy,John Ramsey also had another daughter Melissa and son John from his first marriage,both they and his ex wife extolled his virtues as a father.

Rainbow wrote:No probs candy,John Ramsey also had another daughter Melissa and son John from his first marriage,both they and his ex wife extolled his virtues as a father.

One has never heard a family member of the McCanns find fault with Gerald and Kate McCann either.

So there is yet another stonking similarity that the Ramsey case has with the McCann case. Virtuous parents in both the Ramsey and the MCann households.

One notes that the McCanns have gone a step further for their references of virtuosity. Indeed we have seen almost all of their family members and friends extolling the parental virtues of Kate and Gerald McCann Suspiciously, whilst applauding Kate and Gerald McCann for being wonderful parents, they totally discount and negate the fact that three children under of four years of age were left unsupervised. Allegedly.

Apart from Susan Healy saying she wanted to bang Kate and Gerald McCann's heads together for leaving the children alone, one is unable to recall any other critcism levelled at the parents by somebody who knows either of them.

Extract taken from a book
They started in the basement. Later, during the documentary Who Killed JonBenet?, made by Channel Four in London, John Ramsey describes what they found:

"As I was walking through the basement, I opened the door to a room and knew immediately that I'd found her because there was a white blanket — her eyes were closed, I feared the worse but yet — I'd found her."

He was with a friend during the house search, yet he ( not his friend)was the one who immediately upon opening the door to a room - ( standing from the door way ) knew straight away he'd found his daughter merely from having glimpsed a white blanket - he immediately jumped straight to conclusion it his daughter underneath the blanket, and from that distance he even knew her eyes were closed.


He instinctively knew it - he described it as if already had prior knowledge of what was awaiting him,
(as if) he was at the crime scene and had in fact placed her there himself? Strange, freaky, or prior knowledge? Prior knowledge I would say.

Why didnt the ramseys check the entire house before making the police report. Wouldnt that be the first thing anyone with a missing child would instinctively do before lodging a report. It would be interesting to know between him and the friend looking through the house, which of them had initiated going down into the basement.

Besides the technicality of the dna found in JBR garments of very miniscule amount, that the police discarded as of v little significant and this was made public 7 years later when case was reviewed; and which the law must recognise until the crime is solved. It seems circumstantial evidence so strongly indicate the ramseys were responsible for JBR death that the police did not bother looking for an intruder. Logics dictates it's impossible for an intruder to drag JBR from upstairs to basement, coming in from wet weather condition), did what he did without leaving a single trace of evidence of any kind#,and without apparent motive; even if one ignores the lack of forced entry.

The ransom note was a dead give away that the ramseys thought up the note to cover up their deed, to mislead and obfuscate. The law can be an arse as we all know, but a law is a law and all eventualities must be covered without leaving a lacuna for repercussions. But it's not alright right first time round, especially in a complicated case like this where the police blundered somewhat at the beginning and plenty evidence destroyed and chances missed.

Another eerily similarity of this case with that of the mccanns was that the police made a mistake by not sealing off the house immediately, allowing guests, visitors, nosey parkers, and all and sundry to throt in and out of the house thereby destroying crucial evidence.

JBR was found merely 8 hours after reported missing. No one kidnaps a child for ransom of 'exact ramseys bonus money' only to kill the child and left her corpse in the basement beforehand, then didnt ring back to follow up on the ransom. The note suspected written by one of the ramseys listed that amount with the deliberate intent to suggest intruder was known, in fact intimate or close with them to share that kind of knowledge, to throw the police off its track somewhat.
Misinformation, obfuscation, the more confusions the better game was planed and played out here, same as the mccanns.

This crime is also classed as 'the greatest mystery of JBR'......sounds familiar?

Are the parents despite one already gone exonerated in the public eyes? Never!

Staunch pro-mccanns thought it didnt matter what the public think, so long as the criminal is scott free.
Well they can keep their values to themselves.

[quote aiyoyo]

JBR was found merely 8 hours after reported missing. No one kidnaps a child for ransom of 'exact ramseys bonus money' only to kill the child and left her corpse in the basement beforehand, then didnt ring back to follow up on the ransom

This for me is the most crucial piece of evidence. Firstly the note was proved to have been written on the Ramseys own paper in their house. Noone would sit about writing such a long note for fear of being caught. Surely you would bring such a note with you if you were intending to kidnap for a ransom. Why leave a ransom note if the child was still in the house? Mr Ramsey also states the window was open, and there was a suitcase under the window, put there as a means for the kidnapper to be able to reach the window. Did the kidnapper bring his own suitcase then? If the suitcase belonged to the Ramseys how did he get in and take it, and then break in again?? Surely if he brought this with him there would have been some DNA on it. Was this thoroughly checked, does anyone know. I will try and find anything on this, but I heard Ramsey say this in a you tube interview.

He also says in a you tube interview I watched that he knew immediately that JonBenet was abducted, didn't bother to search the house, but called the police immediately. Surely you would search the house first, it was a very large rambling house, she could have been anywhere. Very strange indeed.

I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

I dont believe for a minute anyone can commit a crime such as the one done to jon bennet ramsey without the perpetrator leaving a shred evidence of any kind be it physical, circumstantial, or forensics, considering he'd used quite a few materials, came in from the snow, moved in different parts of the house,

You're the right the ransom note is a classical. Intruder took his own sweet time making up a literature of a ransom note, not to mention demanding a freaky sum, then didnt bother to follow up. If it was money he'd wanted, he would have made away with the little girl and stood better chances of collecting the money. Anyway, not following up proved the money was not the motive, then why bothered leaving the note?
Besides if he knew of Ramsey bonus situation, he must have known that they're filthy rich and can afford to pay more than that.

If he was sex pervert, he'd JBR in a v. secluded place away from prying eyes, why did he stop short of the complete act? Sex pervert is more often than not, not after money. And sex pevert would not hesitate to do what they came for before killing the victim to avoid detection.

In this case, none of the normal motive of a crime perpetrated against a child is carried through properly.

I count myself among the majorities of americans who feel her parents were lying.

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

JBR was found merely 8 hours after reported missing. No one kidnaps a child for ransom of 'exact ramseys bonus money' only to kill the child and left her corpse in the basement beforehand, then didnt ring back to follow up on the ransom

This for me is the most crucial piece of evidence. Firstly the note was proved to have been written on the Ramseys own paper in their house. Noone would sit about writing such a long note for fear of being caught. Surely you would bring such a note with you if you were intending to kidnap for a ransom. Why leave a ransom note if the child was still in the house? Mr Ramsey also states the window was open, and there was a suitcase under the window, put there as a means for the kidnapper to be able to reach the window. Did the kidnapper bring his own suitcase then? If the suitcase belonged to the Ramseys how did he get in and take it, and then break in again?? Surely if he brought this with him there would have been some DNA on it. Was this thoroughly checked, does anyone know. I will try and find anything on this, but I heard Ramsey say this in a you tube interview.

He also says in a you tube interview I watched that he knew immediately that JonBenet was abducted, didn't bother to search the house, but called the police immediately. Surely you would search the house first, it was a very large rambling house, she could have been anywhere. Very strange indeed.

The intruder supposedly came IN via the basement window and used a suitcase in the basement to exit ie the suitcase was INSIDE the basement.

aiyoyo wrote:

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

The brother and sister and sisters fiance were travelling to meet up with the Ramseys so yes he was checked out via plane tickets etc.

Meaning what? They were staying with the ramseys on the fatal night?

My question was were they interrogated and eliminated by police?

Rainbow wrote:

candyfloss wrote:[quote aiyoyo]

JBR was found merely 8 hours after reported missing. No one kidnaps a child for ransom of 'exact ramseys bonus money' only to kill the child and left her corpse in the basement beforehand, then didnt ring back to follow up on the ransom

This for me is the most crucial piece of evidence. Firstly the note was proved to have been written on the Ramseys own paper in their house. Noone would sit about writing such a long note for fear of being caught. Surely you would bring such a note with you if you were intending to kidnap for a ransom. Why leave a ransom note if the child was still in the house? Mr Ramsey also states the window was open, and there was a suitcase under the window, put there as a means for the kidnapper to be able to reach the window. Did the kidnapper bring his own suitcase then? If the suitcase belonged to the Ramseys how did he get in and take it, and then break in again?? Surely if he brought this with him there would have been some DNA on it. Was this thoroughly checked, does anyone know. I will try and find anything on this, but I heard Ramsey say this in a you tube interview.

He also says in a you tube interview I watched that he knew immediately that JonBenet was abducted, didn't bother to search the house, but called the police immediately. Surely you would search the house first, it was a very large rambling house, she could have been anywhere. Very strange indeed.

The intruder supposedly came IN via the basement window and used a suitcase in the basement to exit ie the suitcase was INSIDE the basement.

I suppose that is only an assumption.

Had the intruder used suitcase as a stepping stone out of the basement then surely there must have been some evidence left behind, like footprint or fabrics or any thing for that matter afterall basement is not a place visitors to house after the alarm were raised would access, therefore any evidence there would have remained intact and not contaminated like main house upstairs.

The no evidence of intruder existed at all would suggest there was no intruder, else it would mean the intruder must have levitated out of the window like an apparition without contact with any surfaces, which renders the suitcase theory absolutely useless.

It's reported JBR bedroom's is standing alone, a level below that of her parents, why then did the intruder need to drag a sleeping child without first sedating her to the basement? How did the dad know the intruder had used a white blanket, as he'd claimed he knew immediately she was underneath it upon opening the wine cellar door. Did she have a white blanket in her room, was it reported missing ? Or, had the intruder brought it along with him? Nothing adds up.

If the intruder had come purposely to violate her, that kind of person dont cover up a death because they cant feel affront by it. In fact the very deed itself (the violating and killing) satisfied a certain feelings in a sicko that they are incapable of decency like covering up.

Covering her up would suggest the person who did it was affected by her death, and couldnt stomach the reality or his deed, or couldnt stand having her facing him in that state, hence the use of white blanket to cover up. This act of covering with 'white blanket' seems more like mentality befitting blood related killing, meaning one of her family members had killed her either by accident from a game gone wrong, or deliberately to silent her from blabbing. How many killings by strangers are covered up in 'white' cloth or blanket in an attemtp to return some dignities to the dead person?

aiyoyo wrote:Meaning what? They were staying with the ramseys on the fatal night?

My question was were they interrogated and eliminated by police?

No they werent at the Ramseys,they were travelling to meet up with them and then all going on to Charlevoix in Johns plane,hence being alibi'd with tickets etc.

@ Rainbow

One is astounded at your breadth of knowledge on the Ramsey case, Rainbow. One is already very much more aware of how thoroughly decent the Ramsey parents are after reading only two or three of your posts.

Although stranger abduction is so very rare, the two prominent cases we are most often hearing about, seem to involve such saintly parents, do they not? Therefore one always puzzles over what is it about the Ramsey and McCann parents that makes the public at large and the investigators of their cases regard them with such terrible suspicion?

One is grateful that posters such as yourself can help one to see both sides of the case with equanimity, simply because having just had a brief look at some of the evidence people are posting here, one swears one could almost hear the cell doors banging shut on the Ramseys. Yet they are not in any trouble at all, are they? That must be because a) they have absolutely nothing to answer for.

Or b) That there is insufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution that would lead to a conviction.

aiyoyo wrote:

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

\
I believe that the police wanted to speak to the son but the Ramseys brought in a lawyer and refused a lie detector test on him, I am pretty sure I read it in the Enquirer and somewhere else, there is no way this was a stranger, they were too at home in that house and too familiar, the lengthy ransom note doesnt bode well, imagine someone sat in someone elses house writing that BEFORE they had taken JBR!!

Rainbow wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

The brother and sister and sisters fiance were travelling to meet up with the Ramseys so yes he was checked out via plane tickets etc.

I think we are talking about a different son, I am talking about the young one who lived with the Ramseys, I am scouring for the article.

soulthief wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

\
I believe that the police wanted to speak to the son but the Ramseys brought in a lawyer and refused a lie detector test on him, I am pretty sure I read it in the Enquirer and somewhere else, there is no way this was a stranger, they were too at home in that house and too familiar, the lengthy ransom note doesnt bode well, imagine someone sat in someone elses house writing that BEFORE they had taken JBR!!

Exactly, too familiar with in the house. Usually ranson is a hastily scribbled thing and not a fancy literacy piece. Imagine using ramseys's stationery to write it as well ! No one knows whether that was written before or after killing JBR, but either way it's freaky and does not make sense. No way a stranger did that.

soulthief wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

soulthief wrote:I once read that suspicion was on the brother at one point and that the Ramseys were covering his long term sexual abuse of her, which had led to him killing her..

If this was done by the older son from John Ramsey earlier marriage, then that could explain the lack of sign of forced entry, the freaky amount ransom note, as well as plenty other things. I wonder whether children from JR first marriage were interrogated and eliminated. I also wonder whether the police had asked this ramsey's son to provide dna?

The brother and sister and sisters fiance were travelling to meet up with the Ramseys so yes he was checked out via plane tickets etc.

I think we are talking about a different son, I am talking about the young one who lived with the Ramseys, I am scouring for the article.

Ah! Burke the young son WAS interviewed,although he did say that JonBenet walked into the house that night,Detective Steve Thomas who was so convinced Patsy Ramsey did it,thought that Burke was simply confused.I am not sure children under 12 would be administered a polygraph would they?

that I read it so maybe I am wrong about the lie detector and the police were blocked from speaking to him, could it be he sexually assaulted her badly because there was injury to the vagina and then the mother or father or both throttled her to cover the abuse?
I cant think why Patsy would have killed her otherwise because the mothers who enter their kids in to these pagents are full on pushy parents who live through their little beauty queens, but to protect another child or risk losing both????

I cant think Burke was responsible to be honest.Another strange case,that probably wont be solved until there is a DNA hit.

Me too, I thought Burke too young to be involved.

If anything, if it's family member, then strongest poss. of her perpetrator is her dad and her mum probably knew about it all along that the poor little thing had been systematically abused over time, thus they were covering for each other, self perservation and all. He probably came up with strangulation while she dreamed up ranson note to mislead and throw off investigators. She could have died at their hands while resisting her dad abuse while her mum looked on by falling against a hard surface during the tag and pull resistance, then the rest schemed up by her parents. She was only a wee little girl physically impossible to resist an adult so why did stranger have to strangle her with a specially made garotte requiring skills if she was already injured, not likely to resist nor capable to do so against her beast of a perpetrator?

I am still of the view her manner of death plus venus she was left suggest family involvement.

As for the polygraph tkaen privately as they hinted......if they have nothing to hide why resist or why not offer to take one from the police? What better way than that to prove innocent? Who can verify the veracity of a privately done one or was corruption involved.

Another strange case where money and connections obstruct the truth.

The reason for taking a private polygraph was that by that time they believed the police were focusing on the parents instead of looking for anyone else and they didnt trust the police nor any law enforcement body eg the FBI.

I always thought it was the parents or at least Patsy but the unidentified DNA in 2 seperate places has given me cause to doubt.

quote="Rainbow"]The reason for taking a private polygraph was that by that time they believed the police were focusing on the parents instead of looking for anyone else and they didnt trust the police nor any law enforcement body eg the FBI.



Rainbow

Surely their excuse was just a load of bullock.
It's not a case of not trusting the police or FBI. More like a case of them knowing full well they will fail polygraph thereby incriminating themselves rendering the police suspicions right all along.

If that was not the case, more so they should accept or even offer to take the polygraph with Police.
Truly innocents have nothing to be afraid of. Offer to take the test one time, ten times, as many times as it takes to convince the police to rule them out. The consistent must say something.
How can police framed them as they alleged or feared, because they were the ones constantly calling CNN and feeding it with stories. Had they told the media/papers they'd taken numeral polygraph tests and passed with flying colours, what could be better than that to prove their non involvement.

I dont give the miniscule dna any consideration at all simply because its so miniscule that does not make sense. Either the intruder used gloves or didnt use gloves. The thing is: if blood stained the undergarment it would mean no gloves were used, so why the less than microscopic amount?

Also, was the undergarment found on her, meaning wore on her, or was it found near her as in on the floor?
Why would intruder after stripping her, violated her, murdered her, then bothered to dress her again?
Especially under that circumstances when he was in a relatively safe and secured place as wine cellar unlikely to be chanced upon by passing public. Most criminals either left in hurry, meaning not bothered to redress victims, or take clothings with for disposal to avoid incriminating evidence against them. I've never ever come across criminal redressing their victim, especially stranger killing.

Family killing is quite a different story because of sentiment involved and availability of material things to use as they wished. Was it confirmed undergarment found on her was hers in the first place? Why did she wear undergarment like tights to sleep? I read she'd tights on?

I'm still inclined to think, if she was found fully clothed and covered up in 'white blanket' as attested by her dad, it's not the work or mentality of intruder or criminal. Pertinent question is: Did the police question about the undergarments? Were they hers, were those the last thing she'd on when the ramseys put her to bed? Who'd put them on for her?

How did the intruder dress her up without shedding skin, prints, hair, anything at all.....
The police should review photos, clothings found on her body, the way she was dressed, position she was found.......Just by looking at position and condition she was found, police should be able to deduce was that work of a sick minded intruder or insider job. Neat or messy makes a great difference in the determinant factor.
Ask would it be possible, practical or even logical for intruder to violate her, kille her, yet leave her in a relatively neat stage, or was she found in a complete mess? The overall visual condition when found would be good indication of her perpetrator in her case I would have thought particularly because of the venus she was found - a rather inaccessible place to intruder as a norm.

No, I am not floored by the dna discovery. The ramseys got lucky. I even wonder whether the garments were handled in its proper manner when collected by police or during custody of police.
I dont believe in perfect crime by stranger, too many elements involved.
From statistics, perfect crime is usually crime of passion or blood related, as in mccanns, billyjo jenkins, and jonbenett ramsey because perpetrators had time on hand wthout same factors of fear as intruder to premeditate cover up.

What makes billy jo jenkins and jon benett ramsey cases different from Madeleine mccann is that there is suspected fund fraud involved in the mccanns case.

I hesitate to join this debate because the murder of little JonBenet was so gruesome.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Ramsey family know exactly what happened and not for one moment do I believe that the first they knew about it was a 2.5 page ransom note for $118,000 found on the stairs, at the same time that JonBenet lay garotted and beaten in their wine cellar.

However, I will reproduce below extracts from the Boulder District Attorney's Report, the one which, bizarrely, exonerated the Ramseys:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXTRACTS:

The murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet – DNA.

As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder Police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet’s blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.

PART SNIPPED

The police department diligently compared that profile to a very large number of people associated with the victim, with her family, and with the investigation, and has not identified the source, innocent or otherwise, of this DNA.

Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.

The Bode Technology laboratory applied the “touch DNA” scraping method to both sides of the waist area of the long johns that JonBenet Ramsey was wearing over her underwear when her body was discovered. These sites were chosen because evidence supports the likelihood that the perpetrator removed and/or replaced the long johns, perhaps by handling them on the sides near the waist.

On March 24, 2008, Bode informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.

We consulted with a DNA expert from a different laboratory, who recommended additional investigation into the remote possibility that the DNA might have come from sources at the autopsy when this clothing was removed. Additional samples were obtained and then analysed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist us in this effort. We received those results on June 27th of this year and are, as a result, confident that this DNA did not come from innocent sources at the autopsy. As mentioned above, extensive DNA testing had previously excluded people connected to the family and to the investigation as possible innocent sources.

The unexplained third party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim’s underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.

It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.

END OF EXTRACT

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am troubled about the mention of the blood.

I wonder whether there were other males present with Mr Ramsey in the house on the night of 25/26 December, when JonBenet was murdered i.e. males known to him.

Beyond that I will not go.

Except, that is, to link to this brilliant analysis of the ransom note, so obviously written by Mrs Ramsey:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

I wonder whether there were other males present with Mr Ramsey in the house on the night of 25/26 December, when JonBenet was murdered i.e. males known to him.

Beyond that I will not go.

Except, that is, to link to this brilliant analysis of the ransom note, so obviously written by Mrs Ramsey:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

I wonder too. That could be a possibility.
Shame the true will never ever be known I wonder who was covering for who.
Was friend covering for ramseys or other way round, or a case of a pact of silence.

Hi Aiyoyo

Re the polygraph,apparently they passed the private one Incidentally Patsy did say she would take 10 polygraphs if it meant the police would leave them aside and start looking for the real perp.

Re the DNA..I dont think it can be discounted so easily tbh as it matched in 3 places-the long johns,the panties and under her nails although there were considerably less markers in the fingernail DNA there were still enough to be entered into codis.Touch DNA is microscopic skin cells and are found where a person is likely to have touched something.She was put to bed in the long johns which were taken freshly laundered from the drawer...another reason for the DA being certain it is an intruders DNA.I dont know if they were removed or just pulled down,she didnt have tights on and the long johns were more like pyjama bottoms.

Rainbow wrote:...another reason for the DA being certain it is an intruder's DNA.

Would it not be more neutral, and more accurate, to simply say 'another person's DNA?

There is about as much proof of an 'intruder' entering the Ramseys' house during the night of 25/26 December and leaving a 2.5-page handwritten note half-way up the stairs for $118,000 (the exact amount just paid into the Ramsey's account) as there is for...well...an abductor removing Madeleine without trace from Apartment 5A between 9.11pm and 9.14pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

++++++++

P.S. Rainbow, are you aware that the Boulder Police are now re-investigating JonBenet's death? The DA's report is NOT the final action in this case.

Yes I am aware of that but she has still exonerated the Ramseys based on the DNA and other evidence.

Rainbow wrote:Yes I am aware of that but she has still exonerated the Ramseys based on the DNA and other evidence.

@ Rainbow

Have you looked up the definition of exonerated recently? If so, your dictionary is wrong. One would suggest to you that these people are only exonerated in the eyes of each other and those who have supported them.