no one is saying that so why are you refuting it
Just for shits and giggles, I’m gonna toss my tiny opinion into the shit storm.
Since it happened, my gut has screamed “brother” at me. It doesn’t explain everything, but there you go.
You may now continue with your inevitably fruitless argument.
Joe
Tripe. Absence of their DNA does not prove innocence, or exclude them.
Can I just say that I hope the parents had something to do with it? I mean, if they had to put up with all the accusations for more than ten years afterwards, and the suspicion to this day, one has to hope that there is some fire to that smoke. Otherwise, these poor people had to put up with that on top of the murder of their kid.
Who said anything about absence of DNA? There is no absence of DNA. They are excluded because their DNA does not match that of the killer.
The brother was nine years old at the time, and he is excluded as the killer by DNA.
Well, I’ve never blamed the Ramseys for lawyering up. When they began to talk to police, it was clear that they were suspects number one and that the police weren’t helping. You or I should do the same thing in that situation.
That damned note has always puzzled me. Who breaks into a house to kidnap someone and then sits down at the kitchen table (with others in the house) and writes a 4 page note? And many websites have gone through that note line by line and have concluded that it wasn’t a serious ransom note, but a ruse for some purpose.
Apparently nobody is paying attention.
It was SANTA CLAUS!!! He even wrote a book about it.
I did. Rolleyes are the last resort of the…um…what I’m trying to say is, they’re disrespectful.
I think the mother did it. I think it’s definitely possible it may have been an accident.
John Ramsey had buried another daughter before this little girl died (skiing accident, I think?). From what I’ve read, he was inconsolable and spent months crying in the attic and was damn near suicidal.
His reaction when Jon Benet died was quite different.
I am not saying this is proof of anything. Grief is crazy and illogical and everyone reacts differently to death. I’m just saying it’s … interesting.
There’s a lot of conceivable reasons they would look the other way if their daughter was molested by someone richer and more powerful than them, someone who could blackmail them, or if they decided the scandal from the revealing the molestation would be more embarassing for them than letting it continue.
The note is the hardest thing to explain, but my hypothesis is that the perpetrator initially wrote the note with the intention of actually going through with a kidnapping, then got carried away and killed her in the basement after he wrote the note.
Yes, agreed, though I do think Susanann is trying to imply that Burke did it and that the parents covered it up.
Who gives a shit what **Susanann **is implying? She’s clearly making a game of this. You see this a lot on true crime message boards. It’s like she’s playing Clue and it’s all about showing everyone else how wrong they are without giving up their own supposition, which presumably is just as shaky as everyone else’s, given the fact that the crime remains unsolved by those who actually do have access to every bit of evidence collected.
She doesn’t know jack shit about what actually happened in that house that night and its highly unlikely that anyone outside of the case ever really will.
Look - just because an unknown male ejaculated on the girl’s underwear doesn’t mean that the unknown male was the sole person involved or that other people in the house weren’t aware of what was happening.
I’m not asserting that anyone in the house was involved - just that you can’t rule them out based on presence of a third party.
There was no DNA from semen. It was from blood of an unknown male. There is absolutely no way to infer from this that it was from the killer. None whatsoever. At this moment I have a cut on my thigh. If a six year old girl were to sit on my lap at a party, it is quite possible that my DNA could be on her. There are hundreds of possible ways a completely innocent parties DNA could be present on her body. The DNA evidence has not cleared anybody, despite what the one-time Boulder DA said. She wasn’t the DA at the time of the murder, and she’s a complete whackjob. She’s the one who accused half of the University of Colorado’s football team of rape, but not only did she not get even one conviction, she didn’t even get one indictment. She’s widely regarded as one of the most incompetent law enforcement officials in recent Colorado history.
What happened to that freekshowe weirdo who conned the authorities (either the FBI or Colorado State investigators?) in flying him back to the USA (First Class, no less) from Bangkok by claiming he was the one who killed JonBenet?
I remember they eventually decided he couldn’t have been involved, but it seems like he was also caught with kiddie porn or something, and may have claimed that the Ramsay family (Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay, that is) ran in the same pedophile circles as he did…
I think **Susanann **did it.
It wasn’t blood. It was touch DNA mingled with Jonbenet’s blood from inside her panties. A male who was not one of the Ramseys had his hand in the victim’s underwear. This is the equivalent of a fingerprint on a gun. As the Boulder DA said in the letter formally exonerating the Ramseys, “there could be no innocent explanation” for how that DNA got there." It was the killer, and the killer was not one of the Ramseys. That’s why they were formally cleared. Because they were conclusively excluded.
You can protest that this still doesn’t really clear them, but we live in America and they are entitled to a presumption of innocence. There has never been a single piece of evidence implicating the Ramseys.