Perhaps hiring a lawyer right after what appears to be an accidental death of a minor child might be a bit suspicious. But in a case such as this, where an obvious murder has been committed, and the authorities have already asked for hair, blood and handwriting samples, if you found yourself in this situation and had the money for high-priced lawyers, what would you do?
There certainly was evidence of an intruder.
“Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window.”
This and much more can be found at the above link. And yes, there is also a section there concerning evidence against an intruder, but to say there was no evidence for an intruder is flat out wrong.
There was a window in that window well that had been broken for over a year. Leaves and debris would most certainly have blown in. It gets extremely windy in Boulder at certain points in the year, like 75-100 mph windy.
Anyone who puts any faith in what Mary Lacy (Boulder DA) said about the case just doesn’t know how crazy she was (is.) She is a conspiracy theorist who jumps to conclusions and she makes Sarah Palin look as thoughtful as Aristotle. She was the one who, instead of investigating the claims of John Mark Karr even a little bit, sent a cop to Thailand to arrest him and bring him to Boulder. She’s a huge embarrassment to the city.
The DNA speaks for itself.
I’m having déjà vu here, I might have already made this objection in a previous thread. I have to disagree with your analysis, Diogenes the Cynic. The presence of touch DNA mingled with the victim’s blood would show that there was another person there. But it does nothing to show that the parents were not involved. One might have other reasons to think that the parents were innocent, but the presence of another person’s DNA would not be one of those reasons. The DNA doesn’t exclude anybody, it includes the person whose DNA was found.
Ah, that is bullshit. You can’t say what was in her panties and you can’t say it caused her death. For all we know, someone was caught diddling the victim by one of the Ramseys and they killed her in a fit of rage or shame. Whether that supposition (which I’m not saying is what I believe) is accurate or not, the blood evidence doesn’t contradict that scenario. It fits with “no innocent explanation” as well, but doesn’t conclusively mean the dude whose DNA was found on the victim is the murderer.
There was plenty of evidence implicating the Ramseys, which is why they remained suspects for so long, but not enough to charge or convict them of her murder. That does not mean they are conclusively innocent either.
And that’s what I was trying to say, too, Arnold, even though I misremembered the source of the DNA (apologies).
I’m certainly not arguing that the family was involved just that the extra DNA doesn’t exclude them.
To me, the oddest thing about this case was the pineapple found in the girl’s stomach. Both parents denied feeding her the pineapple (and why would they lie about that?), so it would appear that someone brought her downstairs and fed her before taking her to the basement and killing her. Which is strange no matter who you think did it…
I don’t think anyone “accidently” killed her either…how do you accidently garrote someome?
And weren’t there unfamiliar fingerprints (i.e., fingerprints not belonging to Burke, John or Patsy) on the bowl?
Good Lord—That is one incredibly messed up, diddle-darling whack job…
(I remember when I first saw his picture on the news, before anything was really known about him, and I could tell at a glance that he was batt-shit crazy, but I had no idea how badly off he actually was)
That’s what I was trying to get through to Sherlock.
Ok, so he’s calling me a nut (basically). I’m supposed to be respectful? 
That’s why I believe personally they knew what happened to her. They seemed to at ease with her death. She was a little girl who was killed in her own home. How in the hell do you NOT sob uncontrollably at that?
What size is your tinfoil hat? 
Not everyone reacts to grief in the same way, at the same time. Parents have faced the murder of their children dry eyed and stone faced, and were still consumed with grief. Some people don’t sob uncontrollably even when they are devastated.
My father was close enough to the Ramsays to have his DNA collected by the investigators. He knew the father best, through work (I met him once or twice, before this all began. No strong impression). Dad’s anecdotal layman’s opinion was that there was no way the parents had anything to do with it, but their behaviour was suspicious because they were protecting their son.
Now, that doesn’t mean the son was the murderer. It could be that the parents suspected him at first, before he was ruled out, and circled the wagons to protect him. It could be that in their grief they determined their surviving child needed to be kept über-safe. They certainly were weird, though, and their weirdness didn’t help the investigation or public opinion of them.
It was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the candlestick.
I’ll believe to my dying day her mom strangled her over wetting the bed.
She’s excluded as the killer by DNA. The Ramseys were formally exonerated by the Boulder DA. There isn’t a shred of evidence against them. The continued accusations are baseless.
They say that’s what happened to Molly Shannon…