This is fatuous logic. The presence of DNA is not incontrovertible proof that the person whose DNA is present is responsible for the victim’s death.
In this case it is.
False statement. See post 85 in this thread.
Not a false statement in either regard. The DNA belonged to someone who had undressed the victim and had his hand inside her underwear. That person wasn’t the Ramseys and it defies plausibility to say it wasn’t the killer (the factory worker hypothesis is ludicrous).
I see I’m largely fighting a “Ramseys of the gap” mentality here, where any gap in evidence is seized on as evidence for guilt, and the Ramseys are expected to prove their own innocence to a scientific certainity. That is a game that can be played forever, but the fact remains that there has never been a single scrap of evidence produced to implicate anyone in the family.
No, it isn’t. You keep saying that its proof that some unknown individual had his hand in her underwear, but you must realize that a hand in her underwear was not what caused JonBenet’s death. *You *are jumping to the conclusion that the same person who left DNA inside JonBenet’s underpants also fractured her skull and strangled her. While it’s certainly a plausible theory, it’s not FACT because you say so. And it doesn’t rule out every other plausible, but unproven theory.
There is no plausible alternate theory.
The letter is a perplexing piece of evidence. Did they ever find the writing implement and test it for DNA? It’s difficult to believe that someone could spend so much time in the Ramsey house, feed the child (why?), write a ransom note, and then brutally kill her, and possibly sexually assault her, without leaving more evidence of their presence than a minute amount of DNA found.
I don’t necessarily discount the intruder theory, but I also don’t think the evidence conclusively rules out the parents.
In *your *opinion. I got that. There are plenty of experts who would disagree with you. The fact that the case remains unsolved should be a clue.
The case remains unsolved because they don’t know who the intruder was. That doesn’t mean it’s not a virtual certainty that there WAS an intruder. At the very least, it is known that a person who was not the Ramseys sexually assaulted the victim that night.
Even if they find out who the DNA belongs to, they’re still going to have to link the person to the crime scene and put the murder weapon in their hands. The mere presence of DNA raises questions, most certainly, but it is not conclusive evidence they were responsible for her death.
As I said before, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that the unknown DNA donor had contact with JonBenet, but she was actually murdered by someone else, either known or unknown. The only reason you and the media and idiots like Mary Lacy can keep insisting that the unknown DNA donor is the murderer is that because the DNA donor is unknown there is no other evidence either linking or eliminating the unknown DNA donor as the murderer.
Bottom line: There is no actual evidence that unknown DNA donor pulled the trigger.
I seem to remember that evidence of sexual assault of inconclusive.
I’m not trying to pin it on the Ramseys. What I am saying is that is very unusual in a home invasion to hand write four pages of drivel. It is unusual that the kidnappers know the exact amount of Ramsey’s Christmas bonus. How many people in the whole world would have known that?
And I don’t have the cite, but there was a website where an LEO went through the note line by line with criticism and concluded that it was meant to mislead and not an attempt to actually get ransom money. In other words, it was not a kidnapping gone wrong, but an attempt to cover up the murder.
I’m not saying it was the Ramsey’s, but it was someone close enough to them to know the layout of the house, the amount of Ramsey’s bonus, and felt comfortable enough to sit at the kitchen table and write 4 pages. That is strange to me. It seems like you could narrow the suspect pool down to a handful of people.
Other questions I have:
If they thought it was a kidnapping situation, why did Ramsey go searching through the house? If the cops suspected the Ramseys right off the bat why didn’t they remove them from the scene of the crime? Shouldn’t they have sealed it off from contamination right away, so they could start collecting evidence of the crime?
Women in these social circles are not “normal” to a lot of people… They are the type to get up super early to “put on their face” and do their hair. Appearance is everything so I can easily see how last nights outfit is being casual to them.
I live in an area where there are a lot of women in her age/generation that do this. I can go to a store at 9 and see women perfectly put together.
It’s something my generation has seemingly eased up on (I’m 40).
Out of everything, this is to me, the least questionable.
I would like to think if this happened to my daughter, even after the note, I would search every inch of my house just in case. I can’t say, however, that I would have prior to this case.
That’s a pretty hardcore thing to do to worried parents. Imagine your child goes missing and you want the police to help. And obviously YOU want to help. How would you feel if the cops not only did not allow you to help and refused to share information, but also told you to piss off and BTW where were you last night when this happened? Have you been molesting your child?
This is pretty much what happened to the Ramsey’s. I not only would have hired a lawyer, but someone would have to restrain me from committing a battery on a police officer.
I suppose if a crime occurred in my home, i.e. the kidnapping of my child, I would expect the police to preserve the crime scene, i.e. my home, in order to collect all evidence available to figure out who took my child, so they could find them, hopefully get my child back safely, and prosecute the bastard(s) to the fullest extent of the law.
I realize how difficult it must be for parents to face suspicions and answer questions like that, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of violent crimes against children are perpetrated by people they know. Naturally, the first suspects are going to be those closest to the children. I don’t understand why that’s a problem. Yeah, it sucks, but that’s how it is. Hopefully, the investigators are professional in their dealings with parents of abducted children and those murdered in their own home.
IMHO, I don’t think you lawyer up until it looks like the investigation is focusing on just you to the utter exclusion of all other theories and suspects. If you have nothing to do with the murder, you cooperate with the investigation in order to assist the investigators in figuring out the truth.
I would do the exact same thing. Wouldn’t you? What parent wouldn’t search the house?
Being innocent has nothing to do with it. If you have any brains, you lawyer up immediately. The cops will always regard you as a suspect from the word go (as thy probably should).