Why would there have to be?
Cite? Especially when DNA is available. There’s no longer any question that the DNA in this victim’s undergarments belonged to the killer, nor is there any question that said DNA does not match anyone in the family. Ergo, the Ramseys have to be innocent.
This is all correct. In fact, according to this CNN story, there was matching DNA on the long johns, in the underwear, and under her fingernails. Somehow I doubt that the factory worker who made her longjohns also got under her nails.
CSICOP on the carbon dating objections
(Summation: the objections are a load of apologist crap)
I KILLED HER. Okay? It was ME. I did it. So everyone can all just stop talking about her now, because I killed her. Mystery solved.
I enjoyed it so much that I killed her again. I killed her repeatedly. I killed her many, many times over the years. And I continue to kill her, even now.
In fact, I’ve invented a device that automatically kills her whenever anybody mentions her, anywhere. Whenever any of you mention her in any medium or context, she dies again. Listen! Right now she’s begging you not to let her be killed again. Won’t you have mercy? Please stop forcing me to enjoy killing her.
I have another device hooked up to Princess Di. You hear me, American tabloids? Just stop it. We fought a goddamn war of independence for the specific purpose of not needing to give a damn about British royalty. Show some respect.
The hamsters thought they were being threatened so they hid your post.
Oops. Not only was this the wrong thread. It was the wrong message board.
No, it’s fine. One time I killed JonBenet Ramsay with the Shroud of Turin. I went back in time to research the best way to crucify her, but I couldn’t wait and finally wound up just smothering her to death with the shroud. I tried to wash her faceprint off afterward, but I may have accidentally messed up the carbon dating in the process. Sorry about that. That mystery DNA on her garments probably belongs to Jesus. Again, my fault.
I believe she has it penciled in for sometime before she apologizes to the Duke lacrosse players and sometime after hell freezes over.
I don’t understand this. You have a note from kidnappers saying they have your girl and want $XXXX to give her back to you.
Do you think they are just yanking your chain and really have her hidden in the attic? Maybe they are watching you right now? Don’t you want to wait for the pros to come and tell you what to do next?
True that, I have goddaughters, and believe me, small kids are great and crawling off into some nook or cranny to play, and being totally oblivious that someone might be looking for them…I can remember some of the dangdest places I used as hiding play places! um, under an overturned dingey?! =)
Do these kids also leave ransom notes from fake kidnappers before they hide?
My question is why the fuck are we just getting DNA reports now???
I mean, this crime didn’t happen in the Dark Ages. DNA testing was available then and it was available in more sophisticated forms since then. Why is this news coming to us now?
I feel terrible for her mother. A living nightmare until the day she died.
The ability to retrieve and identify so-called “touch DNA” has only been recently acquired.
Didn’t you just spend half a page talking about how the recent liquid DNA findings were the clincher?
The timing of this is silly. It has not been hard to extract liquid DNA from blood samples any time since the murder, but suddenly NOW after like 10 years, they decided to take DNA samples from the blood they’ve been sampling all along, but WAIT! THERE’S A DIFFERENT RESULT NOW!
Sorry, not buying it. Killers don’t take an hour writing ransom notes inside of the victim’s house, and then suddenly panic and kill them and hide them ON THE PROPERTY instead, leaving the note behind, and then the parents magically FORGET TO MENTION that the investigators ought to check the one place the body happens to be.
Nonsense. Utter, complete bullshit. I don’t care about the Ramsey girl or her parents or whatever, and it’s kind of annoying that everyone else pretends to, but none of these circumstances make any sense unless you include some kind of coverup. Her killer didn’t write the ransom note until after she died. Her killer didn’t just happen to stumble upon the ONE PLACE ON THE PROPERTY that police wouldn’t think to look in their initial investigation. A random baby-killer wouldn’t know how to get to her specific room without disturbing any of the other people in the house, or even know that she lived there at all. DNA evidence found from techniques that we’ve been using for fifty years wouldn’t magically appear 10 years after the crime was committed. The family did it, or helped someone get away with it. The end.
No. The liquid DNA is old. The match to the newly recovered touch DNA on the outergarment is what clinches it.
I think you’re misunderstanding the evidence. There’s no different result. The liquid DNA and the DNA under the fingernails is not new. It’s been known about for 12 years. Only the touch DNA on the long johns is new.
How do you know that?
It’s not hard to find a remote spot in a house if you go looking for one. You don’t have to know a particular room is there in order to go hunting around searching for an isolated room.
There’s also the possibility that Jon-Benet herself showed the killer where the room was.
In any case, it’s all moot, isn’'t it? There is matching DNA inside the panties, under the fingernails and on the outside of the long johns that doesn’t belong to anyone in the family. That’s not disputable. All your objections are beside the point in light of indisputable, inarguable evidence that the killer’s DNA does not belong to anyone in the family or close to the family.
Maybe he wrote it afterwards?
So a random guy killed her, dragged her out to a storage room, came back into the house and spent a long time creating an elaborate ransom note, and then left without anyone seeing/hearing/suspecting anything?
One theory is that the perpetrator broke into the house while the family were out at a Christmas party, and was already inside waiting when the family arrived home. If true, he would have had hours to familiarise himself with the layout of the house and write several drafts of his ransom note.
CrimeLibrary’s feature on the case lists several pieces of evidence that possibly point to an intruder. These include an unidentified footprint in the dust in the wine cellar, an unidentified palm print in the cellar, an unidentified pubic hair on the blanket that was wrapped around the body, broken glass and marks on the window sill of the open basement window, a scuff mark under the window, and no cord or duct tape matching the ones used in the murder. In conjunction with the DNA evidence showing someone other than a Ramsay touched both JonBenet’s underpants and long johns, I think the likelyhood that the parents were involved is increasingly remote.
I hope you’re right because the alternative is almost too monstrous to contemplate: That an innocent family had their home invaded on Christmas night, an unthinkable crime was committed against their six year old child and then they endured more than a decade of suspicion, hostility and vile accusations while the real criminal escaped justice. John Ramsay has buried two children and a wife, and has endured what must have been a living hell, but will never be able to convince everyone of his innocence no matter what evidence is produced to vindicate him. I feel for the Ramseys because I’m convinced they are innocent and I can’t stand to think what this ordeal has been like for them.
Thank you. I just saw a thing on it on CNN this morning. Amazing technology. However, there was semen and blood, if I recall. Why didn’t that evidence exclude the family? I realize the technology has advanced over the years, but did that evidence originally show that it might have been the family? And if so, why couldn’t they use that same evidence with more advanced DNA testing, say, 3 or 4 years ago?
I still don’t understand why he wouldn’t have written it beforehand.