# What happened to JonBenet Ramsey? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577 "2010-01-11T23:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/221 "2010-01-14T15:46:05Z")
> [@UTejas](#): > > Too late. Your post is ludicrous for myriad reasons. > [ol] > [li]DNA under fingernails isn’t just dead skin. It’s from scratching at an attacker. I don’t know what to say if you think the family harvested skin from a random male unconnected to the family and shoved it under a child’s fingernails[/li][li]This same DNA is found in blood on the child’s underwear. [Cite](http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/19.html)[/li][li]Years later, technological advances allow for touch DNA analysis of her clothing. Touch DNA matching the previous two samples is found on the child’s longjohns that she’d been wearing to sleep. [Cite (including linked CNN article)](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-touch-dna-jonbenet-ramsey)[/li][/ol] > > To recap: unknown male DNA is found in blood in her underpants as well as in skin cells under her fingernails. Neither of these things are “touch DNA”. Even if you assume that the family has somehow procured a blood sample and a skin sample from an unknown male to cover their tracks, then you are assuming they also procured dead skin cells to place on a _third_ garment just in case technology progressed such that a decade later these cells could be identified. > > While this does not _prove_ the family was not involved in the technical sense, **Dio** is correct to assert it is ludicrous that the family could both plant 2 DNA samples as well as a third sample in the event technology progressed in the next 10 years. > > You’re going to have to do better than accusations of being happy at the funeral and wearing the same clothes the next day. There is not a shred of physical or circumstantial evidence against this family. That’s one reason, and it does not preclude the possibility that the Ramseys acted in concert with the individual to whom this DNA belonged. Whether the Ramsey planted DNA or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement that science has proven the Ramsey had no invovlement in the child’s death. Science has only proven that an unidentified someone had physical contact with the child in some fairly intimate locations on the child’s body. This scientific evidenced coupled with other evidence might lead to the conclusion that the Ramseys were not invovled, but standing alone, the scicence simply does not prove that the Ramseys were not invovled.Nothing you or anyone else has provided supports the proposition that sicen has proven the Ramseys weren’t involved.. Remember, the whole “plant” hypothesis was offered to rebut the statement that “There is no reasonable explanation for the DNA being where it was unless it came from the killer.” Even if the plant hypotheisis were wrong, it on no way has any bearing on the veracity of the statement that science has proven the Ramseys were not the killers. None. What you’re all missing is that I am not saying the Ramseys did it. I am taking issues with **Diogenes** representation of what the DNA evidence and science has “proved.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/222 "2010-01-14T15:58:13Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. You have evidence that there may have been someone else at the scene of her death, although that’s not even conclusive, it is compelling evidence. You don’t have evidence that person killed her. > > And you can’t convict a profile. > > I’ve never said the parents killed her. I’ve only said there’s no way to be absolutely sure they weren’t involved in her death. There’s no way to be absolutely sure that Jay Leno wasn’t involved in her death either, and there’s just as much evidence against him. You don’t have to be able to convict a profile to be able to _exclude_ people from it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/223 "2010-01-14T15:59:16Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > That’s one reason, and it does not preclude the possibility that the Ramseys acted in concert with the individual to whom this DNA belonged. > > Whether the Ramsey planted DNA or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement that science has proven the Ramsey had no invovlement in the child’s death. Science has only proven that an unidentified someone had physical contact with the child in some fairly intimate locations on the child’s body. This scientific evidenced coupled with other evidence might lead to the conclusion that the Ramseys were not invovled, but standing alone, the scicence simply does not prove that the Ramseys were not invovled.Nothing you or anyone else has provided supports the proposition that sicen has proven the Ramseys weren’t involved.. > > Remember, the whole “plant” hypothesis was offered to rebut the statement that “There is no reasonable explanation for the DNA being where it was unless it came from the killer.” Even if the plant hypotheisis were wrong, it on no way has any bearing on the veracity of the statement that science has proven the Ramseys were not the killers. None. > > What you’re all missing is that I am not saying the Ramseys did it. I am taking issues with **Diogenes** representation of what the DNA evidence and science has “proved.” The plant hypothesis is ridiculous, particularly with regard to the touch DNA. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/224 "2010-01-14T16:03:27Z")
> [@UTejas](#): > > There is not a shred of . . . circumstantial evidence against this family. This is just wrong. The circumstantial evidence might not be weighty, but it’s there. During the course of this thread various pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys has been discussed (specifically evidence concerning origin of the paper used to draft the ransom note and the amount of the ransom). It might be that this evidence is “flimsy” to use your own word (in describing it as “evidence” no less), but it does not mean it doesn’t exist. In short, there is at least a “shred” of circumstantial evidence pointing toward the Ramseys. Perhaps you and **Diogenes** would fare better in this debate if your weren’t so intent in trafficking in hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/225 "2010-01-14T16:05:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no way to be absolutely sure that Jay Leno wasn’t involved in her death either, and there’s just as much evidence against him. > > You don’t have to be able to convict a profile to be able to _exclude_ people from it. Bet you he has an alibi. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/226 "2010-01-14T16:05:15Z")
Why don’t give give an example of this circumstancial evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/227 "2010-01-14T16:12:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no way to be absolutely sure that Jay Leno wasn’t involved in her death either, and there’s just as much evidence against him. > > You don’t have to be able to convict a profile to be able to _exclude_ people from it. Right. Except for the the fact that Jay Leno wasn’t there, didn’t know her, and isn’t even a suspect. It’s just as easy to say that Topo Gigio wasn’t involved in her death. Don’t be ridiculous. The Ramseys, on the other hand, were there, and knew JBR, and were suspects. Except your evidence only excludes them as DNA donors, not as potential killers or even conspirators. Since the DNA on the underwear or under the nails didn’t actually kill her, you can’t say with any certainty that the owner of that DNA killed her; only that he was more than likely in her presence at some point since her last bath. When are you going to give up your absolutes? It makes you appear silly. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/228 "2010-01-14T16:12:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no way to be absolutely sure that Jay Leno wasn’t involved in her death either, and there’s just as much evidence against him. > > You don’t have to be able to convict a profile to be able to _exclude_ people from it. Missed the edit window: LBet you that Leno didn’t have access to the crime scene, that his stationary wasn’t used to draft the ransom note, etc. That the Ramseys were related, had access, owned the stationary does not prove that the Ramseys did it, but to sugges tthat the evidence agains them and Jay Leno is equal is absurd. Again, you might have more usccess in this debate if you were to refrain from the ridiculous hyperbole. You continue to miss the point, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s intentional. The DNA evidence need not prove that the Ramsey did not kill JonBenet for that fact to be true. Moreover, the DNA evidence in conjunction with other evidence might conclusively establish that it is unreasonable to suspect the Ramseys. Please tell me you understand the difference. The DNA evidence is not dispositive. Taken in conjunction with other evidence it might aid in a conclusion bu the results form the DNA test did not read: Jon and Patsy Ramsey did not kill their daughter. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/229 "2010-01-14T16:14:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why don’t give give an example of this circumstancial evidence? the ransom note was drafted on stationary belonging to the Ramseys for an amount knwon only to the Ramseys and a few others (I am predicitng that this leads to the revelation of your misunderstanding of evidence. Evidence is not necessarily dispositive proof. Circumstantial evidence accumulates and allows for an inference) ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/230 "2010-01-14T16:16:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The plant hypothesis is ridiculous, particularly with regard to the touch DNA. and irrelevant to the veracity of your statemnt concering what the DNA evidenced proved ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/231 "2010-01-14T16:23:09Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Right. Except for the the fact that Jay Leno wasn’t there, didn’t know her, and isn’t even a suspect. It’s just as easy to say that Topo Gigio wasn’t involved in her death. Don’t be ridiculous. The Ramseys, on the other hand, were there, and knew JBR, and were suspects. > > Except your evidence only excludes them as DNA donors, not as potential killers or even conspirators. Since the DNA on the underwear or under the nails didn’t actually kill her, you can’t say with any certainty that the owner of that DNA killed her; only that he was more than likely in her presence at some point since her last bath. > > When are you going to give up your absolutes? It makes you appear silly. The Ramseys are no longer suspects, and it’s not reasonable to conclude that the source of the DNA was the killer. Hypotheses about “acessories” are unwarranted by the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/232 "2010-01-14T16:23:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Ramseys are no longer suspects, and it’s not reasonable to conclude that the source of the DNA was the killer. Hypotheses about “acessories” are unwarranted by the evidence. circular reasoning at its finest ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/233 "2010-01-14T16:25:05Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > the ransom note was drafted on stationary belonging to the Ramseys for an amount knwon only to the Ramseys and a few others Not evidence pointing towards the Ramseys or away from an intruder. Anybody can find a pad of paper in a desk. > [@](#): > > (I am predicitng that this leads to the revelation of your misunderstanding of evidence. Evidence is not necessarily dispositive proof. Circumstantial evidence accumulates and allows for an inference) I know what circumstancial evidence is. The note pad doesn’t qualify because it does not have any exclusionary value to the intruder theory. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/234 "2010-01-14T16:27:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not evdience. Anybody can find a pad of paper in a desk. > > I know what circumstancial evidence is. The note pad doesn’t qualify because it does not have any exclusionary value to the intruder theory. You’re simply wrong. The ransom note is most certainly a piece of evidence. Its contents, evidence. The provenance of the paper, also evidence. The fact that the note contained information known to a select few makes it evidence against those few. It does not make it dispositive, but it is evidence nonetheless. If evidence were only evidence when it pointed to the guilty person then every trial that resulkted in an acquittal would be theoretically be devoid of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/235 "2010-01-14T16:30:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not evidence pointing towards the Ramseys or away from an intruder. Anybody can find a pad of paper in a desk. > > I know what circumstancial evidence is. The note pad doesn’t qualify because it does not have any exclusionary value to the intruder theory. Where in the defintion of “circumstantial evidence” does it require that evidence must exclude other suspects to qualify as circusmatntial evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/236 "2010-01-14T16:34:59Z")
I amended my post to clarify that it is not eveidence aginst the _Ramseys_. The assertion that the note contained “information known only to a select few” is a personal inferrence, not a fact. The writer does not indicate any knowledge that the amount of money demanded was the same as Ramsey’s bonus. The letter does not point to the Ramseys or exclude an intruder (and an intruder doesn’t have to be a stranger, by the way), so it can’t be called evidence _against_ them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/237 "2010-01-14T16:36:40Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Where in the defintion of “circumstantial evidence” does it require that evidence must exclude other suspects to qualify as circusmatntial evidence? It has to actually point at somebody to point at somebody. The ransom note cannot be called evidence against the Ramseys, because it is no more likely to have come from them than from an intruder. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/238 "2010-01-14T16:48:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It has to actually point at somebody to point at somebody. The ransom note cannot be called evidence against the Ramseys, because it is no more likely to have come from them than from an intruder. Again, wrong. Here are the facts: Rasnom note came from note pad in Ramsey home Ransom note contained figure suspicously close to Jon Ramsey’s bonus Here is the defintion of circumstanital evidence: circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. [Cite](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence) Put another way circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact. From two facts, Ramsey’s ownerhip and access to paper which the ransom note was written on and information in the ransom note known only to a few ionclduing the Ramseys, we can argue that a jury should infer that the Ramseys wrote the note. The inferrence might be wrong but that does not change the nature of the evidence. Hell, the Ramsey’s access to the crime scene is circumstantial evidence. There can be evidence againt lots of folks who are innocent. The mere existence of evidence is not dispsoitive of guilt. My guess is that you are havign a hard time letting go of this notion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/239 "2010-01-14T17:01:41Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Again, wrong. Here are the facts: > Rasnom note came from note pad in Ramsey home Irrelevant, since an intruder could have easily found it. > [@](#): > > Ransom note contained figure suspicously close to Jon Ramsey’s bonus Irrelevant since the writer does not indicate any knowledge of this. I know what circumstancial evidence is. I’m not saying the note is not circumstancial evidence. I’m saying it’s not circumstancial evidence _against the Ramseys_. It fits in perfectly well with the intruder theory (a theory much bolstered by all of the _other_ circumstancial evidence), so it cannot be counted as evidence counter to that theory. To be evidence against the Ramseys, it would actually have to point to the Ramseys, and away from an intruder, which it doesn’t. Of course, this is all academic anyway, given the fact that DNA evidence cleared them over a year ago. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577/240 "2010-01-14T17:19:14Z")
And why would Ramsey, if he were writing the note, choose a number “suspiciously close to his bonus”? That makes no sense. This thread is making me re-think the jury system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happened-to-jonbenet-ramsey/524577.md?page=13)