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.”
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Irrelevant, since an intruder could have easily found it.
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.