A lack of foreign DNA is inconsistent with an intruder theory.
Nope. So? Do you have some proof it wasn’t?
For those believing the Ramsey’s “did it”, I’ll ask:
Assuming that is, indeed, the case that her vaginal area had been wiped clean, why would the parents do such a thing? Why would they even think to do so?
Why would they leave the body in the house? Would they not have bolstered a phony kidnapping story by dumping it some God forsaken place?
In fact, why would they even alert the police in the first place while the body was still there?
It’s a description of objective facts.
The most significant evidence, by a mile, is the DNA. The note is practically worthless since it excludes virtually nobody. What makes forensic evdience (or any other scientific evidence) sgnificant is what it can exclude, not what it can include.
Why do I bother? It does not exclude that theory.
Look you’re wrong about what circumstantial evidence is (as others have acknowledged) and you’re wrong about what DNA has proven (also as others have acknowledged). Wrong, wrong, wrong. The opposite of correct. Wrong. You might think you’re being clever, but you’re not. You are exposing your ignorance. You are in way over your head. You are outside your sphere of knowledge. If this were a game, you would have lost.
I know what circumstantial evidence is. I have not tried to argue with you about what circumsantial evidence is, so I don’t know why you keep saying that.
The circumstantial evidence which does not exclude the Ramseys also does not exclude an intruder, so it’s probative value is non-existent. Evidence has to exclude something to be useful. Evidence which does not exclude Jay Leno is not evidence against Jay Leno.
You are the one who appears to have very little grasp of what evidence can and can’t say.
Because it was written by the killer. The DNA samples may or may mot be from the killer. Someday they may get identified and we’ll find out it was from a two year old boy who lived next door. There aren’t signs of forced entry around the window - there were undisturbed spider webs attached to the window. Nobody went through it without leaving some fiber from their clothes and managing to avoid disturbing spider webs. This is in the police reports.
How did the pineapple get in her, if she was stun-gunned and evidently not cooperating?
This evidence reasonably excludes anyone without access to the stationary and information about John’s bonus.
Funny. I’ll defer to your wealth of tiral experience. Tell me how in a courtroom I would not be able to introduce this evidence and argue that it implicates the Ramseys. I don’t want to hear your counter argument regaridng what wieght the evidence should be afforded. I want to hear how I would be prohibitted from offering this as circumstanital evidence of their involvement in the crime - think of this apart form every other piece of evidence in the trial. We are not talking about this in conjunction with anythig else. Only, can I argue that this evidence, this circumstantial evidnce, implicates the Ramseys? If I cannot, tell my why?
You’re coming close to getting this by bringing in probative value, but you seem to either not know or have forgotten that the jury is going to weigh evidence
ETA: you’ve most certainly changed you tune. From there is no evidence to the evidence has little value (you said “no” but I am allowing for your need to employ hyperbole. It obviously has some probabtive value
It also excludes everyone who didn’t know John Ramsey closely. The ransom note said “Use that good southern common sense of yours”, indicating the killer knew John Ramsey was from Atlanta, and not a Coloradoan.
You mean the unsecured, broken window?
The one with a scuff-mark on the wall right below it?
The one with footprints in the room that did not belong to the Ramsey family?
The one with a sill which showed signs of disturbance, and broken glass under it?
The one very close to where the body was found, along with unidentified handprints, unidentified DNA, and duct tape and cord brought in from outside the house?
That window? Yeah, no signs of “forced” entry. Well done.
Kids are amazing at sleeping through the damnedest stuff, I have lugged around my 3-7 year old goddaughters while they stayed firmly asleep … all you do is wrap them in a blanket, and shush people telling them that she is asleep … in general my goddaughters didnt start snoring unless they had a cold and plugged sinuses. As long as the person doesnt get too close, you can probably haul a dead toddler around until they start turning green and smelling.
John Ramsey broke the window himself when he was locked out of the house earlier that year. He testified to that. There was no sign of forced entry.
Yes… that was my point.
“Forced” entry would not have been necessary because the window was never secured.
And there were also other open windows and even an open door. Talking about “forced” entry at this point is a little strange.
Way to miss the point. There was no NEED for forced entry. the window was already open.
Fine. There is conflicting information about this window and whether signs of disturbance are present. Cite
The linked cite is HIGHLY informative and contains plenty of pictures and details and, yes, balanced responses to every theory.
Interestingly enough this is noted:
As referenced earlier. Nobody’s saying this was random. As you note, someone knew he was from Atlanta and clearly had either seen a pay stub of his or had knowledge of his bonus.
Man, oh, man. The more this goes on, the more I’m convinced it was an intruder, either known or unknown to the Ramsey’s, who wanted to get at the Ramsey’s for something. A psychopath who thinks putting kids in a beauty pageant deems the death of their daughter, someone who was jealous of John Ramsey, Patty, or the whole family, maybe just someone who LOVES to rape and murder children…
… or maybe she slipped on the pineapple, hit her head and a Boulder Winter snake choked her making the garrote an innocent bystander! Oh, to be trapped in an evidence bag for so long! We’re with you, garrote! 
Well, that seals it for me. Neither of the parents could possibly be involved with the crime, if that is the case. :rolleyes:
You seem to have a mistaken perception of where the burden of proof lies.
You seem to have a mistaken perception of when evidence proves one thing and disproves another.