I have a clear understanding of what the evidence can exclude, and the Ramseys are unequivocally excluded as the source of DNA found in places that do not have innocent explanations.
There is also ample evidednce of in intruder which some of you here are just ignoring completely. Where did ithe stun gun come from and where did it go? Where’s the paintbrush handle that was used to strangle the victim? Where did the boot prints come from?
The thing you seem determined to ignore, is that even if the DNA excludes either of the parents from actual physical involvement in her death, it doesn’t follow that they knew nothing about it.
There is also no evidence that they DID know anything about it. It’s never possible to prove absolutely that anybody close to a murder victim couldn’t have had knowledge. That isn’t a meaningful observation. You can’t rule out aliens either.
Thank you! That’s what most of us have been saying–there is no proof of the Ramsey’s innocence.
Should have been more clear. I posted that quote because of post 292 in this very thread. Of course similarities to movie quotes don’t prove anything.
Yes there is, by any reasonable standard. There is no proof of ANYBODY’S innocence by the standards of some in this thread.
Is there proof that OJ’s kids weren’t in on on the murder of their mom?
Dio,
meet Dio,
I’ll let you two hash out your differences.
I think you just need to read more carefully and discern the distinction between “absolute,” and “reasonable” proof.
You’re fucking kidding. Congratulations, Dio, you’ll never be taken seriously again. If you ever were to begin with. :rolleyes:
You really don’t get it, do you?
Can you name any child murder case where it as absolutely proven beyond all doubt that the parents weren’t in on it?
I’ll jump in here with more about the ransom note. Does anyone in this thread believe it is legitimate? By legitimate, I mean written by an intruder who was trying to set up a kidnapping/ransom drop as opposed to trying to throw the cops off of the trail?
The problem I have is several. One, if I am going to kidnap a kid (not that I would) why wouldn’t you write the ransom note at home? Write it at home and then take 3 seconds to drop it at the crime scene. Don’t sit for almost (guessing) 1/2 an hour in the victim’s kitchen writing it on their stationery.
How did the intruder even know that there would be a pad there to write on? There is no readily available notebook in my home. Was he planning on searching through drawers for suitable paper?
And then the content of the note is silly. The whole part about “make sure that you are well rested” and “bring an adequate sized attache case” is ludicrous. You are sitting inside a victim’s home and you are writing prose? And you practice a few times as well? You don’t want the victims to criticize your sloppy handwriting or grammar?
And IMHO, the bonus amount and the “southern” comment shows that it wasn’t a random whackjob, but someone who knew the Ramsey’s pretty closely.
It is like there are a million unanswered questions, but if you put Patsy Ramsey as the author of the note, more things fall in line… (just saying, haven’t decided for myself either way)
Haven’t read through this thread, so this may have been addressed already.
It was my conclusion that the brother (Burke) probably killed her and dragged the body to the basement.
Patsy and her family covered it up, awkwardly. None of the true insiders had much enthusiasm for potentially destroying Burke’s life as well.
There was no real crime (Burke was underage) and the DA more or less decided not to pursue it much. And statements such as “Burke is cleared as a suspect” can be made with a straight face since no crime is committed if the killer is not of age.
Among odd things were two completely different modes of death (strangulation and a head injury). There were abrasions c/w Jon Benet being dragged; unusual if an adult did her in since she was small. The head injury could be from plopping her down on a hard floor after dragging her.
I’m not that interested in debating all the what ifs here, but all of the DNA stuff was nonsense, as I recall. For instance the DNA on the underwear was so insignificant it could have been from a factory worker packaging the DNA. It was clear to me that the mother was intimately involved but equally clear she was not likely the perp.
I fully admit my personal conclusion Burke killed her is circumstantial. I always felt sorry for Patsy since in my view she shouldered the burden of a dead child and the burden of taking public heat rather than exposing her son as the actual killer.
How did the factory worker’s DNA also get under her fingernails and into the waistband of her longjohns?
The dilemma with the touch DNA is that it is so sensitive as to be almost useless here. Was the package of the other six days worth of Bloomies underwear (which the Ramseys produced 5 years later) even tested for that touch DNA?
The fingernail DNA was very poor quality; had to be amplified by PCR, as I recall, and as far as I remember did not match the underwear DNA. Most of the DNA is little more than stutter.
I believe the fingernails themselves showed no sign of having been used traumatically, and the clippers were not even sterilized and used once per nail, as procedure should have been done. If my memory serves me, they may even have been used on other autopsies!
The underwear itself (the size 12s) were another odd issue.
Nothing Patsy said made sense, including the fact of how she was dressed. This is critical, and everyone should care. It does not make any sense that she would awake, put on the same clothes and makeup as the night before. She never went to bed; she was writing the note which contained a sum of $118,000…
The DNA here is a complete red herring, as is the “pubic hair.” Anyone could go through our clothes and find a boatload of foreign hairs and touch DNA. None of that is any sort of evidence that an outsider was involved.
I do not think you have done a very careful study of the DNA evidence. I have no dog in this fight, so I’m not interested in rehashing it here, but I think the notion that Mary Lacy’s opinion is worth a bean is silly. She’s the same one who had Karr arrested and pretended the case was nearly solved.
Suggestions that the DNA came from a factory worker go out the window since the same DNA was found under her fingernails, in bloodstains on her underwear and on the waistband of her longjohns. I see a of of handwaving about the DNA evdience, but no actual refutations, and no matter what you think of DNA evidence, armchair analysis of the mother’s behavior is beyond worthless as evidence. So are the ad hominems against the former Boulder DA. It’s the DNA that clears the Ramseys, not word of the DA.
I was hoping someone would post a cite discussing the DNA evidence at this level of detail. I don’t necessarily disbelieve what had been said here about the DNA evidence in this case; I would just like to read more about it before I express an opinion.
I’ve posted several cites in this thread containing this information. Long story short: DNA under fingernails was too degraded to be of use. DNA in blood sample on her underwear in good enough condition. Entered into CODIS. Years later touch DNA on her longjohns (different from her underwear) matched with blood DNA from underwear. Unknown caucasian male. Determined to not be anyone in the family or anyone investigating the case.
Thanks. I did read your cites before when you posted them. I guess I got confused/forgot the details because of the repeated assertions that there was matching DNA under the fingernails. Just for my own curiosity, I would still like to see a cite for this assertion
.
I have not seen this evidence for the DNA. Do you have a cite? My recollection is that the fingernail DNA sample was worse than pitiful and PCR’d to even get enough to call DNA. I have not seen any cite about how “all the DNA” was all from the same source.
I’d be interested in a cite for that. I believe your point to be incorrect but I have not been particularly obsessed with the details lately.
These were not rhetorical questions.
For those who think that either John or Patsy were involved/complicit (e.g. protecting their son), how would you answer them?
ETA: Oh, I forgot. How/when did Burke learn to tie a “specialized” knot used by/in BSM?