Because it became obvious very quickly that the cops weren’t so much trying to solve the crime as to pin it on the Ramseys. Which cops often do. Any lawyer with half a brain would have advised his clients not to participate in that.
Can someone bottom line it for me? As I understand it:
“We found someone else’s DNA, can’t find that person, so the parents are innocent.”
Why aren’t they accomplices? Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But why not still very much under suspicion of having been involved?
Why? Because he’s looking at actual physical evidence? Not as much fun as lurid speculation, I know.
Patsy Ramsey did it and John helped her cover her tracks.
Debate over.
(Geez. These declarations of “win!” are fun!)
Not NEARLY as much fun!
Except of course that the physical evidence sides with DtC and completely refutes your version of things.
Weeeeeee!
Just so you understand clearly, it’s the physical evidence that ends the argument, not me. I’m just the messenger.
Years of searching has never turned up any evidence that such is the case, but if it ever does, there’s nothing stopping law enforcement from arresting John Ramsey. Unless and until some compelling evidence against him ever turns up, I think he’s entitled not only to a presumption of innonce, but to the respect that would be accorded to any other parent of a murdered child.
One piece of it does, but all the circumstantial evidence points to mommy and daddy being the murderers.
DEBATE OVER!
There isn’t a single piece of even circumstantial evidence pointing to the parents (seriously, the best you have is body language at the funeral, and they don’t remeber the kid eating some pineapple? Give me a break), and the DNA is not just a “piece” of evidence, it’s conclusive proof that the killer was not anyone in the family. ALL of the physical evidence points to an intruder. Insinuations that the Ramseys were accomplices do not rise above rank speculation. They are not evidence based.
What circumstantial evidence exactly? Did you read the link above with the facts of the case laid out? Most of the *circumstantial *evidence is media confabulations.
What exactly are you talking about?
Also, what is your explanation for the physical evidence? Hobgoblins?
I despair that public opinion (and by extension a jury’s opinion) might be swayed by so little evidence and so much speculation. No wonder so many innocents have lately been released from death row on DNA evidence.
I wouldn’t be that absolute, but there are good reasons to suspect they, if not the actual killers, were involved in the coverup. The ransom note is a flaming red flag being waved frantically.
It took me a long time to become this convinced, by the way. For at least the first couple of years, I suspected Patsy (and I still find the beauty pageant stuff as loathesome as anybody else. I also think it’s quite plausible that some freak could have become obsessed with the kid from seeing her in those things), but the lack of any substantial evidence kept me on the fence, and the evidence of an intruder (most of which was glossed over or ignored by the media at the time), and the cinching DNA have convinced me that the parents are entitled to more than an academic presumption of innocence, but an actual one. Don’t forget, no matter what you suspect, if these parents didn’t do it, then they are victims, entitled to the respect we give to all other parents of murdered children. It bothers me that they’ve always been robbed of that.
I know you to be an intelligent guy, so I’m not sure why you keep repeating this obvious falsehood over and over. The presence of an unidentified person’s DNA is NOT conclusive (or any other kind of) proof of who killed her, or that the family members were not involved. It is proof that someone’s DNA was found on her. That’s it. Everything else is your own personal dot-connecting.
The location of the DNA (in her panties, under her fingernails and in the waistband of the longjohns she was wearing over her underwear), plus the fact that one of the samples was a fucking pubic hair do not leave any reasonable conclusion but that the source of the DNA was the killer, and the source of the DNA was not one of the Ramseys.
This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of Law Enforcement in Boulder which cleared them and ceased investigating them.
That was some kind of weird criminal. He broke into the house, took her down to a room that almost nobody knew of. Then he sat down and wrote a long ransom note after killing her.
Most criminals get in and out as fast as possible. They should be interviewing crazy people.
In Colorado??? The sun will burn itself out before you get to all of them.
Is it conclusive that the unidentified DNA obtained are from the same person?
I’ve sometimes wondered, in hearing of how a husband of a murdered spouse is the first suspect, how I would act if my spouse were murdered. I think I would tell the police that I understand that, as husband, I must be their first suspect, and I’d like to participate fully so they can rule me out ASAP and get on to the job of finding the real killer. I would not lawyer up if I were innocent.
That being said, I’m very hesitant to think the worst of someone just because they didn’t act like I thought I would act in that situation. For the Ramseys, that goes for the lawyering as well as the funeral behavior. You just can’t read anything into it. People do unexpected things, especially when they’re upset.