Yes.
Not “lawyering up” in that circumstance would be a mistake.
You have to understand that cops often don’t come at these situations with the idea of solving a crime. They come at it with the idea of “putting together a case.” And if you are the only suspect handy, you can bet they will be trying to put together a case against you. Any casual remark you make to the police and every little action you take will be scrutinized with the idea of incriminating you. Which is exactly (I think) what happened to the Ramseys, and the reason it was smart for them to lawyer up.
Recommended viewing for all Dopers: Don’t Talk to the Cops, a lecture by a law professor (and former defense attorney) explaining why it is a bad idea to talk to the police in these situations.
Repeating this does not make it so. Science proves that an unknown person’s DNA was on the girl. The DNA had get there somehow. There are theories on how this happened. We might reasonably draw conlsusions that the DNA belongs to the killer, but such conclusion have NOTHING to do with the science of DNA, which simply tells us who the DNA did and did not belong to, that’s it. This is the sort of blind reliance on the presence of DNA evidence to conlusively resolve everything that is taken advanttage of by sleazy lawyers. Quite simply, the DNA evidence does not “prove” the Ramseys didn’t kill their child. You should really quit saying it does.
I’m not going to stop saying it because it’s true. There is no reasonable explanation for the DNA being where it was unless it came from the killer.
ETA Boulder Law Enforcement and the DA’s office agree with me. The Ramsey’s were CLEARED of any suspicion in 2008.
I wonder how many people in the whole world knew the exact amount of Ramsey’s Christmas Bonus? Surely his company wouldn’t publish that information. I would think that only the payroll clerk, the boss, and the Ramseys themselves would know that information. Perhaps I’m overlooking something, but that should narrow down the suspect list pretty handily, no?
The note didn’t mention Ramsey’s bonus. It demanded an amount that happened to be the same as his bonus, but that doesn’t mean the writer knew it.
You keep saying that but it isn’t true. One DA said that they were cleared of suspicion. The DA’s office isn’t even handling the case anymore. The new DA turned it over to the police last February. The police have never said that the family is cleared.
Of course it dosent, and it’s sheer madness to suggest that it does.
In fact, I think that $118,000 is the recognised industry-standard amount when writing a ransom note for a child that you have already murdered and left the body to be found in her own home…
Was there a check or a direct deposit receipt, or a bank statement? How about anyone with access to their bank account records. Did the Ramseys have an accountant or tax lawyer who might have the information? Tax or financial records on their computer? The number would be hard to find, but not that hard.
As it stands, the Ramseys are cleared, the DA’s office has not reversed that, and we have no evidence that the Boulder police (not that they have the slightest credibility anyway) are still investigating them.
I also haven’t seen you or anyone esle give a decent explanation for the DNA or offer a single piece of evidence implicating the Ramseys.
They are the parents of a murdered child. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence, and they are entitled to the respect due to any other victims.
It might be true that the Ramseys did not kill Jon Benet, but is false to say that the DNA evidence proves the Ramseys did not kill the girl (fortunately for the Ramseys, they don’t have to prove they didn’t kill her). Nonetheless, science has not proven who killed the girl. Science has given us clues that we might use to discover who killed the girl. This is a necessary distinction.
Look man, implicating one person does not automatically exonerate everyone else. Just doesn’t. If there were no other irregularities in this case, the Ramseys would have fallen off the radar almost immediately. I have not opinion in this matter, but I cant bear to see you muck up this forum with what Vinyl Turnip has mnost aptly described as an obvious falsehood (i.e., science proved the Ramseys didn’t kill JonBenet).
Sure there is: (i) It was planted; (ii) it came from someone who molested her but did not kill her; (iii) it came from someon who conspired with the Ramseys to kill her. All of these are consistent with DNA evidence with you pig-headedly insist affirmatively exonerates the Ramseys.
None of those alternatives are plausible (the cops planted the DNA? Really?). Th most reasonable and parsimonious explanation is that the DNA came from the killer. There is no need to complicate it so as to hypothesize wildly implausible scenarios by which the parents could still be culpable. There is simply no reason to believe they were involved. Why some people are so desperate to believe the parents were the perps is beyond me.
I’m not desperate to believe anything. I don’t care. I, along with others, am simply pointng out that the DNA evidence does not “prove” the Ramseys are innocent. It just doesn’t. Like I said, good thing for them you don’t have to prove your innocence in this country.
I guess people get used to the idea of it. Plus the whole “Ewwww, beauty pageant” thing didn’t help. I think that whole aspect is bizarre, but the question here isn’t, “Were those pageants inappropriate?” or even “Were the Ramseys bad parents?” We may dislike them as people and think they were a bit creepy but there’s no crime against that.
Who said anything about the cops? That would be silly to plant DNA wihtout a match. I was thinking about the Ramseys.
Where did they get a random pubic hair? And how would they get this guy’s skin under their daughter’s nails?
Care to cite this? I’ve done a little reading on this and my understanding is that both DNA samples, were so degraded and minuscule as to only offer a few markers (not even enough to make a CODIS entry worthwhile). How does that conclusively indicate the samples belonged to only one person? And what DNA expert would say so?
Unfortunately, the most parsimonious explanation is not always the correct one. Note that I think the negative attention on the Ramseys is unreasonable and cruel. But proof of their innocence is lacking (and completely unnecessary).
How could the Ramseys have done it? Where would they have gotten the expertise? How did they know that touch DNA “planted” on the longjohns would be able to be tested ten years down the line?
The cites are already in the thrad, in particular the CNN cite and the Crime Library cites. Enough DNA was extracted from a mixed blood sample in 2003 to establish a full profile (and it was entered into CODIS at that point). The touch DNA test in 2008 matched the profile of the other two samples.