Well...to start off with, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. No hair, no prints, no fibers, nothing that can be solidly sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey. The tape and cord used in the murder and staging could very well have come from inside the house - we know the flashlight the killer used while moving around belonged to the Ramseys - why wouldn't a kidnapper/killer bring his own flashlight? The paintbrush used to assault and kill JonBenet came from the house, as did the ransom note. This kidnapper/killer didn't have his own "tools" for the job?
The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails does not match the DNA in her underwear, and the DNA in her underwear is fragmented and degraded, while JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete, indicating the two samples of DNA were deposited on the underwear at different times. When Dr Henry Lee tested packages of underwear identical to those JonBenet was found in, brand new and unwashed straight from package (as the pair on JB had been also), he discovered they also had DNA on them.
Fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on the body and in the crime scene, and no, they didn't just float around and end up tied in the knot of the cord strangling JonBenet. The knot itself was uncomplicated and could have been tied by anyone who knows how to tie a shoe. There is no evidence that JonBenet struggled against the person strangling her at all - there are no defensive wounds on her hands or feet, there is very little damage to the interior of her neck, her tongue and cheeks were smooth and unblemished, and the head wound was fully developed, with three separate layers of pooled blood and her brain so swollen it was pressing against the inside of her skull - indicating the head wound preceded the strangulation. While her wrists were tied, they were tied very loosely, and with 15 inches of length between them. There is no evidence on JonBenet's wrists that she struggled against the restraints at all, no bruising or abrasions.
The tape over JonBenet's mouth showed that she never struggled against it, with a perfect impression of her lips on it (and four fibers from Patsy's jacket.) There was mucus from JonBenet's nose and/or mouth on the tape as well, indicating it had placed over her mouth after she was dead. Why tape the mouth of a child who can't struggle against the taper? Staging.
The body. JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then tucked inside a blanket that was normally on her bed, with her favorite nightgown beside her. Pedophiles who assault children for a sexual thrill don't stay in the child's house with the parents asleep upstairs while they assualt the child, they take the child to their own place where they feel safe. They don't stop and redress the child afterwards, either, and certainly don't walk around in the house seeking out the child's favorite items to leave with them. That was done by someone who cared about JonBenet. And the medical evidence of prior molestation! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years. That's insane, poor JonBenet. Not to mention her serious toileting issues...I could see it id she just wet the bed, but she didn't - she was known to soil herself at any time of day. There was something seriously wrong going on there.
The pineapple. Not only did John and Patsy originally say that JonBenet had been awake when they got home that night (only to contradict themselves four months later), but so did her brother Burke, and the pineapple found in her small intestine and on the breakfast table in the Ramsey house says so too. Why would J & P feel the need to change their story and lie about whether JonBenet had been awake or not? Would a murderous pedophile take the time to feed his victim a snack, wait around for an hour or two for it to digest (because that's how long it took to get to her small intestine), and then kill her - and then stage the crime scene, and write a three page ransom note, seemingly totally unconcerned with being caught by the victim's family members?
John and Patsy Ramsey have told numerous contradicting stories as the events of Christmas night and the following day. They have been caught telling outright lies, in fact. They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison. They have hindered the investigation from day one, refusing to meet with police for interviews for months, and only under non-standard conditions set up to benefit the Ramseys themselves - such as demanding they be allowed to re-read previous statements they made before answering any questions, and there were certain questions they would not allow to be asked. Why, unless they have something to hide? They had trouble passing polygraphs, and ended up shopping around til they found an expert who would play the game their way - no drug test required, and when the R's answers didn't give them an immediate pass, he tested them again, dropping those questions.
Then there's the ransom note. Out of 90-some people who gave handwriting samples, Patsy was the only person who could never be excluded, not even by experts hired by the Rs. It looks like her handwriting, and it sounds like her style of speech. It was written in standard American writing form by someone who knew proper spacing, indentation, capitalization, punctuation...and Patsy had a degree in journalism, and would have known the proper form. The note was supposedly written by a foreign faction, but uses some rather American phrases and includes inside knowledge of the Ramsey family, including John Ramsey's bonus amount.
There's the 911 call. Patsy says she hasn't read the note, but knows how it ends. She never once mentions to the 911 operator that the RN has made a threat to decapitate JonBenet if anyone calls the police, and as soon as hangs up on the operator (!), she proceeds to call over some 5 - 7 other people, completely heedless of the threat against her child's life. And I don't buy the story that she didn't know JonBenet's head was threatened to be cut off, because John was supposedly on the floor on his knees (as if) reading the note - surely he would have seen the threat to cut off JB's head and told Patsy. On top of throwing an impromptu tea party, John and Patsy send Burke off to the White's, not knowing where the kidnapper is, but that he's watching the house and will KILL JonBenet if the Rs don't play the game his way. They did not request a police escort at all. How could they be sure that the kidnapper wasn't waiting somewhere, watching, and would take the opportunity to attack Burke as well? How could a parent with a child supposedly kidnapped allow their other child out of their sight at all?
And why wasn't Burke attacked also? The author of the RN claims to be a foreign faction, and claims this crime has been committed out of anger and hatred for John Ramsey. If this kidnapper can get in the house and grab a kid and feed her a snack and then wait for it to digest before he molests and strangles her then goes and finds a fresh pair of bloomies to dress her in, why didn't he really stick it to JR and grab the son as well? A little girl means NOTHING to a foreign faction - they would go for the SON of the man they want to hurt. They might even attack John Ramsey himself. And why John Ramsey? There are many more affluent people than some relatively unknown businessman in Boulder, Colorado.
This isn't even mentioning the enormous amount of police work that was done that kept bringing the police back to the conclusion that the Rs were involved. FBI's CASKU unit agreed with police, believing the parents were the ones to look at, seeing as how the crime scene was criminally unsophisticated with many elements of staging (staging within staging, in fact.) Why would an intruder stage a murder, and why would an intruder stage a murder to look like an intruder did it?
That's all I can think of right now, but in my opinion, all of this points to one thing and one thing only - the Ramseys either did this, or they know exactly who did. There is no other explanation for why this entire scene indicates their guilt as strongly as it does. If I have forgotten something, please add it on, and keriekerie, I would love to hear the reasons why you think the Ramseys didn't do this thing to their child.
