The Ramseys are Cleared

[Pepper]

Yes - very serious.

And yes - Lacy is corrupt enough to suddenly have this mystery dust show up at the end of her term.....did you know that several of her lead investigators just up and left her office not too long ago........this new scam is probably why.

And I think that everyone who still says Ramseys are guilty are more concerned about being WRONG than they are about finding out the TRUTH. That is just plain sad.

 

[Medea]

What if the owner of this DNA is someone who had routine access to the house and JonBenet and who also has an alibi, who wasn't in Boulder or whose whereabouts are known for a fact?

Does this DNA still exonerate the Ramseys? Or, is it one of those unexplained pieces of evidence like the brown van in Laci Peterson's case or the no match boot print in Christa Worthington's case?

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

And wore gloves through out the entire commission of the crime except when re-dressing her. I have my doubts

See, that is the type of detail that makes this case so interesting. That detail alone indicates to me that more than one person was involved.

 

[thesleuther]

The Ramseys are loving parents with no motive for killing their child and no history of criminal or abusive behavior.

-No motive for purposely killing a child, yes there is evidence of long term sexual abuse and no normal 8 year old is a bed wetter unless there is something wrong, some stress or abuse.

Lovely JonBenet was a "pedophile's dream" and her visibility in the community made her a target. Likewise, the Ramseys' wealth and high profile made them potential targets of a kidnapper.

A real kidnapper would not ask for such a low and stupidly specific sum of money, there is no way that was a real ransom note.
Three suspicious events point to an intruder: unknown vehicles parked outside the Ramseys' home near the time of the crime; JonBenet's comment to people that she was going to get a "special visit from Santa," even though Patsy never heard JonBenet say anything about a visit from Santa.

An unknown car by itself is not suspicious, neither is saying you are going to see Santa, thats defense attorney smoke and mirrors

Police statements about there being no footprints in the snow were misleading as there was no snow around most of the perimeter of the house.

Maybe, but why would police lie about this, or mislead?

The open basement window, movement of the window well grate and the presence of leaves and debris in the basement below the open window and a number of other clues point to the window being the entry point for the intruder.

Or part of the staging.
Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the wine cellar where JonBenet's body was discovered.
The suitcase below the open window, which was moved there by someone other than the Ramseys, appeared to be the way an intruder boosted himself up to the open window to exit the house.

part of staging

Many hairs and fibers connected to the crime do not belong to the Ramseys or any other family member.

Test any house from top to bottom and you will find fingerprints and hairs that cannot be identified, another red herring.

Marks on JonBenet's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun which would have kept her quiet while she was removed from her bedroom.

I thought/think this has been discredited.

Fresh unidentified footprints which were visible in the mold on the wine cellar floor did not belong to any family member.

Maybe.

Tests showed that a scream reported by a neighbor could have come from the basement without the Ramseys hearing it.

Maybe, but which is it, stun gun used to get her from her bedroom to the basement or she screamed from the basement?

The expertly constructed garrote used on JonBenet indicates an experienced sexual sadist.

Don't agree. Again, which is it, a kidnapping or sexually motivated crime? If we have a sexual sadist he would have abducted her.

JonBenet's vicious injuries occurred before her death and were not part of some post-mortem staging.

disagree

Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and other unknown DNA was found on her body and her panties.

maybe, but probably a red herring...everybody on this board probably has unknown DNA under their fingernails.

The ransom note was almost certainly written before JonBenet died by a brutal, calm and deliberate person.

Makes no sense. Period. If you are a kidnapper you would have your ransom note ready when you get there, if you're a sex criminal, you wouldn't bother with it.
Experts concluded that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note and it cannot be concluded that Patsy did.
Exactly, Patsy Ramsey cannot be excluded.


You disregard all of this?

Since you think JonBenet was 8 instead of just 6, I am going to assume that you are simply uninformed about the real facts of this case.

 

[RiverRat]

You didn't hear that the SAME DNA was found in 3 places?

I think much of the house, especially the basement was swabbed for fingerprints. The action of doing that probably destroyed whatever touch DNA evidence may have been elsewhere.

Here's what I don't understand. Why do so many people WANT the Ramsey's to be guilty of this crime? Why can't you rejoice that there is evidence pointing away from the parents? Is it because you are so vested in your opinion that you can't let go of it no matter what new evidence surfaces? Why do you hate them so?

Nobody just wanted the Ramseys to be guilty, that makes the murder even more heartbreaking. Our opinions were formed by witnessing the Ramseys own behavior and not some need to pick on the parents. As a matter of fact, this is the only case I've been involved with that I am not with the victims family, so why would I pick this one to totally change who I am?

 

[Moab]

You mean I must have formed a complete and accurate assessment based on the evidence in the case.

No, because if you knew anything about the case, you would know the people involved and then know Mark Karr (not mark Car as you so aptly put it) wasn't in Boulder and he was never in Boulder, yet your hero, Lacy, speaks the truth? What a laugh. She should be embarrassed, as should you for being so gullible.

While you on the other hand resort to complete nonsense to promote your missinformed and irresponsible conspericy theory?

I have never posted with you or to you before this morning, so I think you would be hardpressed to even know what MY THEORY is, or are you clairvoyant?

haha... my only concern is finding the real killer and the truth, while yours is to continue to accuse an innocent family of this crime.

Again, what IS my theory?

Im sure pedophiles everywhere approve of your theory to accuse the victims of the crime.

And that theory would be what?

please don't be offended if I don't respond to your nonsese

Please don't be offended if I stay on the side of facts, LMAO.

 

[thesleuther]

Why would they "close the case" after officially clearing the Ramseys?

There is obviously no way this case will be closed. This is huge as it totally exonerates the Ramseys. This killer will eventually be caught - most likely with a dna hit. This is one of the biggest cases of all time. It will neve be closed until the killer is found.

 

[Wudge]

You are correct, but that does not apply to the ones who see through smoke and mirrors in this case.

Jameson announced that she was offering free memberships this year, so that's an alternative for the posters here that are in to that kind of thing....

You mean posters there with the ability to properly and reliably assess and weigh evidence versus posters elsewhere who can't.

As for Susan, she spoke with Lou Smit yesterday, and was told that there are a good number of people that they are investigating.

 

[Medea]

The same dna evidence on 2 separate items of clothing - one being pyjamas and one being underwear most likely fresh that evening - wouldn't have a chance of being contaminated by those you named.

Since evidence was cited of there being an intruder, how can there be evidence to the contrary?

Or are you saying that an investigator hired by the boulder Police Department to find evidence AGAINST the Ramseys - who then did what an investigator should do and that is investigate with an open mind - found evidence of an intruder simply can't be believed?

What evidence is there that there was no intruder?

How do you know they were 'most likely' fresh for the evening? They could have been from a slumber party she went to weeks or months before and they got put back w/out being washed and they are from some innocent dad who tucked her in and his skin transferred from the tights to the panties?

I always go with totality of the evidence and the overall logic of the theory.

So, I don't believe that any intruder for any reason wrote the ransom note inside the house, before or after abducting JonBenet out of her bed, taking her clothes off, very very slightly molesting her, but not raping her, putting very light restraints on her, then at some point bashing her brains in, redressing her, carrying her downstairs to the basement, putting a blanket on her and leaving. And coincidentally the Ramsey's are uncooperative, start marking phone calls when they still think a kidnapper is out there and that their daughter may be alive, send their other child out of their sight and oh yeah, there is that part about the eroded hymen and evidence of long term sexual abuse and the indications that JonBenet had wet the bed that night....

Where is the evidence of the intruder? It doesn't exist.

 

[RiverRat]

And I think that everyone who still says Ramseys are guilty are more concerned about being WRONG than they are about finding out the TRUTH. That is just plain sad.

And I think that you couldn't be more wrong, so we are at a stale-mate and I will leave you to to deal with your saddness for which there is no need. Maybe my avatar of Patsy would make you feel better? I mean after all she went through, all of that hard work to STAGE her pose for her admirers and all.....someone should enjoy it!

 

[MrsMush99]

Yes - very serious.

And yes - Lacy is corrupt enough to suddenly have this mystery dust show up at the end of her term.....did you know that several of her lead investigators just up and left her office not too long ago........this new scam is probably why.

I'll take your word for it that she is corrupt. I have no reason NOT to believe you, however, do you really believe she is lying about the DNA evidence??? That the LABS are lying??? Just because she is corrupt does not mean the labs are. I have a completely open mind (I know it doesn't seem like it) and I have read lots of information. I always leaned toward them not killing her but I could have been swayed with compelling evidence, such as DNA, which is what we now have. I don't think the DNA is some random factory worker. OR a teacher, or student or nurse like some have mentioned. Those panties were UNOPENED so how a teacher could have gotten their DNA on the panties is really beyond me.

 

[Wudge]

Nobody just wanted the Ramseys to be guilty, that makes the murder even more heartbreaking. Our opinions were formed by witnessing the Ramseys own behavior and not some need to pick on the parents. As a matter of fact, this is the only case I've been involved with that I am not with the victims family, so why would I pick this one to totally change who I am?

Guilt by behavior was in vogue in Salem, 1692. We now return America to those thrilling times of yesteryear.

 

[RiverRat]

You mean posters there with the ability to properly and reliably assess and weigh evidence versus posters elsewhere who can't.

As for Susan, she spoke with Lou Smit yesterday, and was told that there are a good number of people that they are investigating.

Sounds like there would be more respect shown for the forum's owner there, so if the shoes fits you better there, why not?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There are people cleared now of crimes years later because of new te4sting methods. That's what happened here.

More than a scrap of dna? There's no way they could test every surface of that house. The only important tests are on and around the body. And they now have matching dna tests from 2 different items on her body. That's enough for conclusive evidence.

People have been exonerated when DNA evidence such as this was found later on. It is profound evidence.

It most certainly is conclusive and this DNA profile is from a male human being, identity unknown at this time but that sure doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Now I am sure he would like for us all to really believe that nonsense.

It is absolutely conclusive evidence just like it would be in any other murder case if DNA was found on the victim's clothing.

There are no coincidences here at all. What other male would be touching JonBenet's panties who had her blood on them and just happen to be also touching her outer garments such as the inside of her waistband? Not one darn person but the killer who touched this child that night when they killed her imo

We know that JonBenet was undressed and redressed.
They have discovered the same male DNA profile on her panties, that had her own blood on them. Now they have found even more of the same DNA profile linking him not only to the panties but the outerwear she had on. The other samples were found inside her waistband and down the hip area of her long underwear. Consistent with the undressing and redressing that occurred the night she was murdered.

IMO there is no way under the sun why there should be his DNA there unless he was the last one to touch her while undressing and redressing her.

If the lab in another case had a known suspect and found these DNA profiles on the clothing of the victim when found, we can all bet that the DA would show these forensic results to a jury to show that the perp was right there touching the victim when they were murdered. This is a monumental piece of evidence in this case as well as it would be in any other case.

imo

 

[thesleuther]

I need to go back and look, but IIRC there was a business associate that was looked at because he had just recently been let go from John's company. I think he was also a good friend of the family.

I still think Santa Claus should be looked at more closely. Before anyone gets in a huff, I know he had had open heart surgery months earlier and couldn't (or shouldn't) have been able to phyisically do the crime. The circumstances around him and his wife are very suspicous to me.

Unfortunately, I believe that man is now deceased.

 

[Medea]

Guilt by behavior was in vogue in Salem, 1692. We now return America to those thrilling times of yesteryear.

Not everyone discounts circumstantial evidence, thankfully or the streets would be red with blood since DNA evidence only exists in what, 10% of cases, that would mean 90% of criminals would be out on the streets.

 

[RiverRat]

I'll take your word for it that she is corrupt. I have no reason NOT to believe you, however, do you really believe she is lying about the DNA evidence??? That the LABS are lying??? Just because she is corrupt does not mean the labs are. I have a completely open mind (I know it doesn't seem like it) and I have read lots of information. I always leaned toward them not killing her but I could have been swayed with compelling evidence, such as DNA, which is what we now have. I don't think the DNA is some random factory worker. OR a teacher, or student or nurse like some have mentioned. Those panties were UNOPENED so how a teacher could have gotten their DNA on the panties is really beyond me.

I never said the Lab lied......and I'll never trust the chain of evidence while in the hands of the Corrupt.

 

[Medea]

People have been exonerated when DNA evidence such as this was found later on. It is profound evidence.

It most certainly is conclusive and this DNA profile is from a male human being, identity unknown at this time but that sure doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. Now I am sure he would like for us all to really believe that nonsense.

It is absolutely conclusive evidence just like it would be in any other murder case if DNA was found on the victim's clothing.

There are no coincidences here at all. What other male would be touching JonBenet's panties who had her blood on them and just happen to be also touching her outer garments such as the inside of her waistband? Not one darn person but the killer who touched this child that night when they killed her imo

We know that JonBenet was undressed and redressed.
They have discovered the same male DNA profile on her panties, that had her own blood on them. Now they have found even more of the same DNA profile linking him not only to the panties but the outerwear she had on. The other samples were found inside her waistband and down the hip area of her long underwear.

IMO there is no way under the sun why there should be his DNA there unless he was the last one to touch her while undressing and redressing her.

If the lab in another case had a known suspect and found these DNA profiles on the clothing of the victim when found, we can all bet that the DA would show these forensic results to a jury to show that the perp was right there touching the victim when they were murdered. This is a monumental piece of evidence in this case as well as it would be in any other case.

imo

Almost ALL DNA exonerations came from RAPE cases where the perpetrator was a stranger and the semen did not match the person who was convicted. So the DNA evidence was absolutely central to the case....the woman was raped, the wrong man was arrested because the semen that WAS left by the rapist didnt' match.

You can't really believe that the finding of 'touch DNA' on a victim's clothing obviates any and all other evidence that exists as to who the perpetrator is, can you ?

I'm sure my boyfriend's skin cell touch DNA is on my clothes but if I am found knifed in an alley and somebody is seen running away from the scene with a kinfe I sure as heck hope my boyfriend isn't found guilty of killing me because his skin cells are on my clothing.

 

[thesleuther]

Well I mean if it was a big spot that would be excluded that it came from the store. I would say logically Patsy bought the panties as a present for her niece, let the tags on it, JonBenet said she wanted them, Patsy told her ok, she'll have them when she's bigger, well she just lets the panties how they are and where they were, no need to wash them now when JonBenet won't wear them before years. Then whichever DNA is on it can come from any of the thousands people who touched these panties in the store they were at.

This is all WILD SPECULATION with absolutely no facts to back it.

 

[thesleuther]

Now proved to be just another high-profile case where totally innocent people were held to be falsely accused based on their behavior while under immense stress.

Thank you.

One fact that I have always felt pointed away from the Ramseys is the fact that they never returned to that house. I believe that if they were the killers, they would want control of the crime scene. I just don't see leaving and never coming back if they had done it. Also, if they were leading a lifestyle that had secrets (pedophilia, etc.), that they wouldn't want other people packing up the house. It just doesn't make sense. They would want to do it themselves in order to throw out anything that would divulge their dark side.