POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

[LI_Mom]

I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:

They'd cover for Burke.

 

[Pepper]

They'd cover for Burke.

OK, but Burke's DNA wasn't on the clothing!

 

[Ciara]

I'm so on the fence in this case that I think I have got stuck there. I waver between The Ramseys guilt and innocence all the time. Its a long time since I read all the facts of this case but there were so many things that happened during the crime and after that I thought they could be guilty yet other times I just think no they couldnt. So I cant vote as I still dont know

 

[LI_Mom]

OK, but Burke's DNA wasn't on the clothing!

I don't have to assume Burke had to be part of the WHOLE scene... only that if he could have been the catalyst that started the whole tragic episode.... parents WOULD have good reason to rally & protect their own son. Parents have been known to protect children against all sorts of HORRIBLE acts even when another child is the victim.


I always found it VERY, VERY odd that a parent would discover an intruder entered their house & left a ransom note.... their daughter seems to be missing & they have no way of knowing for SURE that they're in the house alone... and yet, they leave their young son upstairs alone?

They're more worried that he might get upset & cry than they are in keeping him close to them until police arrive???

 

[Jodibug]

I have not changed my opinion, and I can't think of anything that would change it. Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, and I hope that she is being eternally punished for her actions now.

 

[Medea]

I have not changed my opinion. I believe Patsey Ramsey accidentally killed her daughter and in a panic, staged the sexual assault and attempted kidnapping.

If the DNA is ever matched to a sex offender or someone who was in Boulder at the time of JonBenet's death and who does not have an alibi and who could not have come in casual contact with her, then I will revise my viewpoint.

Unknown miniscule skin cells found on a 6 year old's clothing doens't to me change the rest of the evidence that the 'intrusion' was staged.

 

[Pepper]

I don't have to assume Burke had to be part of the WHOLE scene... only that if he could have been the catalyst that started the whole tragic episode.... parents WOULD have good reason to rally & protect their own son. Parents have been known to protect children against all sorts of HORRIBLE acts even when another child is the victim.


I always found it VERY, VERY odd that a parent would discover an intruder entered their house & left a ransom note.... their daughter seems to be missing & they have no way of knowing for SURE that they're in the house alone... and yet, they leave their young son upstairs alone?

They're more worried that he might get upset & cry than they are in keeping him close to them until police arrive???

This is just idle speculation. They probably checked on him the moment they saw the note. We simply don't know. With all the confusion going on at that time I don't think it is fair to indict someone because that is not exactly what YOU would have done in that situation. Since none of us have been inside that home, it is impossible to say absolutely what was reasonable actions at that time. Personally if I saw that he was safe and sleeping in his bed, I probably would have left him there too. Why add another layer of distraction to an already chaotic situation?

 

[LI_Mom]

This is just idle speculation. They probably checked on him the moment they saw the note. We simply don't know. With all the confusion going on at that time I don't think it is fair to indict someone because that is not exactly what YOU would have done in that situation. Since none of us have been inside that home, it is impossible to say absolutely what was reasonable actions at that time. Personally if I saw that he was safe and sleeping in his bed, I probably would have left him there too. Why add another layer of distraction to an already chaotic situation?

The entire CASE is idle speculation.... all we can do is consider what a reasonable parent would do.

I don't think a reasonable parent would leave a child upstairs sleeping.

I think it's highly questionable whether a child who knows the family is leaving for an exciting trip would be sleeping SO soundly that he would not hear other people are already awake & go downstairs on his own... or at least go see if his sister is up also.

And once the house filled up with police & various visitors... he STILL stays upstairs without even a peep until his father comes up & tells him he's going to Fleet's house?

Hard to believe that a spoiled child like Burke would be SO content to be upstairs alone through such a scene.

 

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't!

Poll Question: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jon Benet?

No. I voted "intruder" - just like last time.

Pepper's comments above mirror my own feelings.

I would only add the word "probably".

"I've always believed that it was an intruder - but, that it was probably someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances."


I have always felt incredibly sad for the Ramsey family - especially, that the real perpetrator was never uncovered, arrested, tried & convicted of that precious child's molestation & hideous murder.

I do hope this new DNA revelation & the DA's exonerating remarks will afford John & Burke some measure of comfort.

:cat: Rum Tum :wave:

 

[southcitymom]

....... I entertained both theories equally; intruder v. parents. I felt like it was unknowable from all the countering I read. I felt I had no choice but to accept that I couldn't know......

This is the way I have felt, although I will add that I have always been a bit more on the side that the parents (particularly Patsy) had something to do with it. Still - it's so confusing - that I could have never said "I know without a doubt it was the Ramseys."

Yesterday, when this news came out, Jeana posted the following and it impacted me greatly:

"Originally Posted by Nedthan Johns
Okay here is what I found out. As you all may or may not know having followed this case for years and working in the Biotech industry I have direct access to very bright people who know a lot about DNA. Touch DNA is just a fancy term (one they never heard of and probably dubbed by the media they said) for a small or incomplete DNA marker. Such as a single cell found on clothing, which is what we have here according to Lacy in 3 places , she states: the presence of the same male DNA in three places on the girl's clothing convinced investigators it belonged to JonBenet's killer and had not been left accidentally by an innocent party.

According to several of the Ph.D.'s I spoke with this is significant because the odds of it being in so many places and linked directly to the blood found in her panties, does in fact point to a third party. Again these markers are incomplete hence (my favorite Pasty Ramsey word) the word Touch DNA. It's a small sample, again where they can exclude someone but not link someone directly to the crime. So what are the odds this DNA is similar in 3 places on her longjohns? Probably more significant then finding them on her outer clothing. The consenes was by my group, THIS IS HUGE. Is the statement then accurate or too bold for Lacy to say the parents are vindicated? The group here thinks there was a third party in that house. I'm stunned."

If a bunch of disinterested, non-media DNA experts says this is a big deal, I find it hard not to believe that.

I still don't know who did this and my opinion has only shifted to a place where I now have serious doubts that the Ramseys harmed JonBenet or covered it up.

 

[jblfelines]

Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't!

I also believe that it was someone they knew but they were not covering up. I didn't vote because what I think was not an option. I think DNA should be done on adult male friends that knew Jon Benet.

 

[JMO8778]

You're proof people do think with independent minds. Just because all may not share your opinion doesn't mean you shouldn't allot them the same permission you give yourself.

I've studied this case extensively,and the large majority of my 3900+ posts have been on the JB forum.I see no reason to change course.This is just ML's parting gift to John Ramsey.Some have said she may be writing a book in the future.I think that may be a possibility.I certainly hope she has a q and a section in it so she can tell us why she fought hard for 10 wk old Jason Midyette,who had 28 broken bones from beaten (and finally to his death) by his father.THAT is the kind of person Lacy is.
oh yes,and please see how (in)competent she is: www.forstevethomas.com

 

[islanders]

I concluded that it was probably an intruder from the start. I thought the parents were very forth coming and honest. There was never any credible evidence that indicated they were responsible… but I never ruled out the possibility. The evidence with the mystery DNA has now convinced me that my assessment was accurate. I also think the lynch mob that continue to accuse an innocent family are uneducated, narrow minded, or just plain evil, and no better than the person who did this. JMHO.

 

[Pepper]

Poll Question: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jon Benet?

No. I voted "intruder" - just like last time.

Pepper's comments above mirror my own feelings.

I would only add the word "probably".

"I've always believed that it was an intruder - but, that it was probably someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances."


I have always felt incredibly sad for the Ramsey family - especially, that the real perpetrator was never uncovered, arrested, tried & convicted of that precious child's molestation & hideous murder.

I do hope this new DNA revelation & the DA's exonerating remarks will afford John & Burke some measure of comfort.

:cat: Rum Tum :wave:

Good point Rummy! I should have added "probably" to my post.

Since so many years have past, and my memory isn't perfect, do we know if the Santa Claus person, who has since died I believe, was ever checked against the known DNA at the crime scene?

Yes, I am speculating here, but I think the "special visit from Santa" statement could be a very powerful clue. I think this person was an older man, possibly unable to ejaculate, and someone whom JBR would trust completely.

 

[tezi]

I've studied this case extensively,and the large majority of my 3900+ posts have been on the JB forum.I see no reason to change course.This is just ML's parting gift to John Ramsey.Some have said she may be writing a book in the future.I think that may be a possibility.I certainly hope she has a q and a section in it so she can tell us why she fought hard for 10 wk old Jason Midyette,who had 28 broken bones from beaten (and finally to his death) by his father.THAT is the kind of person Lacy is.
oh yes,and please see how (in)competent she is: www.forstevethomas.com

This DNA testing doesn't change my mind at all. The Ramseys' (John and Patsy) were involved in the murder and cover-up of their daughter. I feel that way do to all the evidence, not just the DNA evidence. Even Henry Lee said this isn't a DNA case!!!!!!

Mary Lacy is an idiot!!! It doesn't get any simpler than that folks. She would have went to the ends of the earth for the Midyette family to keep them from being prosecuted. And I can say with personal experience, that Lacy just loves criminals. Sex-offenders especially.

 

[philamena]

Hi Philamena....my theory has not changed.

hey Tristan

 

[jubie]

I concluded that it was probably an intruder from the start. I thought the parents were very forth coming and honest. There was never any credible evidence that indicated they were responsible… but I never ruled out the possibility. The evidence with the mystery DNA has now convinced me that my assessment was accurate. I also think the lynch mob that continue to accuse an innocent family are uneducated, narrow minded, or just plain evil, and no better than the person who did this. JMHO.

Nice! May I point out to you that although I believe the R's are in fact guilty at no time have I insulted the members here suggesting they are uneducated or evil... I assure you I am neither.

I'm no better than the person that did this to JonBenet because I believe her parents are guilty? I have two healthy, wonderful and very much ALIVE children that might not agree with you!

 

[Love_Mama]

don't be fooled.that's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think.this case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history.

It is the biggest cover up I've ever heard of!

xxxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:

 

[LinasK]

I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:

I think the Ramseys covered for each other. Both John and Patsy were involved in this, I'm not sure about Burke.

 

[LinasK]

I concluded that it was probably an intruder from the start. I thought the parents were very forth coming and honest. There was never any credible evidence that indicated they were responsible… but I never ruled out the possibility. The evidence with the mystery DNA has now convinced me that my assessment was accurate. I also think the lynch mob that continue to accuse an innocent family are uneducated, narrow minded, or just plain evil, and no better than the person who did this. JMHO.

:liar::liar::liar:Very forthcoming? Oh please... They talk to the media before police, they lie, they refuse lie-detector tests unless they have personally chosen them, and then it took 3 times for Patsy to pass...