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

[arielilane]

In light of the new DNA evidence, who do you believe killed Jonbenet?

JR and PR did it. I agree...cover up...sad what money can buy you...

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

Exactly!:blowkiss:

 

[lonetraveler]

My theory has always been since day 1 that Patsy walked in on John molesting JonBeney and went spastic and killed her. Since both parents were guilty of a crime, neither could tell on the other so they chose to cover it up. This hocus pocus testing that was broadcast yesterday was just that, hocus pocus.

 

[Ames]

My theory hasn't changed at all. Patsy did it in a fit of rage...and John helped to cover it up. Patsy wrote the RN. The so called DNA that was discovered on her panties years ago..was defragmented. It is very obvious to me...that the defragmented DNA on the panties, made its way to her long johns via transfer. It's not rocket science here....NOW...if Mary Lacy puts forth some evidence that the cord, the RN, the pen, etc...has some sort of touch DNA that belongs to an "Unknown Male"..I will start to believe the intruder theory. But ONLY THEN....and THAT is NOT going to happen. I would like to know how defragmented DNA suddenly became enough evidence to clear somebody anyway? This....imo...does NOT clear the Ramseys in any shape or form. Too much evidence suggests otherwise!

 

[LinasK]

My theory has always been since day 1 that Patsy walked in on John molesting JonBeney and went spastic and killed her. Since both parents were guilty of a crime, neither could tell on the other so they chose to cover it up. This hocus pocus testing that was broadcast yesterday was just that, hocus pocus.

Mine too!:clap::clap::clap: This is exactly what I think happened, unless John killed her accidentally in the course of the sex game taken too far and felt they had to finish her off rather than face the negative PR of calling 911 to save her.

 

[cheko1]

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

xxxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:

This never changed my way of thinking at all. Money talks!!!!! I'm with the Ramsey's did it.

 

[coloradokares]

My theory hasn't changed at all. Patsy did it in a fit of rage...and John helped to cover it up. Patsy wrote the RN. The so called DNA that was discovered on her panties years ago..was defragmented. It is very obvious to me...that the defragmented DNA on the panties, made its way to her long johns via transfer. It's not rocket science here....NOW...if Mary Lacy puts forth some evidence that the cord, the RN, the pen, etc...has some sort of touch DNA that belongs to an "Unknown Male"..I will start to believe the intruder theory. But ONLY THEN....and THAT is NOT going to happen. I would like to know how defragmented DNA suddenly became enough evidence to clear somebody anyway? This....imo...does NOT clear the Ramseys in any shape or form. Too much evidence suggests otherwise!

This is a set up!! The long johns never left Boulder only the result of the skin cells and at that it was not a complete match. No this does not convince me that the Ramseys are innocent

 

[Ames]

This is a set up!! The long johns never left Boulder only the result of the skin cells and at that it was not a complete match. No this does not convince me that the Ramseys are innocent

What I would like to know is....was the spoon (in the pineapple bowl), the garotte (broken paintbrush and cord), JB's bedsheets, JB's blanket that she was wrapped in, the Barbie nightgown that was found near her body, the RN, the Sharpie pen used to write the RN tested too? Probably not...if so...where are the findings??? If an "intruder" touched JB's panties and long johns ...to pull them down and then up again...and left TOUCH DNA...then all of these other things would certainly have touch DNA on them TOO. Even more so....on the paper used to write the RN, the sharpie, and the garotte...since he would have most likely handled these things longer.

 

[LinasK]

What I would like to know is....was the spoon (in the pineapple bowl), the garotte (broken paintbrush and cord), JB's bedsheets, JB's blanket that she was wrapped in, the Barbie nightgown that was found near her body, the RN, the Sharpie pen used to write the RN tested too? Probably not...if so...were are the findings??? If an "intruder" touched JB's panties and long johns ...to pull them down and then up again...and left TOUCH DNA...then all of these other things would certainly have touch DNA on them TOO. Even more so....on the paper used to write the RN, the sharpie, and the garotte...since he would have most likely handled these things longer.

You are so right!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

My opinion has not changed. I have always felt it was an intruder.

From the latest release on the results of the new testing it seems so far that it is certainly leaning that way.

I will maintain my same opinion until there is evidence to show otherwise.

imoo

 

[BeavisMom62]

What I would like to know is....was the spoon (in the pineapple bowl), the garotte (broken paintbrush and cord), JB's bedsheets, JB's blanket that she was wrapped in, the Barbie nightgown that was found near her body, the RN, the Sharpie pen used to write the RN tested too? Probably not...if so...were are the findings??? If an "intruder" touched JB's panties and long johns ...to pull them down and then up again...and left TOUCH DNA...then all of these other things would certainly have touch DNA on them TOO. Even more so....on the paper used to write the RN, the sharpie, and the garotte...since he would have most likely handled these things longer.

ITA! the whole ransom note thing to me screams "STAGED"!. I mean, really, for what reason would an intruder write this note? Why take the time? What would be the thinking behind it? It made no sense. Obviously, she wasn't kidnapped, there was no ransom demanded, so what would be the reason, other than a coverup?

 

[solidarity]

This story reminds me so much of "the dingo did it" case in Australia, many years ago. The parents in that case were also the target of suspicion, and public opinion was overwhelmingly against them. Many years later it was forensically proven that a dingo did take the baby, just as the mother had been saying all along....but the damage had already been done by then. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail, suffered the hatred of a whole nation, was separated from her other children, eventually her marriage collapsed....and this ofcourse on top of the pain of losing her baby. Once cleared, there were no audible apologies....and to this day many continue to belief that she was guilty, despite the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think much of the same applies in this case.

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Lindy Chamberlain looked guilty. She did not react the way that most people thought she should have reacted. She paid a high price for people's judgements....but that did not make her guilty.

I beg you all to keep an open mind, and an open heart. Who are we to judge others. Let God do that. At the end of the day, we really do not know what happened. We base our opinions on our perceptions and beliefs....is that enough??

 

[Ames]

My opinion has not changed. I have always felt it was an intruder.

From the latest release on the results of the new testing it seems so far that it is certainly leaning that way.

I will maintain my same opinion until there is evidence to show otherwise.

imoo

The evidence DOES show otherwise. If you haven't already...read alot of the posts on here..and head on over to Forums for Justice and do the same. I will name a few...what are the chances that Patsy's q and the RN author's q, are made the same way...they both look like an 8. How did the intruder get inside...it wasn't through those locked doors...and certainly not through the basement window with the spider web still attached to it (the one that John Ramsey believes the intruder came through, because of the suitcase under the window...the suitcase had actually been moved, it was not there before the murder). How did the intruder leave....by bus, by car....by broom? Why didn't the neighbors see anything? Why didn't the neighbor's dog...the one that she claimed barked at everything and everybody....bark that night? Why did the intruder feel the need to wipe down the BATTERIES that were inside the flashlight? Why would his fingerprints be on the batteries...inside of the flashlight? (IMO..the ONLY prints on the flashlight and the batteries belonged to a Ramsey..and that is why they were both wiped clean). I give up...if just these few things do not convince you, then nothing will.

 

[Ames]

ITA! the whole ransom note thing to me screams "STAGED"!. I mean, really, for what reason would an intruder write this note? Why take the time? What would be the thinking behind it? It made no sense. Obviously, she wasn't kidnapped, there was no ransom demanded, so what would be the reason, other than a coverup?

Actually. the RN author demanded $118,000.00 (John's bonus amount....gee what are the odds?) for her safe return....John was a millionaire...so why the piddly amount? And how do you safely return a dead body? The RN was a total coverup.

 

[Ames]

This story reminds me so much of "the dingo did it" case in Australia, many years ago. The parents in that case were also the target of suspicion, and public opinion was overwhelmingly against them. Many years later it was forensically proven that a dingo did take the baby, just as the mother had been saying all along....but the damage had already been done by then. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail, suffered the hatred of a whole nation, was separated from her other children, eventually her marriage collapsed....and this ofcourse on top of the pain of losing her baby. Once cleared, there were no audible apologies....and to this day many continue to belief that she was guilty, despite the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think much of the same applies in this case.

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Lindy Chamberlain looked guilty. She did not react the way that most people thought she should have reacted. She paid a high price for people's judgements....but that did not make her guilty.

I beg you all to keep an open mind, and an open heart. Who are we to judge others. Let God do that. At the end of the day, we really do not know what happened. We base our opinions on our perceptions and beliefs....is that enough??

I base mine on facts. I totally get what you are saying about not judging people though.

 

[LinasK]

This story reminds me so much of "the dingo did it" case in Australia, many years ago. The parents in that case were also the target of suspicion, and public opinion was overwhelmingly against them. Many years later it was forensically proven that a dingo did take the baby, just as the mother had been saying all along....but the damage had already been done by then. Lindy Chamberlain spent years in jail, suffered the hatred of a whole nation, was separated from her other children, eventually her marriage collapsed....and this ofcourse on top of the pain of losing her baby. Once cleared, there were no audible apologies....and to this day many continue to belief that she was guilty, despite the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think much of the same applies in this case.

Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Lindy Chamberlain looked guilty. She did not react the way that most people thought she should have reacted. She paid a high price for people's judgements....but that did not make her guilty.

I beg you all to keep an open mind, and an open heart. Who are we to judge others. Let God do that. At the end of the day, we really do not know what happened. We base our opinions on our perceptions and beliefs....is that enough??

Granted the dingo took the baby, but Lindy was still guilty of neglect in leaving her baby unattended so that the dingo could get it.

 

[Mysticj]

Pepper, just to explain my personal position. I do not "want" family members to be guilty. I came into this case as a fence sitter. I explored the IDI possibilities every which way to Sunday... Actually, I sincerely hoped to find a logical way that an intruder could have committed this crime. I posted various intruder theories, but when you combine all of the evidence, the R's just kept casting themselves into the middle of the melting pot.

I can't speak definatively for other posters here, but I sincerely feel that many RDI's came to the same conclusion which I did, in virtually the same way that I did: based on the totality of the evidence.

We don't have the totality of the evidence so how does anyone judge??

 

[Mysticj]

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

Onlt because the media told you so not because there is any thing that proves the piont at this time..

 

[DeeDee249]

My opinion hasn't changed. The Rs either killed her or knows who killed her, and covered up the crime. They would not do this for anyone except a family member. Not even for a close friend UNLESS a family member was involved. Let's face it- Lacy wanted to clear the Rs before she left office. This Touch DNA technology has been around for a few years. And there are other items that need to be tested with it- the cord, tape, paintbrush.
There is so much that points to parental involvement- the RN, the pineapple, the fibers in the garrote and on the tape, the use of NEW panties that PR herself admitted she bought and which were wrapped in the basement, the BEHAVIOR after the fact, the refusal to cooperate with police, the refusal to exhume her to find out once and for all about the stun gun, the voice of BR on the 911 call...the list goes on.
The "new DNA" is really OLD DNA. We've always know there was foreign male DNA in her panties. The fact that it has been found on her longjohns really doesn't add anything new.
This was no stranger intruder. This was someone known to JBR. And all of the people they knew well already gave DNA samples.
It is so upsetting to see on the news that the DNA profile cannot be found in the database. Of course, because only people that have already committed a previous crime would be there. JBR's killer was not in that category. It was someone known to her.

 

[DeeDee249]

Sorry but you have to exclude both John and Burke at this point...What is it you do not understand!!

They could still have been involved. It doesn't have to be their DNA. This DNA evidence doesn't cancel the fiber evidence found on the body- in the garrote, inside of the tape and inside her panties. Does it complicate it? Yes. But does it clear them? No. They will be cleared when the killer is KNOWN. Until then- the people in the home when she was killed can't really be cleared. Of course, Lacy can say whatever she wants. Doesn't make it true. She said Karr was the killer, too.