• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jonbennet Ramsey

garethdjb said:
Wasn't her father cleared by DNA evidence?

LINK
Click to expand...
See, I've never really understood the whole idea of "cleared by DNA evidence".

I mean, strictly speaking, it's not much of a clearance, right? All her father was really cleared of is the crime of depositing the DNA evidence found and tested by the prosecutor's office. If the DA figures that without DNA there's not much to build a case on, fine. But "cleared"? How, exactly? He wasn't there? He didn't know? He never conspired? How, exactly, does DNA evidence "clear" someone of anything but being the dude who deposited the DNA that was actually discovered and tested?
 
Just because they found someone else's DNA doesn't clear the parents. If it had been semen then maybe. But its not impossible that she came in contact with DNA coincidentally.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just because they found someone else's DNA doesn't clear the parents. If it had been semen then maybe. But its not impossible that she came in contact with DNA coincidentally.
Click to expand...

She coincidentally had an unknown person (non-family member's) DNA on her tights and panties? How exactly do you get your DNA coincidentally into the tights and panties of a young girl you are not related too?
 
Let's just say that, as in a number of other similar cases, if the parents had fully, completely and openly cooperated with the police, those of us who still suspect them out the wazoo might not. They fought off assisting for a sufficiently long time that, well assumptions might be wrong - but if it had been my child I would have been helping every way I could. And if I had done it I would, the way my mind works, have killed myself (note to mods: this is not a suggestion to anyone, note I refer to me. and I have not killed any children).
 
fuelair said:
Let's just say that, as in a number of other similar cases, if the parents had fully, completely and openly cooperated with the police, those of us who still suspect them out the wazoo might not. They fought off assisting for a sufficiently long time that, well assumptions might be wrong - but if it had been my child I would have been helping every way I could. And if I had done it I would, the way my mind works, have killed myself (note to mods: this is not a suggestion to anyone, note I refer to me. and I have not killed any children).
Click to expand...

Except that it was pointed out to you last September that your claim that they weren't cooperative was wrong, yet you cling to it like a 9/11 Truther clinging to "faster then Free-Fall."

ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
In what way? The Ramseys responded to written questions. They met with police and prosecutors more than once, and went through several days of questioning.

They became uncooperative when it became clear that the police had little interest in investigating any other theories other than that they were the ones who killed their daughter. The police early on knew they had unidentifiable DNA in JonBenet's underwear, and an unidentifiable palm print at the crime scene. Instead of looking into those leads, they invented excuses to continue to focus on the Ramseys. At some point, I don't blame the Ramseys for becoming uncooperative. But they sure weren't from the start.
Click to expand...
 
garethdjb said:
Wasn't her father cleared by DNA evidence?
Click to expand...

I don't know the case, but isn't he innocent until proven guilty? He doesn't need to be 'cleared'. He could be 'uncleared', if there were a case against him other than malicious gossip by internet 'experts'.
 
PhantomWolf said:
She coincidentally had an unknown person (non-family member's) DNA on her tights and panties? How exactly do you get your DNA coincidentally into the tights and panties of a young girl you are not related too?
Click to expand...

This.

When the police initially found the DNA, they decided it wasn't important because they figured, "Well, maybe the DNA in her panties came from when they were manufactured." What "cleared" them, if I recall correctly, is that they found the same unidentified DNA on the waistband of her tights as well, which makes it pretty likely that there was an unidentified person that touched inside of her panties and the outside of her tights.

I suppose one could still argue that they could have been involved along with said unidentified person, but it all ends up back to the old "it's really hard to prove a negative" principle.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
She coincidentally had an unknown person (non-family member's) DNA on her tights and panties? How exactly do you get your DNA coincidentally into the tights and panties of a young girl you are not related too?
Click to expand...
Kids with dirty hands touch themselves. Toilet seats used by toddlers could be contaminated. Those are two ways I can think of right off the bat.
 
fuelair said:
Let's just say that, as in a number of other similar cases, if the parents had fully, completely and openly cooperated with the police, those of us who still suspect them out the wazoo might not. They fought off assisting for a sufficiently long time that, well assumptions might be wrong - but if it had been my child I would have been helping every way I could. And if I had done it I would, the way my mind works, have killed myself (note to mods: this is not a suggestion to anyone, note I refer to me. and I have not killed any children).
Click to expand...

And it appears the dad got impatient waiting for the police to discover the body. That was suspicious. The note was suspicious. The murder weapon was suspicious. Murdering the child in the house was suspicious.

And while it may not be a perfect science, the parents bizarre emotional facies during interviews matched guilty parents. The only one who really fooled me in news interviews was Susan Smith. It's hard for parents to be good actors under the kind of stress of losing a child.
 
NewtonTrino said:
So you basically think they got away with it?

Any idea on motive?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think they got away with it. Though it may have negatively affected Patsy's health. Motive I believe was accidental during some kind of abusive behavior. And I suspect it was Patsy in anger rather than John in a sexual assault but that gets into a lot more speculation than the evidence actually supports.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Kids with dirty hands touch themselves. Toilet seats used by toddlers could be contaminated. Those are two ways I can think of right off the bat.
Click to expand...

And she managed to get this "DNA carrying dirt" or sit on a "contaminated toilet" in her own home? She'd be put to bed in her night clothes, do you think she snuck out for a night on the town and got it on her? Perhaps you need to rename yourself Richard Reid because that is some major stretching you are doing.
 
Reed Richards?

This sounds almost as mad as accusing the McCanns of being responsible for Madeleine's death, quite honestly.

Grieving parents can come across in different ways. I was completely taken in by Shannon Matthews's mother's little act on camera, and it turned out she'd conspired to abduct the child herself. I always felt there was something false about Kate McCann, but the facts tell me this impression is simply wrong. And so on.

Rolfe.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And it appears the dad got impatient waiting for the police to discover the body. That was suspicious. The note was suspicious. The murder weapon was suspicious. Murdering the child in the house was suspicious.

And while it may not be a perfect science, the parents bizarre emotional facies during interviews matched guilty parents. The only one who really fooled me in news interviews was Susan Smith. It's hard for parents to be good actors under the kind of stress of losing a child.
Click to expand...
I don't think the parents did it but I think they knew who did. Those beauty pageants were a pedophiles delight and since the parents rubbed shoulders with other like minded people it could easily have been a guest in their home. They didn't tell the police who did it because they (Jonbennets) parents may have done the same thing and were afraid that if they told their own crimes would have come to light.
 
Cainkane1 said:
I don't think the parents did it but I think they knew who did. Those beauty pageants were a pedophiles delight and since the parents rubbed shoulders with other like minded people it could easily have been a guest in their home. They didn't tell the police who did it because they (Jonbennets) parents may have done the same thing and were afraid that if they told their own crimes would have come to light.
Click to expand...


The only person those parents would have protected, other than each other, is the brother.

I'm not going so far as to speculate who really did or didn't do it, but just saying, there's no reason to think they would protect any killer of JonBenet, outside their own nuclear family. Your notion of "their own crimes" is too silly to even explore. You might as well claim aliens did it.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And she managed to get this "DNA carrying dirt" or sit on a "contaminated toilet" in her own home? She'd be put to bed in her night clothes, do you think she snuck out for a night on the town and got it on her? Perhaps you need to rename yourself Richard Reid because that is some major stretching you are doing.
Click to expand...

The letter of apology from the Boulder DA to John Ramsey gives a few more details:

The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom