DA: New DNA evidence clears Ramseys in JonBenet murder
By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 9, 2008 at 12:50 p.m.
Updated July 9, 2008 at 10:28 p.m.
Patrick Davison © The Rocky
John Ramsey looks on as his wife, Patsy, holds an advertisement promising a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, during an interview Thursday, May 1, 1997, in Boulder, Colo. It was the Ramsey's first meeting with reporters since the days after their daughter was found slain in the basement of their family's home in Boulder, Colo., on Dec. 26, 1996. No arrests have been made in the girl's death.
Photo by Courtesy Ramsey Family
Family photos of Jon Benet Ramsey, her mother Patsey, father John and brother Burke. Authorities announced Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006, the arrest of a suspect in the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, who was found dead in her Boulder home the day after Christmas 1996.
- ARCHIVE: Exclusive interview with Ramseys, parts 1 and 2
- DOCUMENT: Letter to John Ramsey from DA Mary Lacy
- SPECIAL REPORT: JonBenet Ramsey case
- SLIDE SHOW: DNA evidence clears Ramseys
- STORY: "Touch DNA" same that was used to free Masters
- STATEMENT: From Boulder DA Mary Lacy
- VIDEO: Former neighbors talk about the decision
Twelve years after JonBenet Ramsey's murder, science took a leap that provided new hope of finding her killer and led authorities to exonerate her family.
On Wednesday, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy announced that a new method of collecting and analyzing DNA generated powerful forensic evidence that an unidentified man murdered 6-year-old JonBenet in her home on Christmas night 1996.
Lacy also gave JonBenet's father, John Ramsey, a written apology, expressing deep regret for contributing in any way to the public perception that someone in the Ramsey family had committed the crime.
"No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law," Lacy's letter said.
John Ramsey, a software entrepreneur who now lives in Michigan, said Wednesday he is hopeful the killer will be found based on the DNA evidence.
"I think the people that are in charge of the investigation are focused on that, and that gives me a lot of comfort," he told 9News. He added: "Certainly we are grateful that they acknowledged that we, based on that, certainly could not have been involved."
Ramsey's attorney, Hal Haddon, said his client was "just quiet for a while" after Lacy handed him the apology.
"His view is that aside from the peace of mind it gives his family, the most important part of this whole process is that now there's conclusive evidence in the DNA database, and as they expand the number of people put in it, they'll get a hit. That's what drives him."
John Ramsey, and his wife, Patsy, were considered prime suspects after JonBenet's brutalized body was found in the basement of their large Boulder home on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.
The family became the butt of late-night television jokes, screaming tabloid headlines and talk show chatter. Patsy Ramsey, who died of ovarian cancer in 2006 at age 49, became a particular target of media and internet speculation and suspicion that created an "ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends," Lacy said.
The couple maintained their innocence, and a 1999 grand jury returned no indictments after a 13-month investigation. Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter and police continued to say that the Ramseys remained under an "umbrella of suspicion."
"The world loved crucifying Patsy and John," said Patsy's sister, Pam Paugh. "Patsy didn't get to hear anyone apologize to her, and there were so many that were cruel. But she and John knew in their hearts what the truth was."
The latest evidence came from so-called "touch DNA" extracted from skin cells shed when the unknown man touched the waist band of JonBenet's long johns. The Bode Technology Group, a forensic lab in Virginia, found that the "touch DNA" matched genetic material recovered in blood found in the child's underpants early in the investigation.
Earlier, there was speculation that the DNA on JonBenet's underwear could have been left by a garment worker, a theory discredited by the discovery of the same DNA left on her long johns.
"Now you've got in three more places exactly the same DNA on the clothing that demonstrate exactly what happened: her leggings and panties were pulled down, then pulled back up after she was violated," Haddon said. "It's enormously compelling evidence."
Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, whose department has been widely criticized for the way it handled the case, said that DNA samples from 200 people have been compared with the mystery DNA without a match. Investigators hope to find a match in a growing national database with more than 5 million offenders' DNA profiles.
"We are hopeful that this new development will lead to the identification and successful prosecution of this child's killer," Beckner said in a statement.
In her letter, Lacy said authorities will need more than a DNA match to solve the crime. But, she stressed the significance of the latest development.
"DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find, and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes," she wrote.
Lacy and Haddon acknowledged that despite the latest evidence, there will continue to be skeptics who insist that the family is involved.
"They can say all those things, but that doesn't address the scientific and conclusive evidence that exists," Haddon said. "Those people are just justifying their own slander and opportunism. They're wrong, they're losers, and to the extent they continue to try to justify what they've done, that demonstrates how little conscience they have."
Lacy wasn't the first to officially exonerate the Ramseys. In 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes dismissed a civil lawuit against the couple, saying there was no evidence they killed their daughter but ample evidence pointing to an intruder.
"My first thought was obviously I wish Patsy Ramsey was here with us to be able to at least share vindication of her family," said L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta attorney who handled civil cases for the Ramseys. "There are many people in this country, if not around the world, that also owe John and Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey an apology."
Paugh said that the faith her sister and brother-in-law shared made it possible for them to continue their lives after JonBenet's death.
"Patsy died knowing she absolutely did nothing to her child but give her life and give her love," she said. "I'm glad the world now knows what we always knew. It's just 12 years too late."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 9, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
blondiearvada writes:
It took them this long to figure out to do DNA tesing from other clothing areas??? You've got to be kidding me.
July 9, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
The incompetence of the Boulder DAs office and Boulder PD has just turned into one sad, long-running joke. Just when you think it can't be mishandled any worse - this comes out!
New Rule: any crime in Boulder higher than jay-walking should be handled by an outside law enforcement agency.
July 9, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
blondie
DNA testing has come a long way in the last few years and labs are able to recover DNA from trace amounts of material in ways that they could not when this child was killed. While it is certainly possible that this testing was delayed due to incompetence, which the history of the case certainly supports, it is more likely that this is the result of better technology.
July 9, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
MamaM writes:
Wow. FINALLY!! I worked for him during this whole time and watched that family suffer needlessly!!! It makes me sick to know that Patsy passed before they FINALLY decided to do their JOB! Gee, what an idea, huh? To check OTHER parts? Dont they teach that in CSI:101? BASIC?? I am so glad that this day finally came. I pray that John and Burke can FINALLY have this done. Too bad those MORONS cant find out who DID do it! But at least they FINALLY found out who DIDNT!
July 9, 2008
1:13 p.m.
lovepony0201 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
July 9, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
catlady writes:
WHO CARES? Will this stupid story every go away?
July 9, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
my3pugs writes:
"new “touch DNA” process"
See, it says it is a new process. Not delayed by incompetence, but applied when able to provide provable results. So, using this new process IS doing their job.
July 9, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
OhBrother writes:
Im sorry but I agree with cowboy-Boulder should officaly be forced to outsource all law enforcement duties once a serious crime takes place. This is just now coming out? New technology or not it seems people like tim masters and others have access and made good use of it, why didn't they do this earlier? Oh yeah, I guess if your crime lab doubles as the local dairy queen then it might take a while. I'm assuming next month they'll find "new" evidence that will again implicate the father...stay tuned
July 9, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
wow lovepony, nice to know that facts will not get in the way of your preformed opinion. Please explain to us from your perfect knowledge how DNA from an unrelated male on her panties and on the top of both legs of her leggings is not pretty solid evidence that someone else did this. Whatever your opinion of the pageant parade may be, that is long way from murder. By the way, where in your Bible does it award you the power to determine condemnation? Mine does not mention you.
July 9, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
nativegirl writes:
So no one helped the child dress for bed or pull the long-johns out of the drawer or handle them out of the laundry?? It was just the "perps" DNA on the clothes.....uh-huh......
July 9, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Peter Boyles - think you are due to make some statement?
July 9, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovepony0201 writes:
Bluffsblg, I would ask that you answer your own question first. Do you have first hand knowledge of what happened or are you forming an opinion based on what you have interpreted to be fact?
And speaking of making uninformed opinions, you inferred that my objections over making little girls dress in mini skirts, made up like French prostitutes, and paraded on a stage somehow make me a bible pounding christian. Pretty big assumption from a few sentences on an opinion page. Bluffsblg, are you calling the kettle black?
July 9, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovepony0201 writes:
The best thing to come out of Boulder is Highway 36.
July 9, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
RBN writes:
I heard from people (cops) who worked on the case years ago that it was the father, but there was never enought to make the charges stick. After what happened in Vermont last week nothing surprises me about what people are capable of. I mean, if he was not in bed with the Cheif of Police in Boulder I am sure he would be in jail now. Who knows what those sick people were into.
July 9, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, they're still not cleared for sexualizing their toddler child by dressing her up like a tart. It's absolutely painful to look at those pictures.
July 9, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
cpd writes:
Kay
I'm sorry that you know what it is to be wrongfully accused and I think it is neat that you know someone who was a friend of Patsy. What does that have to do with the cockamammy personal theory that someone moved into and lived in the house undetected. Must have been Mr. Clean who didn't smell bad after no showers, the Thin Man who didn't eat during the time, and the Man Who Was Not There who left no traces.
July 9, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
redpoppie writes:
"Patsy is burning for pimping her child. Anyone who would dress a child like a Nashville street walker and put the child on display is truly sick. The only thing the DNA test showed was that there was inconclusive evidence...it does not absolve those who are the most likely to have committed this horrible crime (i.e. the Ramsay family)."
I wholeheartedly agree-I still believe her mother did it, and it's further proof that $$$$$ can buy ANYTHING.............
July 9, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
redpoppie writes:
""The best thing to come out of Boulder is Highway 36.""
HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 9, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jackieg218 writes:
I have to agree with some of the posters about taking this long.
In 2001 I was violently sexually assaulted in colorado springs (no vag peneatration so it was not rape) however there was ample DNA they collected off of me from him. A YEAR and a half, yes I said YEAR, the colorado springs police department called me and wanted to collect my DNA to rule out mine from his. They collected my hairs and swabs.
When I asked the police why it was a year and a half later that they finally wanted to collect my sample, I was told the DNA lab's are really backed up and it takes a long time to get stuff processed. Well if I didnt feel victimized all over again.
My perp was never caught, however they now have the DNA on file in the systems so if he re-offends it gets tied back to the crime done to me. But still a year and a half???? How many other crimes could he have done in that time frame? I was told that the "priorities on DNA testing can slow things down too" I guess I was just a lower "priority". Sad sad sad, to say the least, I no longer live in the Springs either.
July 9, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
What is sad this little girl would be a 18 yr old knockout today. She would be on every teenage boy want list in boulder. To bad. And I don't mean this in a disrespectful way.
July 9, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
RBN writes:
Moved in and lived in the house???How dumb is that??? Then all of a sudden he just broke a window after he decided to become a murderer? I have read some stupid mess on here before, but that takes the entire cake!!! LOL, honestly! You should not waste your powers here on earth, you should go back to planet nonsense and see if you can help them with their crime investigations.
July 9, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Wow, Boulder way to go. Took you how long to figure that one out?
July 9, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Well, maybe they can file this new DNA report next to the "confession" of the molester they flew all the way back from Bangkok WHO TURNS OUT WASN'T EVEN IN THE STATE AT THE TIME!
July 9, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Leave Patsy Ramsey alone for god's sake.
She was tortured in the media for being a bad mother.
The woman went to her grave not knowing who murdered her child.
She was never given a moments peace because of the media.
That little angel JonBenet was murdered by a intruder who followed and watched them.
They were the target of a predator who hunted that little girl.
Like some people hunt a deer.
He came into their home and took a life and escaped punishment.
May they whoever they are rot in a terrible evil place.
July 9, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Lovepony, I try to look at the evidence as it comes and be willing to change my mind. For a time I thought the family was most likely responsible, but the DNA always concerned me and the fact that is has now been found in more than one place by a reputable lab does convince me that looking elsewhere is the most logical conclusion. If you prefer to join the conspiracy theorists like shaggy and redpoppie, who are sure the fix is in, then feel free. There is room for all opinions, even logically unsupportable ones. Maybe you can find Patsy Ramsey hiding in area 51 with the killers of JFK, having lunch in a UFO and looking at the pictures of the faked moon landing.
As to the religious quote, you started your comments by condemning Patsy to hell for not conforming to your moral code. I do not believe in the afterlife, but I find most amusing those like you who not only believe but somehow feel that you have the right to determine who gets in.
July 9, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
by the way Shaggy, on Midyette, the DA did ask for an ankle bracelet and the JUDGE said no. The DA does not make that decision. Wow does ignorance run amok on here.
July 9, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
peter303 writes:
Gives Peter Boyles another opportunity stick his foot up his you-know-what again. His foot, ankle, calf, knee, thigh ....
July 9, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
I don't think this CLEARS the parents at all! So what if DNA for someone else was found, DNA can come from anywhere with todays testing methods. Why don't they check the maids, maybe a hair from folding laundry? This story means nothing, I'm sure there is more to come.
July 9, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creative_N_Denver writes:
happymike44 are you joking? Her mother was part of a long going problem and as for being a good parent, well that depends on who your judging her by.
Boulder needs to rethink what happened here. There was so many blunders with this case it would only make others question why and also question the ability of the people involved to protect the evidence.
July 9, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
By the way buffsblg, The judge did originally order both Midyettes to wear ankle bracelets. They went back into court with their lawyers and cried boo-hoo the ankle bracelets were bothering them. They claimed the bracelets were wrongly going off and inhibiting them from going to the mountains to see friends and have a good time. The original order also required them to stay away from children. They also claimed that was a hardship because they had so many nieces and nephews.
On both complaints the judge felt sorry for them and dismissed the ankle bracelets and allowed them to be around their nieces and nephews except if they were age 2 and under.
So once again it shows a lack of sane judgement when it comes to people with money.
If a person went into court with a public defender and cried that their ankle bracelets were hindering them from socializing, do you think a judge would say no problem we will just take them off? A person charged with murder?
July 9, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
In this sad case, I've said for years that the parents are probably not guilty. There was never the least pattern of abuse.
As for the beauty contests, these are not decadent shows. They are for little girls who seem to enjoy them as much as their parents. If anything, putting her in those shows says that Patsy Ramsey always had a huge amount of pride in the poise and beauty of her girl.
Putting the Ramseys under suspicion never added up. There is only one kind of person who would murder that little girl and that is a stalker, child molester, rapist, and cold-blooded killer. With luck and time, that killer's DNA will match and he will face justice. Personally, I'd draw and quarter that kind of scum, hanging or lethal injection being far too humane.
But for now the science can give the surviving Ramsey family a bit of peace.
July 9, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
well sheepherder, while this may not be conclusive, remember that the first sample in the underwear was not from a touch, but from a fluid stain combined with the girls fluid. That is pretty strong. Today's test says that the same unidentified male DNA was found in exactly the spots where some one pulling on or off the leggings would have touched them. So the DNA says that some man whose DNA was not identified left fluid in her panties and skin cells on the clothes in exactly the places we would expect for a sexual criminal to have put them. That may not totally rule out contamination, but it is pretty good evidence, especially when no forensic evidence points to the family. If they eventually match that DNA to someone, I would not love to be his attorney.
Kay asks a good question and the answer is MONEY. Life in not like CSI. State labs are backed up and underfunded and it can take months to get results. If you want real injustice, look at the Masters case or the 18 men this year in Texas freed from prison by DNA. DNA lab testing should be mandatory where the evidence supports it, but to do so the legislature needs to step up funding.
July 9, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Well it was obvious from the start that Boulder authorities were over their head with the investigation. A comedy of errors that was not funny. One sad thing was their ego was so involved in a murder/rape that had such sensational national coverage they would not accept the expert help that was available.
I am so sorry for the Ramsey family and there is no way for Boulder or Colorado to ever apologize or make restitution to first of all Patsey, now gone from cancer, but to John and his son for the absolute horror they were subjected to. If there ever was an award for shame it should go to Boulder police and prosecutor officials for the injustice they inflicted on this good family.
July 9, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
vudomon, I understand and to some extent share your concerns about the Midyettes. However, I was only responding to Shaggy who claimed, as part of his barely comprehensible rant about Mary Lacey, that it was the DA who "refused to order" the bracelets because of who Midyettes father was. That was simply ignorant.
July 9, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
I_Slay_The_Dragon writes:
American "justice".....it's the best "justice", money can buy.
Next-up? The Presidential Auction....I mean, "election".
July 9, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
RBN writes:
Does anyone know where OJ was during this time???
July 9, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Hmmmm...
This whole bloody thing still sounds fishy. I wonder if the wonderful investigators know more than they are saying. The presence of a 3rd party DNA only proves that there was a non-ramsey involved... it DOES NOT prove that that a ramsey wasn't involved.
The whole thing is bizarre... I don't know. They just seemed sleezy and really uncaring about the whole thing. I could be wrong... I usually am once a year or so ;-)
July 9, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
popbutthead writes:
A little cooperation with the police would have gone a long way many years ago. Then the police could have gotten on track and made a much better investigation.
So, does the Boulder PD really deserve all the negative things spouted by the Ramseys?
July 9, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovepony0201 writes:
Bluffsblg, how do you define a logically unsupportable opinion? Is that any opinion that differs from yours? My, what amazing powers of truth and perception you must have to be able to weild the authority to deem a differing opinion fallacious. Last time I checked, opinion and fact are not synonyms. I'm sure your first-hand knowledge of the evidence was quite thorough...enough to dismiss all divergent opinions as "logically unsupportable".
All hail the lead investigator, crime scene investigator, laboratory technician: Bluffsblg!
July 9, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
janadep writes:
This whole thing is sad and tragic. I do hope they find out who committed this awful crime. I feel very bad for the family as they were vilified in the media for so long.
July 9, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovepony0201 writes:
It would appear that the alleged perpetrator was already put to death...
July 9, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
popbutthead writes:
I think some one has been watching too much CSI. If you read the WHOLE article, the type of DNA analysis used is NEW. And was not available years ago. If the Ramseys had cooperated and not come out all "Lawyered up" to their first interview with the cops, maybe things wouldn't have suggested that they were suspects. He who protesteth too much.......
July 9, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Shaggy, no one will ever find me defending Lacey. But blaming her for things done by others or accusing her of some vast conspiracy serves no purpose either. You were factually wrong on Midyette and now refuse to acknowledge it. That does tend to impact your credibility on other matters.
July 9, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Shaggy you are correct that Mary Lacey was not going to charge the Midyettes with anything until someone lit a fire under her rear end. Even then she pushed it onto a grand jury who in turn only charged the parents with 2nd degree murder. It absolutely should have been 1st degree murder. Then maybe Alex Midyette wouldn't be allowed his freedom while his son lies 6 feet under. The whole case is a disturbing look at what justice actually costs if you have money. In this case a young baby's life who endured 10 weeks of horrific abuse. There must be something in the water in Boulder.
July 9, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
nativegirl writes:
"So no one helped the child dress for bed or pull the long-johns out of the drawer or handle them out of the laundry?? It was just the "perps" DNA on the clothes.....uh-huh......"
Did you read the story? What family has unknown strangers come in and help their daughter "dress for bed" that no one ever knows about? Yeesh. The DNA is from a party unknown. The "Patsy Did It" crowd is now completely in shambles <cough cough Peter Boyles>. All those expected to have access to the girl were tested; they are not unknown.
July 9, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Lovepony, I never claimed to be perfect, just more logical and better informed than you, an admittedly low standard. You started the day claiming the right to condemn people to hell, went on to propound a vast conspiracy theory and have yet to present one fact to support anything you say. Unfortunately for you, all opinions are not equal and as you decline to provide any facts for yours, their credibility is zero. The main difference is that I have acknowledged that there is no conclusive evidence here while you claim to have all the answers, as well as the power of God. Which one of us has delusions?
July 9, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
lovepony0201 writes:
All bow to the omniscient bluffsblg, for he/she has proclaimed him/herself better informed and set the standard for all opinions! Please show me where I "claimed the right to condemn people to hell", because I never did. Please show me where I presented a "vast conspiracy theory", because I never did. At what point did I attempt to pass off an opinion as fact? At what point did I claim to have all the answers?
If there is no conclusive evidence, as you stated, then how can any opinion be considered less than equal? Certainly my opinion that certain members of that family are just as likely to be suspected of committing this crime as any other suspect criminal would seem to be consistent with other opinions, including those of the investigators. But what would investigators know about this case? Certainly their opinions and hunches are not equal to yours.
July 9, 2008
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mark Brown writes:
Um, one might want to point out that Lacey was in fact not the DA at the time of the crime. That was Alex Hunter.
July 9, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
edwardallen writes:
Since they took DNA evidence from others suspected of being remotely involved, do they now have a suspect? I think there is only half a story here and the community deserves to know for its own safety of mind if there is still a child killer in our midst.
July 9, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
TankerDan writes:
From the very beginning I would tell any one that would listen or not that these people did not kill their own daughter on Christmas Eve in there own home because IT JUST DID'NT MAKE SENSE they had it all and no tpye of bad history other wise. And as Judge Judy aways say if it does make sense than it's probably not true. Finely...... God Bless the Ramsey's and their souls.
July 9, 2008
6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
Ms Lacy and OJ can both be looking for the real killer.
Let's see.....John Ramsey carried Jon Benet from the basement to the living room, yet the new improved sophisticated DNA test that can grab mere cells from an item of evidence apparently failed to find his.
Me thinks Ms Lacy hopes this will close the matter. It just raises more questions.
July 9, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
westsidechan writes:
She is incompetent. Why in the world would a prosecutor issue a public statement clearing individuals whom some evidence suggests might have been involved, when there is no ID on the possible perpetrator? We have all seen bizarre and strange circumstances around crimes... to clear the Ramsey’s with this is the ultimate in incompetence, and really just an excuse for some headline time - the fluid DNA has been known, this adds very little to the case. Sigh.
July 9, 2008
7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Plenty of numbskulls here refuse to admit they are wrong. They didn't murder their own daughter. DNA evidence proves that.
Now get a life.
July 9, 2008
7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Boulder. Typical.
July 9, 2008
7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
chuckyg writes:
Its hard to believe that the parents weren't in on it after what happened right after the murder.
As part of her staging, Thomas wrote that Patsy put a strip of duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. "There was bloody mucus under the tape, and a perfect set of the child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance," indicating that JonBenet had not been alive when the tape was affixed to her mouth. The ransom note and the staging of the body took so much of the night that Patsy did not have time to change the clothes she wore to the Whites' Christmas Day party. To Thomas, Patsy's not changing her clothes was the smoking gun. He knew she was wearing the same clothes because a picture taken at the Whites' dinner party on Christmas night showed her wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants. A Boulder police officer had noted in his report that when he arrived at the Ramsey home on December 26 in response to the kidnapping emergency that Patsy was wearing a red turtleneck and black pants.
"This woman, to whom looking good appeared always so important that she had a closet full of designer clothes, had attended a party, come home late, put her children to bed, gone to sleep herself, arose early to fly across the country, put on fresh makeup and fixed her hair, and then put on the same clothes she had worn the previous night? Not likely, in my opinion," Thomas wrote.
July 9, 2008
8:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
castortroy33 writes:
Reading some of the ignorant comments about how the Ramseys should not be cleared shows me what an even larger tragedy this has become. Their daughter was killed! They were blamed! The media pointed the finger big time! Jokes were made by late night comedians (Leno, Letterman, south park). Those of you that still believe the Ramsey's had something to do with it are a contribute to the tragedy. There is still no closure here. Somebody out there killed this poor girl and too much time was lost investigating Boulders only suspects..the Ramsey's. I applaud the DA and her apology. The Boulder police look absolutely incompetent here and they should be the butt of all the late night jokes not the Ramseys. I think the DA should not be the only one apologizing..hopefully, but doubtfully these other people come forward to say they treated the Ramsey's unfairly.
July 9, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Yea right,
I know the first thing my wife and myself would do if we found one of our children violently raped and murdered in our home is demand to talk to our lawyers before speaking with police to facilitate finding our kids killer.
And Mary "No Matter How Many Times I Change My Name I'm Still A Moonbat" Lacy has proved in the past that any conclusions she has made concerning anything she has been professionally involved with is suspect.
The mistakes in this case have been phenomenal and this dna clearing of the Ramseys is nothing but a CYA moment for the incompetent Lacy.
But don't try to break any one of the retarded Boulder Lib's PC laws- smoking(unless it's weed), hate speech, excessive car exhaust, flying the American flag(public dildo exhibits at the public library are OK), gun free zones, nuke free zones, sofas on front porches....
Those offenses are aggressively prosecuted.
What a friggin' joke.
July 9, 2008
10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
perks writes:
The Ramseys were absolutely right to lawyer up in the face of a bunch of totally incompetent Boulder cops descending on their house to investigate their daughter's death. The Boulder cops bust college kids. They arrest people for DUI. They shoot themselves in the foot when running after suspects down alleys (seriously).
In 1996 & 97, at least, they had no idea how to deal with a serious crime, as demonstrated with their pisspoor investigation of the Ramsey house and, not much later, their botched investigation of Susannah Chase's violent murder. Note that Susannah's murder was solved with DNA evidence (first, they thought her boyfriend beat her to death) and the Ramseys were ruled out with it here. Not that I'm saying that the Boulder DA's office is any better.
The very first thing I would do if faced with the clowns of the BPD in 1996 for something more serious than jaywalking is get a lawyer. Then, as now, you get all the justice you can afford. The fact the Ramseys could afford excellent representation is what saved them from being railroaded straight to jail.
July 10, 2008
2:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
This new DNA evidence shows that the same "unknown male" that left fluid DNA in the child's undies, also left touch DNA on her pajamas.
OK, so what?
The same guy that violated her also pulled her pants down to do it.
There's a revelation for you.
And this breaking news absolves the Ramseys how, exactly?
Just because the "unknown male" is unknown to the BPD, it doesn't mean that the Ramseys weren't socially familiar with the man who did it. It doesn't mean they weren't in the room when it happened.
It doesn't mean they were either.
It doesn't mean anything at all.
The apology should not have been issued until the guilty party is discovered.
That should be the real eye opener.
July 10, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
chobbes writes:
Touch DNA is not new, it is about 10 years old. It may be new to Boulder. Touch DNA does not require fluid or hair. When we touch things we leave behind skin cells, this is what is being found. Over 300 people have been ruled out via DNA testing. I dont know if the Ramseys are guilty or not, but if you dont think that someone can come into a home and do stuff like this, read up on Elizabeth Smart.
Also, only 50% of murders are solved today with all the DNA markers and testing we have now. Back in the 50's, 92% of murders were solved. Good ole police work and feet on the street.
July 10, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
grantarchy writes:
You know, if the killer is ever caught AND the police match the DNA AND they get a videotaped confession, these kooks will STILL say that the Ramsey's did it, or that they were to blame for having their child in a beauty pagent. There is no appeasing these people - they are arrogant, reckless and ignorant, a dangerous trifecta. Is there really any point in arguing with them? Pathetic sheep is all they are, and they won't change their mind unless they're instructed to by Peter Boyles or whoever the nutty radio host is they might be listening to. Nuff said.
July 10, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steve7485 writes:
I don't know who committed this crime, but I have questions: Was the DNA at issue the ONLY non-JonBenet DNA found on the clothes? That would strike me as very odd -- I would expect the parents' DNA to be all over the items since they presumably bought the clothes and dressed their daughter in them. An absence of their DNA would be VERY curious. On the other hand, if their "genetic fingerprints" WERE on the clothes, then the presence of other DNA does not necessarily clear them. The presence of other DNA only deepens the mystery.
The sticking point for me remains the ransom note. I can't figure that one out at all.