DNA points JonBenet case in new direction
DA says tests show unidentified man murdered child
By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Patrick Davison / The Rocky/1996
Boulder police officer Lisa Couper carries a camera she was using to photograph evidence outside the Boulder home of John and Patsy Ramsey after the murder of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, the day after Christmas.
Photo by 9news
John Ramsey is shown Wednesday in a 9News interview about new findings by the Boulder district attorney on JonBenet's slaying.
John Mark Carr
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 body was found in the basement of their Boulder home on Dec. 26, 1996.
Target of jokes
The family became the butt of late-night television jokes, screaming 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 "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.
Skepticism will continue
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."
Exonerated in civil suit
Lacy wasn't the first to officially exonerate the Ramseys. In 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes dismissed a civil lawsuit 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."
ryckmanl@RockyMountainNews.com The Associated Press contributed to this report
Highlights from Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy's statement:
* On Dec. 25-26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered in the home where she lived with her mother, father and brother. Despite a long and intensive investigation, the death of JonBenet remains unsolved.
* The (JonBenet Ramsey) murder has received unprecedented publicity and has been shrouded in controversy. That publicity has led to many theories over the years in which suspicion has focused on one family member or another. However, there has been at least one persistent stumbling block to the possibility of prosecuting any Ramsey family members for the death of JonBenet - DNA.
* As part of its investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey homicide, the Boulder police identified genetic material with apparent evidentiary value. Over time, the police continued to investigate DNA, including taking advantage of advances in the science and methodology. One of the results of their efforts was that they identified genetic material and a DNA profile from drops of JonBenet's blood located in the crotch of the underwear she was wearing at the time her body was discovered. That genetic profile belongs to a male and does not belong to anyone in the Ramsey family.
* On March 24, 2008, (new DNA technology at The Bode Technology Group Inc., of 1Lorton Va.) informed us that they had recovered and identified genetic material from both sides of the waist area of the long johns. The unknown male profile previously identified from the inside crotch area of the underwear matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.
* The unexplained third-party DNA on the clothing of the victim is very significant and powerful evidence. It is very unlikely that there would be an innocent explanation for DNA found at three different locations on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of her murder. This is particularly true in this case because the matching DNA profiles were found on genetic material from inside the crotch of the victim's underwear and near the waist on both sides of her long johns, and because concerted efforts that might identify a source, and perhaps an innocent explanation, were unsuccessful.
* It is therefore the position of the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this profile belongs to the perpetrator of the homicide.
* The Boulder District Attorney's Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case. We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained this new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence. We do so with full appreciation for the other evidence in this case.
* Local, national and even international publicity has focused on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Many members of the public came to believe that one or more of the Ramseys, including her mother or her father, or even her brother, were responsible for this brutal homicide. Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court; rather, they were based on evidence reported by the media.
* The suspicions about the Ramseys in this case created an ongoing living hell for the Ramsey family and their friends, which added to their suffering from the unexplained and devastating loss of JonBenet.
* To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology.
Ramsey case timeline
1996
Dec. 26: Patsy Ramsey calls police at 5:52 a.m. to say she had found a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the return of her 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet. Seven hours later, JonBenet's body is found in the basement of the family home by her father, John Ramsey.
Dec. 31: Ramsey family hires attorney, publicist and investigators as suspicion focuses on them.
1997
April 30: Detectives have first formal interview with John and Patsy Ramsey.
May 1: John and Patsy Ramsey meet with a hand-picked panel of reporters from seven media outlets for about 30 minutes. They insist they didn't murder their daughter and vow to find her killer.
Aug. 14: The autopsy report is unsealed by the Boulder County coroner.
Sept. 3: The full text of the ransom note is published for the first time.
Oct. 10: Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby removes John Eller as lead detective on the case and puts Cmdr. Mark Beckner in charge.
Dec. 20: Beckner says John and Patsy Ramsey are under an "umbrella of suspicion."
1998
June 23-25: The Ramseys are questioned again by police, their first interviews in more than a year. JonBenet's brother Burke, 9 at the time of her death, is interviewed for six hours.
Sept. 15: Grand jury convenes to investigate.
Sept. 28: Veteran investigator Lou Smit, hired by the Boulder DA as a special investigator, resigns. His letter, which states his belief in the Ramseys' innocence, is published in Newsweek.
1999
Oct. 13: Grand jury concludes its work and District Attorney Alex Hunter says no indictments will be issued, citing a lack of sufficient evidence.
2000
April 10: Time magazine reports that Boulder detectives bugged JonBenet's grave in hopes of getting the killer's confession.
2002
Dec. 20: Newly elected District Attorney Mary Keenan (now Mary Lacy) takes over the investigation from Boulder police and promises a fresh look at the case.
2003
March 31: A federal judge in Atlanta concludes that the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the intruder theory than with the theory that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet. Lacy later issues a statement agreeing with the judge.
2004
June 4: The Ramseys' attorney says DNA found in JonBenet's underwear did not match any samples in an FBI database of convicted violent offenders.
2006
June 24: Patsy Ramsey dies at age 49 following a long battle with ovarian cancer.
Aug. 16: John Mark Karr, a suspect in JonBenet's slaying, is arrested in Thailand.
Aug. 28: Lacy drops case against Karr after DNA tests don't match.
2008
July 9: New DNA evidence from tests on JonBenet's clothing doesn't match any of the Ramseys.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
July 10, 2008
6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Two things drove this idiotic act: 1) Mary Lacy clearing her own name as an incompetent prosecutor and the Boulder cops for blowing the investigation and 2) providing John Ramsey with an iron-clad "reasonable doubt" defense if any further investigation eventually implicates him or Burke, even if its just for "aiding and abetting". This is about as transparent as Saran-Wrap. Mike
July 10, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mark Brown writes:
Again, Mary Lacy was NOT the DA when this crime occurred.
July 10, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
singularity99 writes:
Sorry, but this does not exonerate the Ramseys.
Why leave a ransom note behind as evidence with the body when there was no kidnapping? Why weren't the Ramsey's fingerprints on the note, since they handled it? Why was someone "practicing" writing ransom notes? Why was Mrs. Ramsey wearing the same clothes as the previous night, as if she was up doing something all night? Why were there no "intruder" tracks in the snow? Why did the Ramseys lawyer up immediately after the crime? Why did the Ramseys refuse to take a polygraph test? How could an intruder find his way around in the dark inside the house, with its bizarre, serpentine, four-level floor plan? And on and on and on.
I can think of only one scenario that would fit all of these bizarre facts, including the DNA: if the Ramseys had given their daughter to someone, perhaps someone in a pedophillia ring, and something went wrong. The ransom note makes sense only if it was left to steer blame away from parents.
July 10, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
RMN: I respectfully request that you stop using this murder victim's glamour photos as you report this story. Thank you for your consideration.
July 10, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Whether you agree with Lacy or not, this guarantees that the only person who can successfully prosecuted for this crime is the man whose DNA this is. That DNA means that in a criminal action, there will always be reasonable doubt as to anyone else (absent perhaps a videotape). There will always be those who blame the Ramseys, but do not be deluded that there will ever be a prosecution, no matter who the DA is.
(Nice point Davies, but that picture still sells papers, to all of our shame.)
July 10, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
HSTOWEL writes:
This DA is a loon. What responsible law enforcement agency would reveal new evidence in a case unless it was for political purposes. This is all a smoke screen and somebody in that house committed the murder. This evidence means nothing.
July 10, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
JYP3500 writes:
Let me see if I understand this. The poor little girl is beaten & strangled, then wiped clean by her father. But since her parent's DNA are not found in her underwear, they are exonerated? Don't buy it. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the Ramsey's are still influencing the authorities & media.
July 10, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
plotz writes:
Only 6 comments so far...one would think that there would be more. DA Alex Hunter presents to a grand jury evidence that his office and the police have at that time. Much, much more than we will ever know about. The purpose of a grand jury to examine the evidence and case and if there is grounds for a solid case...then an indictment is issued. There was no indictment, therefore no case against the Ramsey's. All of the specualtion to date is nothing more than mental mastrubation, and arm chair detective work, the stuff of cheap pot boiler crime novels. Other post mention why the Ramsey's contact an attorney right away...to protect their 5th admendent rights, as most police may use a word, phrase,etc to help a possible arrest and conviction. The Ramsey's were smart in doing that and merely protected their rights.
July 10, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
"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.
Mary Lacy is an idiot of the utmost proportions. She has bungled this whole case in the past and for the future. Go disappear along with John Mark Karr!
Anyone else agree she looks like a cabbage patch doll!
July 10, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
analytixman writes:
This is just another ploy to clear Mary Lacy's name. She is the poster child of clown police work. Mary is a media hound and this is nothing more than a stunt to clear her forever tarnished name.
July 10, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
The presence of new DNA only confirms that the person whose DNA it was, was involved. It DOES NOT mean that the Ramsey's weren't involved. Serioulsy... the presence of this DNA does not mean absence of guilt, only confirms the guilt of another party. How the hell do any of these people still have jobs?
July 10, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"How do any of these people still have jobs?"
Boulder voters. Nuts, one and all.
July 10, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
The Ramseys have been charged, tried and convicted in the minds of a lot of people since day one and NOTHING could ever be revealed that will change them.
I hear they filmed a pilot for a new TV show. "CSI: Boulder". Basically it is one hour long of some fat guy snoring behind a desk.
July 10, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Steve7485 writes:
I don't know who committed this crime, but I have questions: Was the DNA in question 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.
July 10, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
singularity99 writes:
“Sorry, but this does not exonerate the Ramseys.”
Yes it does. The DNA on the panties AND the long johns are from the same unknown person. The Ramsey family members’ DNAs are all known, as well as many identifiable acquaintances. This means an unknown male was in her pants. Unless you mean to suggest the family watched while they allowed an unknown pedophile to molest and strangle their daughter. Did they have popcorn while they watched? How absurd.
“Why leave a ransom note behind as evidence with the body when there was no kidnapping?”
Who knows? I can think of several very likely reasons and none involve the family, which I consider the least plausible explanation. One, the kidnapping was supposed to happen but the intruder got carried away and killed her, then fled leaving the note behind. Makes more sense than thinking the *family* killed her, and then wrote a fake ransom note while leaving the body IN THE HOUSE. Your own theory against the intruder argues against the family involvement.
“Why weren't the Ramsey's fingerprints on the note, since they handled it?”
Prints don’t always take hold to paper. What’s your explanation, since obviously they handled it.
“Why was someone "practicing" writing ransom notes?”
Kook pedophile. The practice sheets were never found, therefore the intruder took them. Again, this exculpates the parents.
“Why was Mrs. Ramsey wearing the same clothes as the previous night, as if she was up doing something all night?”
She put them on again because they were flying to Michigan in an hour or so and she didn’t plan to dress up for the private plane flight, but change when she got there.
July 10, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
singularity writes:
“Why were there no "intruder" tracks in the snow?”
Uh, there was no snow. That’s been debunked a long time.
“Why did the Ramseys lawyer up immediately after the crime?”
They didn’t. They spoke freely with the cops for several days until the cops made statements to associates that they believed the Ramseys did it and intended to pursue them as sole suspects.
Wouldn’t YOU lawyer up in such a case??
“Why did the Ramseys refuse to take a polygraph test?”
They didn’t.
“How could an intruder find his way around in the dark inside the house, with its bizarre, serpentine, four-level floor plan?”
Why wouldn’t he? That’s silly. Bump into a wall, go the other way. Walking around a house is not rocket science. Burglars do it all the time.
“And on and on and on.”
And none of which inculpates the family.
“ I can think of only one scenario that would fit all of these bizarre facts, including the DNA: if the Ramseys had given their daughter to someone, perhaps someone in a pedophilia ring, and something went wrong.”
Wow, that’s the ONLY ONE SCENARIO you can conceive? That these people were tied in with a pedophile ring and gave them their daughter to toy with? That’s plainly crazy.
“The ransom note makes sense only if it was left to steer blame away from parents.”
You are contradicted by the fact that most people think the ransom note steers TOWARD the parents. Your claim makes no sense.
There’s no way these people killed their daughter.
July 10, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mturnerdu writes:
One question is still out there...Why not do the fancy DNA test to the actual murder weapon? That would completely clear up who did it. If there is a 3rd party DNA on the rope and it matches the underwear that I would be convinced. Until that happens, I still have significant doubt.
July 10, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
AC-
The DNA does not exonerate them, it only implicates another party. There are dozens of scenarios that could still include the Ramsey's in addition to another party. I'm not saying they are or aren't guilty -- just stating the logical. This was/is a bizarre case, and A LOT doesn't add up... including statements made by the Ramsey's.
July 10, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
JB writes:
"AC-The DNA does not exonerate them, it only implicates another party. There are dozens of scenarios that could still include the Ramsey's in addition to another party."
Such as? Under your analysis, the DNA doesn't exclude you either.
The DNA makes it clear that the person who got into the girl's panties -- the killer -- was not a member of the family. Under what other scenario that doesn't push the bounds of all ridiculousness is the family still involved?
July 10, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
First AC... you are right! The presence of the DNA does NOT exclude me, or you, or ANYONE. However, the absence of motive, opportunity and proximity do exclude me, probably you and the other 6 billion people on the planet.
Yes, a stranger left his DNA, so clearly a non-Ramsey was involved. However, what if the Ramsey's paid someone to "kidnap" their daughter and it went wrong? What if Patsey or John did in fact, hurt Jon Benet in a fit of rage and then they asked an unscrupulous friend to come and "take care of it..." I'm not saying that's what happened, BUT, there is still the possibility...right?!
Again, it's just taking a logical look at the facts that were reported. This evidence is not able to rule anyone out, only implicate...
July 10, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Nicely argued AC, but certainly you have realized that there is a strong subset of people (over represented here) that have formed their opinion and will never ever be convinced. This is the Colorado version of the JFK assassination, some people will believe what they want regardless of evidence. Anyone with an open mind now realizes that the most likely scenario was an intruder. The rest will simply come up with more and more outlandish scenarios to justify their deeply held beliefs. Jb will just make up stuff and invent a pedophile ring or a conspiracy to keep from having to admit he may have been wrong. Arguing evidence with the people on here is like teaching a pig to dance. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. I admire your spunk in trying however.
July 10, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Buffs-
What??? I didn't say anything about a pedophile ring! Nor have I said that the Ramsey's did or didn't do it! My only argumnet is that what we know of this new evidence is NOT enough to exclude ANYONE! It's Logic 101.
Let's say, I pay someone to hurt an enemy... they do it. My DNA is no where near the victim. So, when they don't find my DNA, does that mean I wasn't involved? NO!!!
That is the ONLY point I'm arguing. The LOGIC... that's all I care about in any situation... logic and facts.
July 10, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
JMac writes:
"AC, face it they killed her."
JMac, face it, not in a million lifetimes.
JB writes:
“First AC... you are right! The presence of the DNA does NOT exclude me, or you, or ANYONE. However, the absence of motive, opportunity and proximity do exclude me, probably you and the other 6 billion people on the planet.”
The parents have *no* motive. Their proximity and opportunity stem merely from the fact that the murder victim was their daughter. That is not evidence they did it. And how do we know that YOU weren’t there that night, eh? ;-)
“Yes, a stranger left his DNA, so clearly a non-Ramsey was involved. However, what if the Ramsey's paid someone to "kidnap" their daughter and it went wrong?”
HOLY CRAP!! I mean really, HOLY CRAP!!! Do you hear yourself? You are not even grasping at straws here, you are grasping at imaginary straws. Look in the mirror at yourself and say that… “The parents paid someone to kidnap their daughter on Christmas night and it went wrong.” Where do people come up with this?
“What if Patsey or John did in fact, hurt Jon Benet in a fit of rage and then they asked an unscrupulous friend to come and "take care of it..." I'm not saying that's what happened, BUT, there is still the possibility...right?!”
No. Not any more than it’s possible that you drive up there that night and did it. Or that alien death rays did it.
“Again, it's just taking a logical look at the facts that were reported. This evidence is not able to rule anyone out, only implicate...”
It implicates the killer; the killer is not a family member. It’s time for the PDI, BDI, JDI and the entire supermarket midnight globe enquirer “Ramseys Did It" lynch mob to shake itself from its prejudiced slumber and move on.
July 10, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
AC-
So you're saying that parents NEVER hurt their children? Nobody has ever staged a kidnapping for some sort of financial or other gain. It's totally unheard of for people of means, even those without means, to hire people to take care of their problems or clean up their messes?
ALL I'm saying, again, is that one must be logical when evaluating evidence. Strictly logical, no emotion... that's how the Boulder PD mucked this up so badly to begin with...jumping to conclusions that the evidence didn't support.
July 10, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Louise writes:
Does anyone know where Burke Ramsey lives now, and how he has fared over the years?
July 10, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnmike293 writes:
Mary Lacy-Keenan, Boulder DA, has been trying to dump this case for years. Officially declaring the Ramseys as "cleared" because of skin cell DNA is ludicrous at best. Writing them a formal apology and in the unlikely event that this case breaks sometime in the future, compromises any potential conviction that could result and is totally un-professional and un-ethical bahvior on the part of a District Attorney whose office would prosecute.
Mary Lacy has been a joke since taking office. This latest charade is the icing on the cake. This is all about her and the absolutely horrible embarassing way the DA's office handled this criminal inviestingation since day one. She wants to clear her legacy of this, and as a result destroy any future cold case resolution that would embarass her.
July 10, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
JB writes:
“AC-So you're saying that parents NEVER hurt their children?”
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? But when they do kill their children, a la Susan Smith, their phony stories break down almost immediately and they confess. They can’t live with it.
One thing I *can* say has not happened is that no parents have ever killed a child in the manner in which JonBenet was killed. No parent garrotes a still-alive baby of theirs to cover up a whack in the head, and stages such an elaborate and contradictory “cover up.” No parent calls in a child kidnapping with a forged ransom note, and then goes downstairs and “discovers” the body. It’s just completely absurd to think the parents did this.
“Nobody has ever staged a kidnapping for some sort of financial or other gain. It's totally unheard of for people of means, even those without means, to hire people to take care of their problems or clean up their messes?”
What are you even talking about here? The Ramseys hired someone to kill their daughter? Are you crazy? This is what the “blame the parents” crowd has come to? Utter absurdity?
“ALL I'm saying, again, is that one must be logical when evaluating evidence. Strictly logical, no emotion... that's how the Boulder PD mucked this up so badly to begin with...jumping to conclusions that the evidence didn't support.”
Correct. BPD focused blindly on the parents solely because of statistics. No statistic in the world makes the Ramseys guilty.
July 10, 2008
6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Louise writes:
I haven't lived in CO since Sept. 1997, so I am unfamiliar with Mary Lacy; although I gather from these posts that she is not highly regarded. My question: what is the reference to Peter Boyle (I assume he's not the actor from "Everybody...Raymond"). Thanks.
October 3, 2008
1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Czechchic writes:
Dear singularity99
You ask:
"Why leave a ransom note behind as evidence with the body when there was no kidnapping? Why were there no "intruder" tracks in the snow? How could an intruder find his way around in the dark inside the house, with its bizarre, serpentine, four-level floor plan?"
I will be the first to admit that when this first happened, I was certain that the parents had something to do with it. But after educating myself and going off of actual facts vs. what the media has put out there, I draw an entirely different conclusion.
What if the criminal's original plan was to kidnap her? There is pretty strong evidence that this person did intend to kidnap her and that the plan failed (it's possible that the note had already been written before the failed attempt). I don't think that it is appropriate to elaborate about this on a public website, but there are several actual pieces of evidence to support this theory.
The media only showed photos of the front of the home, where there indeed was snow. One might assume that if there is snow in front of the house, then there is snow everywhere else, but all other photos show no snow in any of the surrounding areas. So if an intruder entered through the front of the home, then yes, there would be footprints in the snow, if they entered through any other area, no snowy footprints.
How would any criminal know the details and layout of a home before they commit a crime? Possibly enter when the homeowner is away, case the home, then leave. Seems simple enough.
I don't want to upset anyone and I realize this is a touchy subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I just ask that your opinions (in this matter and most others) aren't based solely on what the media has told you. Research a little, educate yourself, maybe consider other possibilities, then draw a conclusion and it might be the same one, who knows? The bottom line is that this little girl died a horrible and tragic death and if the person who did it is out there and still alive, they need to be caught and punished appropriately.