Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

I watched it. I think they are placing a lot of emphasis on this new touch DNA to prove that an intruder killed JonBenet.

I don't know. It still doesn't explain the ransom note.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reminder!

[Anonymous]

The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

[Anonymous]

There will be a lot more coming out about this case in the next few weeks. The Ramseys will be exposed their cover-up has too many holes. It was either the parents covering for the son/maybe the son with a friend or the dad. I predict this case will be solved within the next 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

I'm still not convinced by the touch DNA mainly because the crime scene was so badly handled in the first place and also because touch DNA is a new technology and can be from nothing more than a drop of sweat off a person. Back when this case was being investigated I'm sure that the evidence technicians, attendants at the autopsy, workers in the morgue, crime photographers at the scene and at the autopsy all knew to wear gloves while handling the body or simply not to touch the body at all. But would someone have realized that they dripped sweat while they were working? I don't know that they would have thought to guard against that at the time.

Also, I would like to know how often this sort of touch DNA is found on newish clothes. Maybe a sales clerk dripped sweat while bagging the clothes at the store.

Had JonBenet worn those particular items out of the house before? Is there any other explanation for how this DNA got on those clothes?

And it still does not explain why the handwriting on that ransom note looked just like Patsy's left handed writing sample.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be a lot more coming out about this case in the next few weeks. The Ramseys will be exposed their cover-up has too many holes. It was either the parents covering for the son/maybe the son with a friend or the dad. I predict this case will be solved within the next 5 years.

Burke was a 60 pound 9 year old at the time. He didn't weigh that much more than his sister did. He did not do this. No way did a 9 year old do this.

[Anonymous]

Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

[Anonymous]

Also the marks that are speculated to have been caused by a stun gun. Are those abrasions or burns? I would think that a stun gun would have left burns but I think the autopsy refers to them as abrasions.

If they are burn marks could they have been cause by Christmas tree lights. Maybe she brushed up against a tree at her house or at the party and are unrelated to the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

I was around 30, I didn't have kids. What I saw about the case I saw because I watched a lot of cable news shows at the time and it was a subject that came up a lot. I did not go out of my to read up on the facts of the case until DCUM. I always thought that Patsy Ramsey seemed like she knew more than she was saying and that something was wrong there.

[Anonymous]

I was 15 or 16 at the time. I didn't watch much tv coverage at all then. I have done research now and i think some of the family's lies are only obvious once you see over time how the story changed, how they have worked the media, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Not clear at all. The intruder stayed in the house long enough to write a three-page ransom note but yet didn't leave a single hair or other evidence of his intrusion anywhere? Not buying it. Also, how do proponents of the intruder theory explain the pineapple, the Swiss Army knife, or so many other details?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dna found on the waist band of the tights she was wearing and on the underwear she was wearing when she died all came from the same unknown Hispanic male. DNA doesn't lie. Her fingernail marks on her neck prove she was strangled with the garrote before the fatal blow to the head.

From what I understand though, touch DNA can be from manufacturing. It doesn't tell the whole story, as in when transfer occurred.

The same DNA was found under her fingernails. Clearly the guy wore gloves. His saliva is the DNA they found mixed in with her blood in her underwear.

Where did you hear that this touch DNA was found under her fingernails? As I understand it this scant DNA was found on her panties and her pajamas. First I've heard about them finding any DNA under her fingernails. If she was conscious and clawing at the rope around her neck you would expect there to be some of her own skin under her nails. As far as I am aware that was not found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions for the folks who are convinced the parents did it:
- how old were you when she died?
- how much TV coverage did you watch about the case back then?

I was 23 and didn't own a tv so saw very little tv coverage and mainly just saw what the headlines in the media wrote (in other words what they wanted the public to know in order to sell magazines and newspapers.) it was within the last few years I got curious about it and started to google it occasionally. I'm not at all convinced the parents did it. Not at all. There's a reason this never went to trial. If the parents had done it there would be too much evidence left behind that would guarantee a conviction and this would have gone to trial. This was done by a sociopath who planned it out meticulously and knew enough about forensics to know how not to get caught. Her parents don't fall under that category.