Reply to 2024 JonBenet Documentary

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "2024 JonBenet Documentary"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.[/quote]

Yes. And we'll never know how or why. [/quote]

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?[/quote]

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.[/quote]

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”. [/quote]

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.[/quote]

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.[/quote]

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you. [/quote]

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.[/quote]

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder. [/quote]

False. It was on both long john and underwear. Not likely both were made by the same manufacturer and touched by the same person.[/quote]

Henry Lee explained this. She touched the underwear then the waistband of her long johns, thereby transferring it.
Now, zero evidence for an intruder. Go.[/quote]

There was an unlocked door and no alarm set. Anyone could have walked in and out. And, no “she” didn’t touch it. An unknown man pulled both of them down and then back up. How odd.[/quote]

Right, an intruder hung out for a long period of time, torturing a kid, finding a secret room in the basement, then drafting a lengthy ransom note. Even though Patsy never went to sleep that night. Makes perfect sense, sure.

The same DNA was under her fingernails, so yes she did touch them. But keep making up facts.[/quote]

We don't know for sure she didn't go to sleep that night, just that it was odd she was wearing the same outfit when the police came. Maybe that's what she had at hand and threw on? It's like so much of the evidence in this case--odd but inconclusive. I do think if there was any intruder there'd be some evidence though. And that doesn't seem to be the case.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics