Anonymous wrote:

I can easily see an accidental cause of death. For example, people are idiots and leave babies unattended in hot cars. I don't consider this to be 1st degree murder. If the Ramsey family had something like this happen, why not say "We had a terrible accident and our daughter has died." Why go through the public scrutiny of national news coverage?

During the Casey Anthony saga, a lot of crime experts said people want to believe this but there really aren't examples of it (it doesn't happen in real life). In real life, when people don't mean to kill their kids, they frantically call 911 and still try to get help. Even when the child is dead, they don't know so they try to get help hoping their child can be revived. In an emotional state if you discovered your child unresponsive, would you feel confident making the call that they couldn't be revived and injuring them further or disposing of the body? Even if it was your oversight that killed them? Exactly. People who do things to cover up their child's death killed them on purpose and made sure they were dead. I think that if we can say anything with a fair degree of certainty here, her death was no accident. Someone meant to commit a crime, possibly they botched it, but it wasn't a hot car or drowning, etc.

The reason we want to believe this in many cases is because it's better than the truth. But it doesn't really happen in real life.

Anonymous wrote:There's no question it was someone in the house - either the parents or Burke. The ransom note, the pineapple, the pull-up in the hallway, the complicated rooms in the house, the lack of obvious entry/exit all point to the people inside.

Websleuths has some great entries on this case.

If it was Patsy, she did it accidentally when reprimanding JB for wetting her bed again. If it was Burke, the motive was jealousy, possibly because of some Christmas present. Parents would definitely cover for Burke.

How do you explain unidentified male DNA on her underwear? Among other things that I don't really even wish to list out.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think it's too late for better DNA evidence? I'm sure the police have plenty of DNA stored from this case.

Did the parents have to provide DNA samples? It was so long ago that I don't remember. (If parents did, then they still have the mom's DNA.)

Well, actually they do have a DNA sample, but have been unable to match it. That is why the Ramseys were formally cleared. If it isn't the person involved in her murder, it's an incredible coincidence. The sample was on her underwear so it didn't just happen. It is an unknown male.

However, I believe that had the crime scene been secured and investigated better, they possibly could have uncovered more evidence. Furthermore had they more seriously considered the intruder, or even that it was a person outside the family, and done more investigation on that in the days right after the murder, they would have had a better chance of catching someone. It is amazing that this person hasn't re-offended in a way to get their DNA in a database somewhere, but it's also possible they skipped the country or something. It's been 20 years.

The DNA sample was run in 2003 I think but definitely quite a bit later. Of course advances in technology and all that, but in the early days of the investigation sources close to the case say that the intruder theory was not strongly considered and the crime scene wasn't handled properly. Evidence could have been missed. I get that most cases like this do involve someone known to the child but it never added up the way they wanted.

So I guess I should have been more specific - it's not too late if this person reoffends and ends up in a database. It is too late to go back and handle the original crime scene and early investigation differently and possibly identify a suspect in another way.

Evidence like her brothers fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple is not strong evidence. So his fingerprints were on a bowl in his own house? That is not surprising or incriminating. Either the parents just forgot about the pineapple during the chaos (they had just been at a party, maybe someone handed the kids leftover pineapple), or the intruder brought in pineapple they gave JonBenet and dumped it in a bowl Burke had previously touched. All of this is a lot more explainable than the theory that Patsy murdered her brutally and graphically in a fit of rage over bed wetting, when no other behavior during the rest of her life before or after ever suggested she was capable of such a thing. Oh and also somehow before or during this a strange male's DNA got on the underwear. Granted in 1996 they didn't know about that part but I think the cause of death and manner the body was found should have tipped them off that they should at least investigate the predator theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They cleared the parents. It's sad people still think they did it.

Sort of. I would suggest you read up on websleuths on the case.

I don't know where to start with this sentence.

I always thought someone was already in the house when the family got home. Mom and Dad were tipsy, put the kids to bed, knocked out. Intruder, knew the family, was leaving when Jon Benet woke up, recognized him so he killed her. Probably left through the front door.

Never got bad vibes from Patsy, John or Burke. No other family members thought they did it either.

I also think Darlie Routier killed her kids.

Anonymous wrote:They cleared the parents. It's sad people still think they did it.

Sort of. I would suggest you read up on websleuths on the case.

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a stranger. The mom battled ovarian cancer in 93 ( which she later died from ) the dad lost a child previously in 92. Once you have lost a child and battled cancer you don't just kill your child on Christmas. It makes no sense.

What? Having tragedy in your life doesn't preclude you from being crazy.

There's no question it was someone in the house - either the parents or Burke. The ransom note, the pineapple, the pull-up in the hallway, the complicated rooms in the house, the lack of obvious entry/exit all point to the people inside.

Websleuths has some great entries on this case.

If it was Patsy, she did it accidentally when reprimanding JB for wetting her bed again. If it was Burke, the motive was jealousy, possibly because of some Christmas present. Parents would definitely cover for Burke.

They cleared the parents. It's sad people still think they did it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents know much more than they have admitted to. If the parents didn't do it, they know who did.

I don't see how a parent could murder their child. But cover up for another sibling? Yes...

How lovely to have such a rosey view of humanity. Unfortunately, people DO murder their children. They also accidentally cause their death sometimes.

I'm the person you quoted. my point was that, as a parent, I cannot see the circumstance in which I would be involved in 1st degree murder of any of my children. Do people do it? Yes. But I can't fathom any sort of an emotional state.

I can easily see an accidental cause of death. For example, people are idiots and leave babies unattended in hot cars. I don't consider this to be 1st degree murder. If the Ramsey family had something like this happen, why not say "We had a terrible accident and our daughter has died." Why go through the public scrutiny of national news coverage?

I always thought it was a family member, but that it was accidental.

Why do you think it's too late for better DNA evidence? I'm sure the police have plenty of DNA stored from this case.

Did the parents have to provide DNA samples? It was so long ago that I don't remember. (If parents did, then they still have the mom's DNA.)

Anonymous wrote:The parents know much more than they have admitted to. If the parents didn't do it, they know who did.

I don't see how a parent could murder their child. But cover up for another sibling? Yes...

How lovely to have such a rosey view of humanity. Unfortunately, people DO murder their children. They also accidentally cause their death sometimes.

At this point I suspect it's someone outside the family just for the fact that they had so much time to gather info on them as suspects but could never tie it together. I agree with a PP that some pieces seem to indicate someone within the family (although I don't know how much of that is just the spin the investigation took) but there are too many loose ends.

I think it may have been someone known to the family, possibly or probably with knowledge of their home.

The cause of death, timing, and other things aren't really consistent with the story investigators tried so hard to fit the evidence into. I think this is a case, and there are other examples, where someone had a strong sense that was a good guess (there are definitely some weird things like the way the body was found that morning) and tried really hard to find evidence to fit that because it seemed like the more logical conclusion. It would have been better for them to have collected all the evidence and then analyzes it more impartially.

Whoever did it is a total psychopath and I don't think time really bore that hypothesis out for any of her three family members. So this many years later that sways me. This was a brutal and cold hearted murder of a small child. Nothing as time went on suggested the parents or brother were capable of that.

There is a possibility but I really wonder about the early investigation. It is easy to say all the evidence leads to Patsy if that's the evidence they decided to focus on and find. I'm not sure how reliable handwriting analysis is. Better DNA evidence could have shed more light but of course now it's too late.

The parents know much more than they have admitted to. If the parents didn't do it, they know who did.

I don't see how a parent could murder their child. But cover up for another sibling? Yes...