Everyone was suspicious of the family b/c they refused to be interviewed when at any other crime scene, the parents would be separated and interviewed to see if their stories match etc. They were treated with "kid gloves" b/c they were rich and if they had cooperated they maybe could have been ruled out ages ago. I never understood why they refused to be questioned by the Denver police. So many things didn't "jive" like the ransom note being written from paper in Patsy's drawer, like a burglar is going to wait till he gets to the house to write the note?

I think it was Dateline that did a story on a guy that was a suspect in similar break-ins in the area. He would enter through basement windows. Sound familiar? The guy also had the same size footprint and same type boots that left the footprints outside of the Ramsey house. Unfortunatley the guy committed suicide.

I don't know. At the point I concluded that the police regarded me as a suspect, I think I might refuse to cooperate as well.

Many of us have such a positive view of the police that we assume that they are interested in investigating until they get to the "truth," but if you've read a few cases about the wrongfully convicted, this view may be faulty.

I agree that I was suspicious of the Ramsey's behavior, but looking back, it's hard to really see them as having benefited at the hands of the police.

And I think you're underestimating the level of their cooperation. They supplied DNA samples, were interviewed. etc. It was an entirely new method of DNA analysis that was able to definitively clear them, so it's hard to say that they could have been cleared earlier.

I read a book written by the lead detective in Denver and he said once the body was found (and she was no longer missing), they refused to answer any questions at all. And it went on like that for years. Police always rule out the family and close friends first.

Yeah, they do, but sometimes in focusing on people's families they miss other stuff. As they apparently did here. Sure the new DNA evidence wasn't available, but every effort that went into looking at the Ramseys as suspects turns out to have been misdirected.

I'm also not sure that the lead detective can be regarded as an unbiased source when it comes to assigning blame as to way the investigation failed.

The book you read was fiction.

You are wrong on just about every count The Ramseys were interviewed multiple times. They were interviewed separately. The family provided DNA and hand writing samples. The family provided everything with the exception of a signed confession to a crime they didn't commit.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/19...w-Complete.htm
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/19...w-Complete.htm

What exactly is the new DNA evidence? There was dna that didn't match the Ramseys years ago.

This was your first posting:
"madmax has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Man Held in Slaying of JonBenet Ramsay - in the News & Politics forum of GreekChat.com Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...0&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by honeychile)---

Bottom line is, the first and best suspects are always in the family. It's usually a matter of proving that it's not someone from the family than it is. Do I want the Ramseys to have defiled their little girl? No. Do I suspect that they had *something* to do with it? Absolutely.
---End Quote---
Not true. According to FBI crime stats less than 30% of the known homicides were committed by family members."

Just where did you locate your information on this?
I know that 5 years and under:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
A parent is the perpetrator in most homicides of children under age 5
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --

• 31% were killed by fathers
• 29% were killed by mothers
• 23% were killed by male acquaintances
• 7% were killed by other relatives
• 3% were killed by strangers

As for your "new posting", read the story linked or any other news story about it.

The new evidence is a method of testing that can tell that a non-Ramsey DNA source pulled down her pajamas. And if I'm remembering correctly, it matches the DNA of the drop of blood they had previously found.

So I guess what's different about how the Ramsey's were excluded before is that the "new" DNA not only exonerates them, but it points to a completely different, but unmatched murderer.

Really Jon, all you had do was point to this quote, instead of making another "refer back to my post" post.

Madmax, those interviews were on April 30, 4 months after the death. I just think that if it was a poor person's dead child, they would have been split up and interviewed immediately.

I understand what you are saying and was bewildered by it myself in the past, but knowing what we know now, the police were apparently eager to blame the Ramseys even though they were not guilty. And it seems to be the police who blew the initial investigation rather than the Ramseys.

And I suspect the Ramsey's being a whole lot closer to the situation than we are could see how the wind was blowing a lot earlier than the rest of us in terms of what investigators seemed to be looking for.

I'm not trying to assert that the police weren't behaving in a customary and statistically valid method of looking at the case. But if you knew you and your family weren't involved in the crime, how long would you indulge the police? Sure, we can say it was an investigation to "clear them" but it must not have felt that way to the family.

I still come back to how compromised the scenes were right from the very beginning. Her father found her, picked her up, and brought her upstairs. They all hugged her - the police officer on duty did NOTHING to stop people from coming in or touching the body.

I'm not familiar with this new type of DNA, but why aren't the father's, the mother's, the brother's DNA on the outside of her clothing? If it's as simple as a touch, wouldn't she have picked up the skin cells from sitting on a place where someone else left their own DNA?

The DNA evidence has nothing to do with the signs of previous abuse, either. That's a little scary.

This investigation was so messed up from the very beginning, I still have a hard time buying anything that the Boulder Police are selling. With one exception: if the Ramseys truly had nothing to do with the abuse and murder of their daughter (who would now be what, 17?), then I feel a deep sympathy for them.

What's the proof of the previous abuse again? No offense intended to you, Honeychile, but that doesn't sound legit to me.

I think the new evidence does in fact establish the exception that you list.

Even if family member DNA is on the pajamas too, don't you find the unidentified male DNA on the pajamas in the form of "touch" DNA and blood DNA to be compelling?

I find it terribly compelling. I just want to understand how it completely eliminates others. The other evidence was previous genital scarring.