Man Held in Slaying of JonBenet Ramsay

[Army Wife'79]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

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.

[honeychile]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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?

[honeychile]

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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

Scarring according to whom? I'm not saying my googling was exhaustive, but I didn't find any reference to it anyplace I looked. I can remember reading/hearing gossip to that effect but not reputable source mentions it that I can see.

Can you provide a link?

If you look at the text of the letter that the prosecutor released to cover this info. the letter states that it does. I suppose you are welcome to discount the prosecutor's conclusion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/jonbenet_ramsey_letter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/...onbenet_ramsey


ETA: You know that you can read her whole autopsy report online? How sick is that? And you can read commentary explaining the report which points away from the idea that she was sexually abused, based on her previous medical history. I still didn't find anyone on record saying she was abused, but link it if you got it.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

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.

Originally Posted by Army Wife'79

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.

Those were not the only interviews. The family was interviewed multiple times. Either way your point that the family refused to answer ANY questions for years is hardly accurate.