Man Held in Slaying of JonBenet Ramsay

[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 UGAalum94

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.

I still don't buy it. The new DNA matches the drop of blood from the previous DNA. If that is the case then would not the previous DNA have excluded the family? Wasn't there also a hair found on the body that didn't match the family?

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by madmax

I still don't get it. The new DNA matches the drop of blood from the previous DNA. If that is the case then would not the previous DNA have excluded the family? Wasn't there also a hair found on the body that didn't match the family?

I really don't know the answer to what you are asking, of course.

My guess is that a hair not matching the family isn't that unusual, particularly because I don't think their was any DNA evidence to match it to anyone else in particular. It's gross to think about, but I think other people's hair being on your clothing isn't nearly as uncommon as we'd like to think.

I suspect that the blood was highly suspicious but that coupled with the evidence that the same person apparently also pulled down her long underwear (not PJs strictly speaking I guess), made the possibility that the family was responsible completely unbelievable.

And there's also the possibility that the letter isn't really based on a significant change in evidence, just the confirmation of existing evidence, and the prosecutor simply felt that the Ramseys had lived under a cloud in the public mind too long considering the evidence that existed. And it's a different DA too from the initial investigation.