POLL: 11/10/06 - Now Who Do You Think Killed JonBenet?

[sweetcharlotte]

We've had a lot of discussion since Myrdawn posted her poll. Let's see if anyone has changed their mind......

[LadyFisher]

I'm still convinced it was an "intruder"! I do not believe this was a staged crime scene by frantic parents....they wouldn't have garrotted the body of their daughter, they would have taken her to an ER or called 911 if it had been an accident. I don't believe for a second Patsy killed JB over a bedwetting accident either! imho The murderer had a mission, it was to molest and kill JB! He will be caught! It's just a matter of time! :seeya: Have a great weekend, folks! :) imho

[LindaA]

I was a FS on the first poll, but I think the IDI's have presented the better case here. I don't buy the bed-wetting story, nor do I think they would have garotted JB to cover up an accident much less rfammed a paint brush handle into her. There are far simpler ways to cover up than that.

Having aid that, I have to admit that the evidence in total is not completely explainable no matter which position you take. That plus the JMK fiasco, the GJ decision, plus Judge Carnes ruling makes me believe there is evidence we are not privy to that points to an intruder.

[sweetcharlotte]

Page 393 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town - September 10, 1997 Diane Sawyer interview with Mike Bynum -

"Sawyer asked if they were "real leads" or "serious lead."

"Very much so," Bynum told Sawyer. "We know absolutely that there is evidence of an intruder. But that information, interestingly enough, hasn't leaked out."

Wonder if there is still something about the "intruder" that we, the public, don't know?

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Page 393 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town - September 10, 1997 Diane Sawyer interview with Mike Bynum -

"Sawyer asked if they were "real leads" or "serious lead."

"Very much so," Bynum told Sawyer. "We know absolutely that there is evidence of an intruder. But that information, interestingly enough, hasn't leaked out."

Wonder if there is still something about the "intruder" that we, the public, don't know?

Somehow I missed this in the first go round -- I'm at work so don't have the page #s from PMPT -- but not everything was released in the written autopsy report and stuff was blacked out per John Meyer himself. I'll try to find the pages again when I get home. Also I did not know they could NOT exclude Barnhill or Bill McDonald from the DNA evidence. There is also a statement in there that says Merrick was the strongest candidate for having written the ransom note. have just been re-reading and cannot believe I missed that. There has to be stuff that it is still sealed. Even Schiller didn't get the final conclusions for these. I also just recently read an article that Schiller who was anti-Ramsey now believes an intruder killed JBR and even Henry Lee has changed his opinion about the DNA due to technological advances. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

I definitely want to hear what you find about Dr Henry Lee. Just a few months ago he was proving the DNA could have been there already by finding DNA in packages of unopened underwear identical to the underwear on JonBenet.

I would never have considered Schiller to be anti-Ramsey.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


... and even Henry Lee has changed his opinion about the DNA due to technological advances. JMO

Link?

[WallyCleaver]

I voted JR this time, instead of general RDI. I have to say docg's theory is the most compelling one. It does have a weakness in that he left it too much to chance that PR wouldn't call 911.

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous.

[shill]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous.

[shill]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
.

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous. You

[shill]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous. look

[shill]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous. ridiculous!

[MissOtisRegrets]

I'm afraid I haven't progressed very far in this case. It's not for lack of trying. I just can't get a handle on it at all.

I checked "intruder". The Ramseys are still on my list for several reasons, but they are at the bottom. Several things bother me in regard to the Ramseys. The pineapple. The fact that Burke wasn't immediately woken up and questioned. The fact that John wanted to fly the family to Atlanta the morning of the 26th. The fact that friends were invited over while waiting for the kidnapper to call.

But, everything about the crime, itself, says to me "intruder". No finding of previous abuse within the family, then, suddenly, on Christmas night, a six year old girl is murdered in a way that ensures she die a slow death. One that gives sick gratification to the perp. I just can't see it. The idea of a staging is, to me, absurd. The staging was worse than the crime. If one wouldn't come naturally to you, neither would the other imo. And, there's no evidence that any accident occured to set all of this into motion in the first place. I think both Ramseys are too intelligent to have taken the chance of writing that ransom note.

I have no idea who killed JonBenet beyond feeling very strongly that it was an intruder. I think it is very likely that, if a magic alien were to suddenly come down and give us the name, we, along with the Ramseys, would say, "Who's that?". I just can't forget the Elizabeth Smart case.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

[LindaA]

Exactly, MissOtis. I share the same concerned and unanswered questions about the pineapple, Burke, and the flight. And I couldn't agree more on your take about the crime itself. I cannot completely be an IDI, but it makes more sense to me than RDI until more evidence is made available.

IIRC, didn't Mary Lacy say at the end of the JMK fiasco othat there is not other evidence that is not in public domain? AM I dreaming? I just don't believe that.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by LindaA
Exactly, MissOtis. I share the same concerned and unanswered questions about the pineapple, Burke, and the flight. And I couldn't agree more on your take about the crime itself. I cannot completely be an IDI, but it makes more sense to me than RDI until more evidence is made available.

IIRC, didn't Mary Lacy say at the end of the JMK fiasco othat there is not other evidence that is not in public domain? AM I dreaming? I just don't believe that.

As I recall, she did, Linda. During the press conference there was a question about JMK having had info that had not been released to the public and Ms. Lacy said that she thought there wasn't anything at this point that wasn't in the public domain. (I don't believe it, either.)

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

<snip>

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous.

Sorry Wally but your statement is ridiculous. I don't think anyone who believes 100% in one or the other; RDI or IDI can possibly discuss this case seriously.

Predominantly leaning towards one or the other is understandable depending upon how the evidence is viewed but there should be room allowed for error. JMHO

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


As I recall, she did, Linda. During the press conference there was a question about JMK having had info that had not been released to the public and Ms. Lacy said that she thought there wasn't anything at this point that wasn't in the public domain. (I don't believe it, either.)

I agree. I don't believe there is a perfect murder no matter who did it and I still believe there are some things that have just not been released to the public. I think most of what was released was a result of Steve Thomas' leaks and anything after that has pretty much remained mum other than the isolated DNA. JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


I agree. I don't believe there is a perfect murder no matter who did it and I still believe there are some things that have just not been released to the public. I think most of what was released was a result of Steve Thomas' leaks and anything after that has pretty much remained mum other than the isolated DNA. JMO

Well this one is perfect so far. Every year that goes by makes it less likely it will ever be solved.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Well this one is perfect so far. Every year that goes by makes it less likely it will ever be solved.

Point accepted. :)

[Eagle1]

Several channels have Cold Case programs, and I think they said last night on one of them, A&E, that one case was 45 yrs old. I could be mistaken, and that may not be exact.

So let's don't get discouraged.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Eagle1
Several channels have Cold Case programs, and I think they said last night on one of them, A&E, that one case was 45 yrs old. I could be mistaken, and that may not be exact.

So let's don't get discouraged.

I believe the Black Dahlia is about 60 years old. Jack the Ripper is over 115 years old. (I believe Patsy Cornwell solved that one, but to the general public it is still unsolved.) Don't know if tht's encouragement or not.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LindaA


I believe the Black Dahlia is about 60 years old. Jack the Ripper is over 115 years old. (I believe Patsy Cornwell solved that one, but to the general public it is still unsolved.) Don't know if tht's encouragement or not.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html

It's not even solved to followers of the case. Cornwell's theory could well be true, but it's difficult to be conclusive after all this time. The DNA evidence isn't as solid as one might suppose.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html

It's not even solved to followers of the case. Cornwell's theory could well be true, but it's difficult to be conclusive after all this time. The DNA evidence isn't as solid as one might suppose.

Wally, IIRC, Cornwell didn't base her conclusion on DNA, but on the paper used to write the so-called Ripper letters to the police. It was absolutely matched to paper known to have been owned by Walter Sickert, the artist.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LindaA


Wally, IIRC, Cornwell didn't base her conclusion on DNA, but on the paper used to write the so-called Ripper letters to the police. It was absolutely matched to paper known to have been owned by Walter Sickert, the artist.

Read up on it and you'll find that that portion of her analysis falls short as well. About the most that can be proven is Sickert may have written one of the 600 or so haox letters Scotland Yard recieved.

[WallyCleaver]

Another problem is that Sickert's mother wrote home from France that she and Walter were having a lovely time- this a couple weeks prior to the first murder.

But we don't want to get into the Ripper murders on this thread. If you like Cornwell's analysis, that's fine.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I voted JR this time, instead of general RDI. I have to say docg's theory is the most compelling one. It does have a weakness in that he left it too much to chance that PR wouldn't call 911.

The only really interesting discussion any more is which RDI theory is correct. IDI theory is ridiculous. Wally, for the life of me, I cannot understand WHY you consider an IDI theory! Whether you like it or not, Althena has given you excellent links concerning DNA evidence that doesn't match the Ramseys...and then there's the evidence, or shall I say, a very good possibility a stun gun was used on this child! I think the RDIs theories are ridiculous...the constant complaints that there were inconsistent statements made by the Ramseys, and none of them that have been presented by the RDIs prove damning or guilt in any way! jmho Have a great day, folks! :)

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, for the life of me, I cannot understand WHY you consider an IDI theory! Whether you like it or not, Althena has given you excellent links concerning DNA evidence that doesn't match the Ramseys...and then there's the evidence, or shall I say, a very good possibility a stun gun was used on this child! I think the RDIs theories are ridiculous...the constant complaints that there were inconsistent statements made by the Ramseys, and none of them that have been presented by the RDIs prove damning or guilt in any way! jmho Have a great day, folks! :)

The DNA in the panties is artifact. It's hardly suprising that it doesn't match the Rs. It may not match anyone who's ever set foot in North America.

The stun gun theory seems to me - like nearly everything in the case- to go either way, depending on which experts one listens to. (And to be clear, I do not consider Lou Smidt to be an expert on stun guns) It's very convienient that the stun gun theory only came up after she was burried. It didn't, apparently, impress coroner Meyers as stun gun marks at the time he performed the autopsy.

Then there is the absolute silliness of believing any intruder would write that note.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


<snip>


Then there is the absolute silliness of believing any intruder would write that note.

First "ridiculous", now silliness.........

OK

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, for the life of me, I cannot understand WHY you consider an IDI theory! Whether you like it or not, Althena has given you excellent links concerning DNA evidence that doesn't match the Ramseys...and then there's the evidence, or shall I say, a very good possibility a stun gun was used on this child! I think the RDIs theories are ridiculous...the constant complaints that there were inconsistent statements made by the Ramseys, and none of them that have been presented by theRDIs prove damning or guilt in any way! jmho Have a great day, folks! :)

Here's some interesting info re: stun gun that I totally missed reading Stratbucker's depo before. Apparently he was concerned with the chain of evidence re: the autopsy photos and had he had certification of authenticity he may well have said the marks could have been consistent with a stun gun. Now I understand more why he was discredited as an expert in this case:

19 Q. All right. Were you aware that in
20 the Boggs autopsy report, Dr. Doberson had
21 initially described those two marks that you
22 have just circled as abrasions?
23 A. Yes.

12 Q. What you were shown was not, as you
13 described it, you had difficulty making any
14 sense out of what they showed you on NBC?
15 A. Yes. They showed me some cropped
16 video presentations of what were alleged to be
17 some new evidence or new photographs that had
18 not yet been seen, I think maybe from Mr.
19 Smit's collection. And they wanted to know if
20 I thought they looked like stun gun marks on
21 these photographs that they presented on a
22 monitor. Now, they had other photographs
23 around, but the ones that they wanted me to
24 comment on and which they took my video
25 deposition, essentially, was based on some
00057
1 electronically presented photographic material
2 that were some spots that they wished to know
3 if I thought they looked like stun gun marks.
4 And I, in the brief time that I was
5 on there, I said that I really --
6 Q. Couldn't say?
7 A. -- couldn't say.
8 Q. Could have been stun gun marks?
9 A. Yeah, might have been.
10 Q. You were not in a position to --
11 A. Might have been.
12 Q. Might have been?
13 A. Might have been. Couldn't say.
14 Q. In fact, the marks on JonBenet's
15 back, as you state in your written notes here
16 that are part of Defendants' Exhibit 6, could
17 have been made by, your words, a conventional
18 sharp pointed stun gun, true?
19 A. Possible, yeah.
20 Q. You don't rule out the use --
21 A. Well, the dimensionality of stun gun
22 marks is extremely important. If you are going
23 to make any causative relationship, you have got
24 to know --
25 Q. The distance?
00058
1 A. -- the authenticity -- well, you
2 have to know the photographic authenticity.
3 Because in this day and age with photographic
4 manipulations by computer, you can do anything
5 you want to. You can make --
6 Q. You bet.
7 A. -- anything look like anything.
8 Q. You bet. And the fact of the
9 matter is you never have been provided with
10 photographic evidence from the autopsy
11 photographs or the crime scene evidence
12 photographs that you were able to reach a
13 conclusion on in terms of the distance between
14 the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that true,
15 sir?
16 A. Well, in cases that I have
17 testified --
18 Q. Please answer my question. My
19 question is not cases you testified in before.
20 The fact of the matter is you have
21 never been provided with photographic evidence
22 from autopsy photographs or the crime scene
23 evidence photographs from which you were able to
24 reach a conclusion in terms of the distance
25 between the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that
00059
1 the truth?
2 A. That is the truth, yes.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm

[LindaA]

Actually, Wally, not to get off on the Ripper -- but I have read up on it, thank you. I've read Rumbelow, and several others. Cornwell nailed it IMO with the analysis of that paper. Nothing you said proves Sickert couldn't have done it.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by LindaA
Actually, Wally, not to get off on the Ripper -- but I have read up on it, thank you. I've read Rumbelow, and several others. Cornwell nailed it IMO with the analysis of that paper. Nothing you said proves Sickert couldn't have done it.

The fact he was in France during some of the murders proves he couldn't have done all of them. If you'd like to attribute the last couple to him you can, but Cornwell didn't come anywhere near nailing it. Not JMO, but also the opinion of many Ripperologists.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


Here's some interesting info re: stun gun that I totally missed reading Stratbucker's depo before. Apparently he was concerned with the chain of evidence re: the autopsy photos and had he had certification of authenticity he may well have said the marks could have been consistent with a stun gun. Now I understand more why he was discredited as an expert in this case:

19 Q. All right. Were you aware that in
20 the Boggs autopsy report, Dr. Doberson had
21 initially described those two marks that you
22 have just circled as abrasions?
23 A. Yes.

12 Q. What you were shown was not, as you
13 described it, you had difficulty making any
14 sense out of what they showed you on NBC?
15 A. Yes. They showed me some cropped
16 video presentations of what were alleged to be
17 some new evidence or new photographs that had
18 not yet been seen, I think maybe from Mr.
19 Smit's collection. And they wanted to know if
20 I thought they looked like stun gun marks on
21 these photographs that they presented on a
22 monitor. Now, they had other photographs
23 around, but the ones that they wanted me to
24 comment on and which they took my video
25 deposition, essentially, was based on some
00057
1 electronically presented photographic material
2 that were some spots that they wished to know
3 if I thought they looked like stun gun marks.
4 And I, in the brief time that I was
5 on there, I said that I really --
6 Q. Couldn't say?
7 A. -- couldn't say.
8 Q. Could have been stun gun marks?
9 A. Yeah, might have been.
10 Q. You were not in a position to --
11 A. Might have been.
12 Q. Might have been?
13 A. Might have been. Couldn't say.
14 Q. In fact, the marks on JonBenet's
15 back, as you state in your written notes here
16 that are part of Defendants' Exhibit 6, could
17 have been made by, your words, a conventional
18 sharp pointed stun gun, true?
19 A. Possible, yeah.
20 Q. You don't rule out the use --
21 A. Well, the dimensionality of stun gun
22 marks is extremely important. If you are going
23 to make any causative relationship, you have got
24 to know --
25 Q. The distance?
00058
1 A. -- the authenticity -- well, you
2 have to know the photographic authenticity.
3 Because in this day and age with photographic
4 manipulations by computer, you can do anything
5 you want to. You can make --
6 Q. You bet.
7 A. -- anything look like anything.
8 Q. You bet. And the fact of the
9 matter is you never have been provided with
10 photographic evidence from the autopsy
11 photographs or the crime scene evidence
12 photographs that you were able to reach a
13 conclusion on in terms of the distance between
14 the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that true,
15 sir?
16 A. Well, in cases that I have
17 testified --
18 Q. Please answer my question. My
19 question is not cases you testified in before.
20 The fact of the matter is you have
21 never been provided with photographic evidence
22 from autopsy photographs or the crime scene
23 evidence photographs from which you were able to
24 reach a conclusion in terms of the distance
25 between the marks on JonBenet's back; isn't that
00059
1 the truth?
2 A. That is the truth, yes.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/05302002Depo-RobertStratbuckerMd.htm

It's too bad it wasn't looked into prior to burial, or that she was never dug up again to check. Just one more thing we can never know with certainty.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


It's too bad it wasn't looked into prior to burial, or that she was never dug up again to check. Just one more thing we can never know with certainty.

That's true Wally but I found it interesting that Stratbucker who was the only anti-stun gun theorist conceded that if those pictures had been shown to him to be authenticated it was possible the marks were consistent with a stun gun.

Again there is no credible alternative explanation out there. Too bad the BPD did not exhume her body. JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


That's true Wally but I found it interesting that Stratbucker who was the only anti-stun gun theorist conceded that if those pictures had been shown to him to be authenticated it was possible the marks were consistent with a stun gun.

Again there is no credible alternative explanation out there. Too bad the BPD did not exhume her body. JMO

I agree, it is interesting. I also agree that the BPD should have exhumed her.

As for no credible alt. explanation - I'm not sure there needs to be an alt. explanation to a theory that hasn't been proven. It could well be that if she'd been exhumed, the marks would have had incorrect spacing. If that had happened, we still wouldn't know what caused them.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I agree, it is interesting. I also agree that the BPD should have exhumed her.

As for no credible alt. explanation - I'm not sure there needs to be an alt. explanation to a theory that hasn't been proven. It could well be that if she'd been exhumed, the marks would have had incorrect spacing. If that had happened, we still wouldn't know what caused them.

Alas, nothing in this case has been proven which is why I don't understand anyone who could be 100% RDI or IDI. :shrug:

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


Alas, nothing in this case has been proven which is why I don't understand anyone who could be 100% RDI or IDI. :shrug:

Me either, that's why I'm only 99% RDI. ;)

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Me either, that's why I'm only 99% RDI. ;)

You are on a roll with these little cracks this morning. LOL

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I'm afraid I haven't progressed very far in this case. It's not for lack of trying. I just can't get a handle on it at all.

I checked "intruder". The Ramseys are still on my list for several reasons, but they are at the bottom. Several things bother me in regard to the Ramseys. The pineapple. The fact that Burke wasn't immediately woken up and questioned. The fact that John wanted to fly the family to Atlanta the morning of the 26th. The fact that friends were invited over while waiting for the kidnapper to call.

But, everything about the crime, itself, says to me "intruder". No finding of previous abuse within the family, then, suddenly, on Christmas night, a six year old girl is murdered in a way that ensures she die a slow death. One that gives sick gratification to the perp. I just can't see it. The idea of a staging is, to me, absurd. The staging was worse than the crime. If one wouldn't come naturally to you, neither would the other imo. And, there's no evidence that any accident occured to set all of this into motion in the first place. I think both Ramseys are too intelligent to have taken the chance of writing that ransom note.

I have no idea who killed JonBenet beyond feeling very strongly that it was an intruder. I think it is very likely that, if a magic alien were to suddenly come down and give us the name, we, along with the Ramseys, would say, "Who's that?". I just can't forget the Elizabeth Smart case.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO You do realize that Elizabeth's kidnapper was employed by her father for a brief period! This could have also been the case with JonBenet...it could very well have been someone employed in that home even for a short period of time....whoever it was imho he strongly disliked John and his wealth! imho ETA I've worked long hours today, so if this post doesn't make sense, forgive me! :)

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
You do realize that Elizabeth's kidnapper was employed by her father for a brief period! This could have also been the case with JonBenet...it could very well have been someone employed in that home even for a short period of time....whoever it was imho he strongly disliked John and his wealth! imho ETA I've worked long hours today, so if this post doesn't make sense, forgive me! :)

It makes perfect sense, LadyFisher, and someone like that would be my first choice owing to the familiarity with the house. There is a personal thread that runs through the ransom note IMO that can't entirely be ignored.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


It makes perfect sense, LadyFisher, and someone like that would be my first choice owing to the familiarity with the house. There is a personal thread that runs through the ransom note IMO that can't entirely be ignored. I agree! The writer was enjoying his control and his superiority (sp?) to John while he was writing it in my opinion!

[sweetcharlotte]

Just curious. Anyone heard anything about Randy Simons lately?
He was the photographer who took the summer 1996 "glamour" photos of JonBenet.

Wonder how the police ruled him out?


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer9_sideshow.html

[rashomon]

Why did you reply so testily to WallyCleaver's post, Shill?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets

But, everything about the crime, itself, says to me "intruder". No finding of previous abuse within the family, then, suddenly, on Christmas night, a six year old girl is murdered in a way that ensures she die a slow death. One that gives sick gratification to the perp.

Everything points to the garrote scene being a staged scene, intended to make it look as if a sexual predator did this.
I suppose the Ramseys believed JB was already dead from the head bash when they put the cord around her neck.

I have always believed that Patsy was the perp who struck the head blow at JB in a rage, and that then John helped her in the cover-up because he too had something to hide, and have never changed my opinion on that. On the contrary, the more I read about the case, the more my opinion has been confirmed.

[lucky13]

Originally posted by rashomon

Everything points to the garrote scene being a staged scene, intended to make it look as if a sexual predator did this.
I suppose the Ramseys believed JB was already dead from the head bash when they put the cord around her neck.

I have always believed that Patsy was the perp who struck the head blow at JB in a rage, and that then John helped her in the cover-up because he too had something to hide, and have never changed my opinion on that. On the contrary, the more I read about the case, the more my opinion has been confirmed.
I totally agree with your first paragraph.
I voted for John though. I think he did it to cover his molestation of JB. I'm not sure if Patsy helped in the cover-up knowingly or if she did it unknowingly, & only from Johns encouragement.
MOO

[lucky13]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Page 393 - Perfect Murder/Perfect Town - September 10, 1997 Diane Sawyer interview with Mike Bynum -

"Sawyer asked if they were "real leads" or "serious lead."

"Very much so," Bynum told Sawyer. "We know absolutely that there is evidence of an intruder. But that information, interestingly enough, hasn't leaked out."

Wonder if there is still something about the "intruder" that we, the public, don't know?
When I flipped to page 393, PM/PT, I saw nothing of the sort. There must be different versions of this book...

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by lucky13

When I flipped to page 393, PM/PT, I saw nothing of the sort. There must be different versions of this book...

There are.......

[bullmoose]

To Rashoman: Its funny, but the more I study this case, the more convinced I am that someone set out to completely destroy the Ramseys; to me the whole case fairly screams " Setup". But by whom? I think that if the case ever is solved, it will be the DNA that matches the killer.

[nuisanceposter]

Bullmoose, I really think if that DNA had been left by the killer then it would be as fresh and complete as JonBenet's DNA.

How do you account for the foreign DNA being degraded and fragmented while JB's isn't, if they were deposited in the undies at the same time?