I was not aware of that. I don't know that I believe she participated in the killing of her child but I do believe she knew more then she said and she was sheilding someone. I always liked the other child they had as a suspect, I wondered if he had killed his sister and the parents helped cover it up so they wouldn't loose both children. Just a guess on my part though. From everything I have seen, it seems unlikely this was commited by a stranger.Recently Jon Benet's mother died of cancer; I am curious as to whether or not people here feel she was guilty of her daughter's death.
Right now, it may be a good time to stand back and state what is rather apparent: either the Ramsey's were the killers or assistants in the murder, or they have been the victims of some rather hi-tech silent midgets with no footprints.
Dr. Cyril Wecht, the forensic pathologist better known for his criticism of the JFK autopsy, has no doubt about molestation or who the guilty party is. "This to me is evidence of sexual abuse," he said in a newspaper interview. "I think any forensic gynecologist and forensic pathologist would agree with that." He would also state, point blank, "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested."
I always figured it had to be Daddy or the son, I kind of thought maybe the Mom would not have been so quick to protect the husband...who knows.Daddy was ******* her.
I hadn't heard about anything new on this case. Where did they find the DNA, they had a Christmas party right around the time she dissappeared, so one would assume some of the people at the party would leave behind prints and some DNA.I think not guilty. Recently according to the news I have seen, the police have found fingerprints and dna that do not match anyone in the family, of course, there is no match yet on the dna, because my guess is the guilty party hasn't been caught commiting any crimes yet.
on her body, and on a weapon I believeI hadn't heard about anything new on this case. Where did they find the DNA, they had a Christmas party right around the time she dissappeared, so one would assume some of the people at the party would leave behind prints and some DNA.
It's probably from the lawyer they called before they called the police.I think not guilty. Recently according to the news I have seen, the police have found fingerprints and dna that do not match anyone in the family, of course, there is no match yet on the dna, because my guess is the guilty party hasn't been caught commiting any crimes yet.
That was always my theory as well. I believe the younger son was only 10 or 11, and some of the things they had said were done to her seemed like something an unsupervised child might do.I was not aware of that. I don't know that I believe she participated in the killing of her child but I do believe she knew more then she said and she was sheilding someone. I always liked the other child they had as a suspect, I wondered if he had killed his sister and the parents helped cover it up so they wouldn't loose both children. Just a guess on my part though. From everything I have seen, it seems unlikely this was commited by a stranger.
What the Seven Hells have you been smoking???"Jonbenet" was a fabricated story created by the media to gain ratings, money, and all that other ****.
Why were they finding evidence long after the murder despite the fact that that house has been trampled through by the search teams enough to mess up any evidence?
Why were sleazy supermarket tabloids the only news sources really reporting on the story?
Why did some kid that few people knew about, let alone gave a **** about suddenly become a huge media circus after she died? Jonni-B obviously wasn't as high profile of a figure as the media made her out to be.
The "Patsy" character "died" as a way to create a conclusion for a story gone sour.