>The same DNA that was found in JonBenet's underpants was the same DNA found on her long johns. An alleged "unknown male." That's suspicious. That does not mean anything, things got so incredibly botched an contaminated in the crime scene but who knows. It's highly fishy. BUT the DNA found in the panties exactly matched the DNA found on an identical pair gotten from the factory in Southeast Asia that made JonBenet's exact pair. What do we make of this?
>The killer clearly felt INCREDIBLY AT HOME. Why the hell would you demand money, write a practice not AND the actual ransom note,
>There was a chronic vaginal injury---studies shown JonBenet was molested over a period of time. It is more than evident that JonBenet knew her killer very well.
>What if the DNA found on JonBenet's clothing does not match what is in the national database? Because given the history it DOESN'T match anything. So her killer clearly did not have a criminal record. (Ahem Patsy/John.)
>I truly think Burke is innocent. This is the most wild conspiracy theory of this absurdly cold case. I don't see a 9 year old killing anyone. That's too young. Yes, we have heard of for instance, 13 year old killers murdering younger children but a 9 year old hasn't even hit puberty.
>Not to mention it is highly unlikely Burke was the only molesting JonBenet. That's wretchedly absurd.
>This is one of the coldest cases in the history of the United States' criminal history, I firmly believe. Essentially because of the sensationalizing of it in the media. And the fact that it was glamorized as well, given JonBenet was a beautiful little girl and a child beauty queen. Yes, the media can be sick but their accusations directed toward the Ramseys are probably not far fetched by any means.
No comments:
Post a Comment