Boulder, CO and Atlanta, GA - Well, denizens, I never thought this day would come. In a letter released today, Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy issued a formal apology to John Ramsey, father of murder victim JonBenet Ramsey. The letter states that new DNA evidence has cleared the entire Ramsey family of any suspicion in the December 26, 1996 death of six-year-old JonBenet.
I KNOW! I’m shocked. Well, partly shocked. Mostly, even. For years, I was sure Patsy did it. Then I decided maybe Burke did it and John and Patsy covered it up. And then I decided that probably an intruder did it - maybe not John Mark Karr, but someone who knew the family, knew the routine, knew JonBenet. Maybe the Christmas party Santa, or some random party guest, or even a family friend. I really didn’t know.
JonBenet in life was a pageant princess, a dress-up doll for her mother, a bleached blonde, contact-lensed little girl who wore Pull-ups to hide her bedwetting and curlers to hide her naturally straight hair. Her eyes weren’t really green or blue, her hair wasn’t really blonde, and maybe she liked pageants, maybe she didn’t, but she was very good at doing what she was told. Her father John ran a successful business. Her mother Patsy, John’s second, younger wife, had been a pageant princess herself.
The Christmas-night murder of JonBenet inside the family home was a cluster from the beginning. From the ransom note on the stairs to John Ramsey finding his daughter’s stiff body in the basement and bringing it upstairs, placing her under the Christmas tree, the whole thing was an evidentiary nightmare. None of the fiber evidence was viable due to compromise. Half the neighborhood was in the huge Ramsey house while JonBenet’s body was in the basement. The timelines were a mess, and the parents lawyered up. Frankly, few people on the planet have looked as guilty as the Ramseys.
The problem was motive. Motive and that pesky, degraded DNA on JonBenet’s underwear and under her fingernails. Some people thought Patsy had killed JonBenet out of rage over toileting or possible molestation. Some accused John Ramsey of abusing his daughter. Some thought Burke did it out of jealousy. For twelve years, the crime has remained unsolved - through countless books, some civil suits, the advent of internet true crime message boards, Patsy’s cancer, a few movies, and one screamo band, The JonBenet.
Patsy Ramsey died of cancer in June 2006. At the time of her death, she remained under the “umbrella of suspicion” that clouded the family after JonBenet’s death. Burke spent most of his teen years in private school, and the Ramseys lit out for their hometown of Atlanta as soon as they could get out of Colorado - but the suspicion followed them, even after weirdo John Mark Karr’s false confession in August 2006.
The new DNA was taken in March of this year from the waistband of the long thermal underwear JonBenet was wearing over her panties when her body was found. Because JonBenet was sexually assaulted, it has been thought that the long johns were taken off and put back on by her killer. That DNA matches the earlier DNA from JonBenet’s panties, and excludes every member of the Ramsey family, including John’s adult son. Instead, it points to an “unknown male”.
JonBenet was found dead, in full rigor, in the basement of the family home in a little-used room on December 26, 1996. She had been garroted with a cord and sexually assaulted with finger or possibly a broken paintbrush of her mother’s which, broken, became the handle of the garrote used to strangle her. She had an eight-inch skull fracture, and the bleeding in her brain indicated that she had probably been hit as or after she was strangled, certainly not long before. And marks on her body could have come from a Taser. Her mouth was duct-taped, and she had eaten some pineapple shortly before her death.
So if none of the Ramseys killed JonBenet, who did? That, as always, remains the question. The floor is yours, demons. I know some of you have followed this case from the beginning, and I’ve wanted to toss it out there for awhile now. This is your shot. Got a theory? Let’s hear it. Whose DNA is it? Could the Ramseys have done it anyway? What really happened in the Ramsey house on Christmas, 1996?
42 responses so far ↓
1
Athena
Jul 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm -No shit, huh? Well, at least this conclusively clears the family (what a nightmare this has surely been for them). It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t point to an identifiable suspect, though. I hope this brings some substantial peace to the family.
Now, a note on “pageant princesses”:
FUCKING CREEPY.
2
Lilbay
Jul 9, 2008 at 8:00 pm -This case has also had me in circles on thoughts as well. i too have been through all the different possibilities. I have to wonder was it someone she knew? Did someone get into that house did she possibly open the door for them??
Did they ever compare the DNA to anyone except family like family friends or sex offenders?
Was there not another little girl of same age or close to same age out there also killed in a similar fashion?
3
Harley_Tech
Jul 9, 2008 at 8:02 pm -Well, I was not exactly under a rock all that time, but I didn’t follow this story much at all really. I remember thinking that the family sure did act guilty several times.
While the DNA may clear them directly, it does not clear them of hiring the job out I don’t believe.
I think that JonBenet sure led a strange life, what with all the pageants n stuff. I think maybe little girls like the pageants when they start out, but when they reach the level she was at with it I believe they just keep doing it because it makes their parents happy.
What was with that nut job Karr that came forward a few years ago and said he did it? I remember at the time wondering if John paid that guy to step up so that Patsy might not look so guilty after her death.
I’m betting it will be another 10-12 years and some scumbag will be busted for a baby killing and his DNA will hit in NCIC on this case.
By that time, DD will be a world wide investigative clearing house for crimes against children, women, and animals. Impqueen will be CEO, Morbid President and head janitor, and I’ll be mowing the grass of the 8000 acre compound where abused kids, moms, and orphaned pets find sanctuary.
Naaaah, I think TJ Mullis and Tyson Chamberlin did it.
R
4
WryBread
Jul 9, 2008 at 8:50 pm -My first theory was that it was someone at the party given a few days before the murder. There was a 911 call placed during the party, but when the police came to the house no one admitted that they made the call. My feeling then was that it was a test call to see how long it would take the police to respond. I thought it would turn out to be someone like the cater’s nephew who had access to deliver stuff, or the housekeeper’s young cousin who helped serve. Someone who might have a key temporarily and reason enough to check out the house’s layout.
When the family came under suspicion, I thought the father looked like the most likely candidate. He spread his DNA all over the body by clasping it and carrying it upstairs. And his first move was to try to arrange an airplane flight out of the state — that same day.
After that it all became very confusing and I never felt convinced of anyone’s guilt. So now that it’s definitely not the family, I’ll be curious to see if my theory was right. I hope someone pays for killing this little girl. She deserves that justice.
5
Lilbay
Jul 9, 2008 at 9:56 pm -Oh I want to live on the compound too.
I will take care of the animals.
That is if my health allows me to live that long.
If not can you keep my ashes in a box in Morbid or Imp’s desk and scatter my ashes anywhere that the dogs do not poop once you build it.
I do wonder too how the person got in that whole basement window thing never panned out to me. And if they did come in that way then they had to know the home as the basement alone confused the heck out of people let alone the back stairs and which side the kid’s rooms were on etc.
I read the book that the one cop wrote it was a good book however it came off a bit one sided.
6
Lizard
Jul 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm -Kathy will be VP of Drunk Chat with her own budget line for Pink Truck and botox (cuz all that drinking eventually takes a toll). And you forgot the shooting range, where the targets are all dummies but the kind brought in cuffed by LE.
7
michelle
Jul 9, 2008 at 11:04 pm -Just because no one in the family molested her doesn’t mean thay didn’t “off” her. I am not convinced one way or the other. Last night ABC showed how to BUY a child slave.
*shakes head in sorrow*
8
michelle
Jul 9, 2008 at 11:05 pm -I also need to say that pic creeps me out. She almost looks like a angelic PORN star. *shudder*
9
moscow04
Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17 am -Her mom is guilty of turning a 6-year old into a young sex-object. Only a horrid, disturbed person could do that to a young child. Her youth was stolen by horrid parents, and what she knew as “life” was snuffed before she could enjoy it.
Whoever killed this baby was most likely inspired by the whore-like image, and many like it, which leads into this article. It’s fucking disgusting.
10
funnymommy
Jul 10, 2008 at 7:28 am -I did not have any children when this happened. I have since had two and my girl is now 6. This case bothers me more now than it ever did; the mother was a twat, the father not much better since he never told his wife to wipe that shit off of his daughter’s face and let her make mud pies like a normal little girl, and the investigation was a mess. EVERYONE failed her. Perhaps now they can find who did this to that poor little girl and get her some justice, if nothing else.
11
funkmama
Jul 10, 2008 at 8:03 am -Wow, I was convinced John did it. That poor man. All I can say is: WOW.
12
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 9:05 am -Are you shitting me? What in the blue hell was ABC production staff thinking? What’s on tonight’s new report? - “How to make a bomb” - “How to sneak a gun into school without getting caught”.
I agree, I’m not convinced either way myself. I just hope that one day whoever the killer was, it is found out and the poor little girl gets some justice - FINALLY.
13
sarabei
Jul 10, 2008 at 9:58 am -I wish Patsy could have lived to see them exonerated. I, too, was convinced of the familie’s guilt. However after listening to all the differing analysis, I started to believe they were innocent, I am convinced of it now…I feel So sorry for that family and all they went through, not only was their daughter brutally murdered, their family was crucified for years in the media!
14
What Would Satan Do
Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11 am -Let’s hope those DNA samples are running…Fresh Meat!
I bet when she wasn’t being mommies Barbie she was a great kid.
15
beegee
Jul 10, 2008 at 1:44 pm -When you have lived as long as I have, you will know not to believe all you have heard. The family was involved. All the DNA in the world can’t change that. They have everyone now just ignoring all the evidence of their complicity at least in the cover-up. Why did Patsy write the ransom note? Why did they lie about Burke being awake and about JonBenet having pineapple? Why was Patsy wearing the same clothes on Christmas that she wore on Christmas eve? Just because they got away with it doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. As Cyril Wecht said on TV yesterday “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Just hope people are still investigating and not just trusting. The Emperor has no clothes, honest.
16
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 1:47 pm -I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks, Beegee.
17
Morbid
Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07 pm -Speculation, never proven
She didn’t lie, the Ramsey’s stated they were not aware of her eating pineapple and stated they were not the ones who placed the bowl of pineapples on the table.
Because she was tired the night before? Because she threw on the first thing available when it was noticed JonBenet was missing? What does it matter? The fact that she was wearing the same clothes, in my mind, makes her look even more innocent, especially since they went through all the trouble to create the supposed cover-up.
I’m not supporting or defending, but that DNA belonging to a male not in that house does a lot more to support the intruder theory than anything else brought out pointing to the Ramsey’s. IMO, of course.
18
beegee
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:04 pm -Love intelligent discussion.
You ignored the Burke lie. They said he was asleep but he is heard talking on the 911 call.
It was never proven that Patsy did not write the note.
A fashionable woman such as Patsy would never wear the same outfit two days in a row. Remember she woke normally and only when she saw (her own story) the note on the back stairs did she know anything was wrong. So she did not discover before dressing that JonBenet was missing. No, clearly she wore the same outfit because she had never been to bed. It took a long time, hours, to write the note alone, let alone whatever else she had to do. The murder weapon (paint stick) was hers for example and the duct tape was traced to a purchase she had made.
Please please I’d love to believe in fairies and the Ramsey’s innocence but I just can’t. Tell me how the killer came to the house with nothing planned. He had no note written, he had no weapons on him. What was his intent? What was his plan? Rape her and go. Let’s be frank here. So then, when something went wrong he was winging it. So instead of getting out of Dodge as quick as possible, which is what you or I or any intelligent person would do, he sat at the dining table and wrote out a five page ransom note. Why? So they wouldn’t search the house. But the longer he stayed the more likely he was to be found. How about a one page note? And he found the room to hide the body even though it is a rabbit warren in the basement that no stranger could ever find. Oh, and he walked straight to J.B.’s room, got her, took her downstairs and at some pt. comes back up three or four flights to get her favorite blanket out of the dryer to leave with her. A stranger did that??????
19
Athena
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm -It was never proven that Patsy did not write the note.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove that she did (beyond reasonable doubt, remember?), in a case like this.
A fashionable woman such as Patsy would never wear the same outfit two days in a row. Remember she woke normally and only when she saw (her own story) the note on the back stairs did she know anything was wrong. So she did not discover before dressing that JonBenet was missing. No, clearly she wore the same outfit because she had never been to bed.
That’s a HUGE assumption. I’m a “fashionable woman” who never wears the same clothing two days in a row…But when I wake up in the morning, I walk around in my night gown before getting dressed. If I headed to the bathroom or kitchen in my night gown only to find a disturbing random note, I sure as hell wouldn’t take the time to find a new outfit before addressing the situation. I would want to be decent, though, when cops showed up, so I’d throw on whatever was available.
It took a long time, hours, to write the note alone, let alone whatever else she had to do. The murder weapon (paint stick) was hers for example and the duct tape was traced to a purchase she had made.
I’m sorry…Why would it have taken hours to write a note? You’ll have to excuse me, as the details of this case are fuzzy for me (it’s been a long time). Furthermore, intruders often use items found in a victim’s house to brutalize them. This is not uncommon at all.
20
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:31 pm -BeeGee - are you located in the area where this occured? Do you or did you know the Ramsey family? Are you privy to inside info that we have not heard about?
Please share your knowledge of the case. Please differentiate between what is rumored and known as fact. I’m so very curious as to what you know.
21
Morbid
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm -They are not privy to anything. This case has been documented to death. The police bungled the investigation from the start, and the media raped it afterwards.
No one needed to break in as it was clearly noted that not all entryways were locked, including the broken basement window. No footprints were found because, as it was revealed later, there may not have been any in the first place as the snow did not even reach the house that far.
It has also been shown that not only could have an intruder gotten into the house undetected without breaking in, but that they could have easily removed Jon Benet from her room in a similar fashion.
I find it amazing that even with stories…RECENT stories…of college girls being abducted from couches 3 ft from where another person was sleeping and later found dead in a field that still remain unsolved, that people come up with all these grandiose schemes and plans that the Ramsey’s went through to kill or cover up the killing of their own child…when in all likelihood, the actual events that led to her death are the simplest. Someone came in, took her to the basement, sexually assaulted her and then killed her.
Now, as before, the hard evidence is supporting that. All the speculating in the world doesn’t wipe the true evidence away. I know that a lot of people WANTED these parents to have been the killer because they just didn’t like them or their lifestyle…but it just keeps looking as if that just isn’t the case.
22
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 3:59 pm -My gut has always told me that the family had something to do with this girl’s death.
It’s just too complicated a scene. The parents are too suspect. Perhaps I do base this, in some part, on the way they exploited their daughter to their advantage in those stupid fucking pageants. Either way…
I’ve recently come to entertain a theory that the family was involved through a cult ritual. You’d be surprised how many very wealthy and powerful people fund crime against children. This may just be a small segment of that group….
This article is extremely interesting.
http://rigint.blogspot.com/200.....l#comments
Sorry, I don’t know how to make a link.
23
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:00 pm -You’re right Morbid. I just wanted to hear their version and WHY they’re so convinced otherwise.
Their opinions are not going to change what happens legally, I was just being curious.
24
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm -whatever. I think the parents are involved. I think it may have been cult related.
this article (which I don’t know how to hyperlink)
http://rigint.blogspot.com/200.....l#comments
25
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm -HUGS to Morbid. I’m sure you were the one that made the “fix.”
26
Morbid
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm -For the people who think it was the Ramsey’s, let’s turn the tables and instead of us arguing YOUR points of speculation, explain these points of facts.
1. A footprint made by a Hi-Tec stamped hiking boot was found in the concrete dust of the wine cellar. The boot has not been connected to any of the Ramsey’s.
2. An unidentified palm print was found on the door of the wine cellar. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
3. A pubic hair was found on the blanket in which JonBenet was wrapped. It does not belong to John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey.
4. A piece of broken glass was found under a basement window. The window was open and the sill showed signs of disturbance.
5. There was a scuff-mark on the basement wall below the window. Someone had to have climbed in or out of this window.
6. The duct tape and the cord used in the murder were not found in the Ramsey house. The offender must have brought them in and taken them out when he/she left the house after the murder.
7. The fact that the DNA evidence found in Jon Benet’s underwear is not linked to any of the Ramsey’s.
27
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm -Good questions Morbid.
I wish BeeGee would come address them.
28
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm -Well, if it was a cult ritual, the Ramseys would have been sharing the girl with their friends after the Christmas party. Which would explain all the “not the Ramsey” stuff like the pube, the dna, the boot print, etc.
And, upon the accidental death of JonBenet, they would have had to cover tracks and plant false evidence that would point to an outsider, explaining the disturbance of the sill, the scuffmark on the wall, etc.
Granted - I admit fully that this sounds far-fetched - and I admit even more that I DON’T KNOW a damn thing.
But I think it’s plausible, given the other incidences where children have suffered at the hands of parents’ cult rituals.
Unfortunately, it’s what I personally lean towards as an explanation, even though it’s horrifying and indicative of a much much larger problem.
Did you ever hear of The Finders or The False Memory Syndrome Foundation? That’s some scary shit.
29
solange822001
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:50 pm -I’m shocked that people are still convinced that the family had something to do with this. Why would they kill their own daughter? There was no evidence of abuse of any kind, there is no motive. Why is it so hard to believe that someone broke in and did this? Like Morbid says, this has happened before and will unfortunately happen again. The evidence doesn’t lie peeps. Let’s give this family some peace once and for all
30
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:53 pm -Yeah, me too. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t blame the Ramseys nor do I want them to be guilty. But it wouldn’t be that far fetched. I honestly just want the true killer(s) to be caught. And if there is something much more going on, I pray it is found out soon. Just think, if any of this is true, how many children are still suffering?
31
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:54 pm -And the more I think about it - is her having toileting accidents at her age, with her accomplishments not a tell tell sign of sexual abuse? I thought it was a red flag to such.
32
thepooh5
Jul 10, 2008 at 4:56 pm -And let me add, I don’t mean to imply the Ramsey family was doing the abusing - could have been a close friend or anybody. But the toileting issue bothers me, quite a bit to be honest.
33
Mandella
Jul 10, 2008 at 5:18 pm -I truly wish I didn’t think the parents were involved. But I just can’t shake it. It sucks. Really, it does.
34
beegee
Jul 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm -Sorry I was away. First off, no, I am not privy to any inside information. What could be inside at this point I can’t imagine. I have just read an awful lot about this case and I guess I retain it. Let’s see if I can address all of the points even though all of mine were not addressed.
Can I quickly do the last first. J.B. also had about thirty pediatrician visits in the last year of her life any mother would tell you that is unheard of and for urinary infections. It certainly speaks of abuse. Now back to the beginning. I never knowingly repeat rumors. I try to deal only in fact or speculation I announce as such. I often wear the same things two days in a row, but a) I am not fashionable and b) I am not flying to Michigan today. She was dressed from the beginning. She never mentioned going back to her room (other than to get John) and changing. Read any of the books (but please with a very open mind, they mostly argue innocence except for Perfect Town which is too afraid of lawsuits to reach any conclusion at all).
Now to Morbid’s good points. I do believe the duct tape and cord were traced to a purchase Patsy made, I don’t think there is any evidence of anything brought in. The footprint could have been made by a workman, this is a basement. I know nothing of a palm print. The dust on the window sill was undisturbed and the evidence was that the window had been broken for a long time previous and as someone else said, you could just have walked into the house so breaking in was not necessary. The pubic hair could have come from a dryer quite easily. Tell me your story, tell me from the mind of the crazed child obsessed killer. I’ll tell you mine. (Oh, the ransom note must have been three hundred words, it’s an epic.) They come home from the party. They put J.B. to bed still asleep as Patsy said. John said he read to her, take your choice, she was asleep;, she was awake. She was fed pineapple; she wasn’t. Too many inconsistencies. Later Patsy comes to check on her and finds someone who shouldn’t be in her bed in her bed. She grabs the first thing she finds, a big flashlight and strikes toward the person but hits JonBenet instead stunning her but Patsy thinks she’s killed her. So, the cover-up begins and everything after that makes sense. She writes the note, someone wraps the garotte around her neck to make it look like a sex crime, gets her blanket (the sure sign of a loved victim) and leaves her in the basement. No one can tell because they are all really implicated. I used to think the bad guy was John but for this kind of action I am thinking mother protecting a child now.
35
beegee
Jul 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm -Try this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379981,00.html
36
Paigey
Jul 11, 2008 at 7:59 am -I’ve always felt like there was an intruder that night, but that the intruder was not a stranger. I also think he was already in the house when the Ramsey’s returned home from the party. He’d probably been in the house for several hours and had plenty of time to write the ransom letter, along with thinking about how he’d get Jon Benet out of bed and what he’d do to her when he did.
While waiting on the Ramsey’s return, he could have gotten to know the house very well and found the perfect room to carry out his plans with nobody ever hearing a thing.
I’m not sure why the pineapple thing is so important either. A six year old girl is fully capable of getting her own bowl and putting pre cut pineapple in it to eat as a snack without anyone else ever knowing that she did.
37
impqueen
Jul 11, 2008 at 8:17 am -The autopsy report does state that JonBenet had chronic vaginal inflammation. Now, that said, her hymen was still partially intact, but some of the trauma to the vault was chronic as opposed to peri-mortem. That does speak to abuse, and that’s physical evidence that is going to be hard to explain away just by saying she had toileting issues. I wonder if a friend of the family’s hadn’t been abusing her for some time.
The “new” DNA is actually a sample taken by “touch DNA” - microscopic skin cells left by whoever pulled down or pulled up her long underwear, inside the waistband. That wasn’t testable in 1996 or 97, which is why it was just sent. That the waistband DNA is a match for the “unknown male” DNA in JonBenet’s panties and under her fingernails speaks pretty clearly that whoever sexually assaulted JonBenet that night, it wasn’t a relative.
I do think the argument could be made that she was sexually assaulted by one person and killed by a family member, but the timing on that would be odd. There wasn’t a lot of subdural bleeding - less than two teaspoons- in JonBenet’s head.
Now 7-8 ccs is a huge bleed, don’t get me wrong, but she died of strangulation either right after she was hit or at close to the same time. Her skull had an eight inch fracture and part of her skull caved in along the fracture line - she was hit hard, possibly by a mag-lite style flashlight or something of that nature. She would have bled significantly more had the blow come before she was strangled. So why hit her after she’s unconscious and nearly dead? I never understood that.
Could Patsy or John have killed JonBenet after she was assaulted by someone else? If so, why? What would the motive be, since her autopsy suggests she had been abused before?
38
What Would Satan Do
Jul 11, 2008 at 9:10 am -I’ve never trusted Patsy, my gut feeling is that she was a control freak. I can’t help but see her involved in any scenario not involving a stranger, and I doubt that JonBenet did much of anything without Patsy knowing about it.
What surprises me is that the DNA sample hasn’t turned up a match anywhere it’s been run. As we’ve seen all too often, sexual abusers rarely commit just one act. The answer could be sitting in a backlogged pile somewhere, waiting to be tested and entered.
39
Bon
Jul 12, 2008 at 9:31 am -Family friend Fleet White looks good to me. He admitted to ‘mistakenly’ making the 911 call from the Ramsey’s home 2 days before,giving a lame excuse for having done so and was the first to open the wine cellar the morning of the 26th , claiming he did not see the body of Jonbenet there. Later, when searching again with John Ramsey she was seen right away. He had a key to the Ramsey home. He also seems to have went off the deep end after Jonbenet’s murder. His behavior all around is just strange as hell. More here: http://tinyurl.com/5s8×9w
40
impqueen
Jul 12, 2008 at 10:00 am -Um.. you linked JAMESON? LOL.
I’d pull the link, but honestly, i don’t care if Jameson wrings one more ounce of press out of this case. She’s already done enough damage to herself over this case, and frankly, if she wasn’t such a wingnut i think a lot of people would have come around to her way of thinking a long time ago.
That said, I’ve liked Fleet White for it at times myself. I do think he may have had an idea who did it, anyway. I thought they’d done DNA on Fleet, though, and he didn’t match up. I could be wrong.
41
crimenthusiast
Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05 am -I still think the mother had something to do with it. This new evidence doesn’t deter me from still thinking that. I’ve never bought the intruder story either.
This may be a crime we never get the answers for.
42
sugarglider
Jul 13, 2008 at 9:46 am -Imp_queen: brilliant title to this article.
Her parents are still douches for encouraging her to tart herself up in these stupid pageants, but being a douche isn’t a criminal offense.
You must log in to post a comment.