Search results

I was under the impression NO ONE had been named as suspects.

Apparently writing *advertiser censored*

It's just one more person trying to make a buck off of that poor little girl's dead body. As far as only 1 chapter being written. How many other books have been released that way? Stephen King doesn't write 1 chapter, then send it out, nor does James Patterson, am I wrong here? What can...

I think she is a little too into the *advertiser censored* stuff, personally. I (for some reason) always thought anyone born before 1963 didn't do that! I also don't understand why this wouldbe a big deal to PR, I did't give one until I was 21. If you didn't like it, suck it yourself. Sorry, but that...

Okay, here goes, in an article in USA only 2 weeks ago, it is stated that the DNA does not match any male member of the family, and it also states a source of the DNA; blood. Here is the site address http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-27-jonbenet-murder_x.htm I don't know if...

Um, I think the investigation being "screwed up" may have had something to do with the BPD's assesment of the crimes scene.....there were many people in this case that helped screw it all to hell, not just some that are pro-Ramsey.

So, why would all these law enforcement officials try to "save" the R's? Why wold the police or DA's office try to help cover something like this up? I just don't understand.

Brothermoon, you think the strangulation was the cause of death? I did not think that even most ME's could determine the cause of death pertaining to this case, even now. (Or with complete certainity, at least) So, you believe this was not an accident?

I understand that and it makes sense, but JBR's body was not in that condition. Her parents home had not been blown up or burnt. How does that apply here to that case?

If it cannot be used to match, then why now are they doing this? WHy didn't they just say, "It cannot be used to make a match?"

This is what I cannot understand, I read in some places that the DNA is degraded, in others--that it is not. Where is a link I can go to to tell me, without having to rely on others opinions

It is one thing to know that it would be unpopular---it is another to help a murderer walk free. I am in the poistion OJ was/is guilty. I think that his position in that case shows that he doesn't always err on the side of GOOD judgement.

My, my--someone got up on the wrong side of the bed, huh? I didn't state that as a fact, I asked a question. Did you not notice the question mark at the end? This was something I read somewhere---I can't even remember where now. It just popped up in my head. Also, world renowned really...

Point well taken, but, how could you know who it belonged to without testing it? It cannot be proven to be connected to the crime if the investigators just deny it's existence, can it?

Did he not make that statement BEFORE DNA showed up in the evidence room? Was the Green River Case a DNA case 20 yrs ago? No.

Ted Bundy was tried in the 80's and was convicted on photo evidence of teeth marks.