unknown male DNA in three places on two different items of clothing worn by JonBenet -- which is why the prosecutor in 2008 wrote a letter of apology to the Ramsey's, fulling exonerating the family.

How foolish and fantastical their indictment looks now, accusing the parents of somehow helping an unnamed third party of murdering their little girl.

The prosecution was ordered by the Court to release this indictment after members of the media brought suit under freedom of information claims. But how unfair for the Ramseys, who asked only that ALL the evidence be released, not just the document indicting them. The judge ruled against them because the members of the grand jury were promised confidentiality. Whatever the merits of that ruling, anyone who reads the indictment should realize it is a skewed report resulting from culling mountains of evidence for items that would support the case against the Ramseys -- leaving all the rest of the evidence in the shadows, including exculpatory evidence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_JonBenét_Ramsey

Letter from District Attorney: Ramsey family deemed innocent

On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney's office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case. In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:

This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence.

I had lost track of the story. Thanks for posting all that.

I suspect the grand jury was swayed by the media frenzy.

so I don't believe in a god, a heaven or a hell, but if I'm wrong, I just hope Patsy Ramsey is in the hottest part of it, just waiting to be joined by John. They turned their little girl into something looking like a two-bit whore, and if they didn't directly have something to do with her death and the cover-up, then they attracted whoever did it.

What they did to that girl was nothing short of child abuse, and they deserve whatever eternal damnation that fate can dish out to them.

I don't like the pageant culture either, but blaming the victim's parents for her murder is just wrong.

Instead of "she was asking for it by dressing that way", you are saying "her parents were asking for it by dressing her that way". Absolutely disgusting and shameful.

your post really horrifies me. At bottom, it implies that a 6-year-old could be 'attracting' murder; and that is disgusting.

(1) No 6-year-old COULD look like a 'two-bit whore', however she is dressed. A 6-year-old looks like a child. Period.

(2) Even if an adult dresses 'provocatively', or even in the case where someone IS a prostitute, they do not deserve to be attacked or murdered. That is the classic excuse made for rapists; and, while here you are blaming the parents, the logical conclusion is that women who dress in the wrong way may thus be accomplices to their own murder. No one 'attracts' rape or murder; it is entirely the responsibility of the rapist or murderer.


By the way, I strongly disapprove of child pageants myself.

Have you no sense of decency?

At Sat Oct 26, 2013, 12:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm an atheist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=631844

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling a kid a two bit whore? They attracted a killer?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 26, 2013, 01:04 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Meh. He wrote "looking something like...". The parents put so much makeup on her and evening gowns and heels and had her act like a physically mature woman, which was true. You should confront customerserviceguy directly instead of trying to get him kicked off the thread.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: He never called the kid a two-bit whore! Maybe you need to reread the post over an over until you realize it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Reading comprehension fail. Looking like and being are not the same.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter misrepresented the post regarding the "two bit whore" characterization. Use of the phrase "two bit whore," while it reeks of centuries-old sexism, is now used to apply to all genders. Its offensiveness has been democratized.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

She was a child, and it was obvious, even when they dressed her like a grownup. The adults are the ones who should have the restraint not to touch a child, whether that child is dressed to the nines and in full stage makeup, naked, or anything in between.

Suggesting otherwise is making apologies for child abuse.

Nobody who preys on a little girl is going to prey on her more or less based on her dress or makeup.