Since the
JonBenet Ramsey case burst back into the spotlight, much of the misinformation fed to the public has emerged again.
Here's a little refresher course on what we know is real:
The 93-page ruling by a U.S. district judge in a 2003 civil suit was the first real judicial analysis of evidence found at the scene.
Judge Julie Carnes examined evidence gathered by police, pointed out shortcomings in the investigation and came to the conclusion that it was more likely that an intruder killed JonBenet than
Patsy Ramsey.
Here's the evidence we know:
- An autopsy report noted injury to JonBenet's genitalia, suggesting she was sexually assaulted shortly before her death. Unknown male DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear.
- A Caucasian 'pubic or auxiliary' hair was found on the blanket covering JonBenet's body. The hair did not match any Ramsey family member.
- JonBenet was discovered in the wine-cellar in the basement of the family's home with duct tape covering her mouth. A cord was around her neck, attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head.
- The slipknots and garrote were both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. Carnes wrote, "these devices suggest they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords."
- The black duct tape also could not be "sourced" to the Ramseys' home. Animal hair, thought to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. No similar hair was found in the home. Similar hair was found in JonBenet's hands.
- Injuries to the right side of JonBenet Ramsey's face were consistent with injuries sustained from a stun gun.
-A shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" boot was found imprinted in mold on the basement floor and a palm print was found in the wine cellar. Neither was sourced to the Ramseys.
- A baseball bat not belonging to the Ramseys was found on the north side of the house. Fibers found on the bat on it were consistent with fibers in the carpet in the basement near JonBenet's body.
In her ruling, Carnes also addressed misinformation fed by the media.
"Moreover, contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of 'footprints in the snow,' there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to the defendants' home on the morning of December 26, 1996," Carnes wrote. "Hence, a person walking along these paths would have left no footprints."
Also:
Check out this article on CU professor Michael Tracey.
__________________________________________________________
Email me at
henryt@yourhub.com
Write your own column on this case or leave comments below.