And this year's Sam Sheppard Award for jumping to the wrong conclusion goes jointly to the media (especially electronic) and the prosecution for:
New DNA evidence does not match any family members to the death of JonBenet Ramsey, according to the Boulder County District Attorney.
Colorado TV station KUSA reported the announcement Wednesday afternoon. The Denver station also reported that the newly discovered evidence does not match anyone in the law enforcement database to the slaying.
[. . .]
KUSA-TV reported that Lacy met with John Ramsey and his defense attorneys on Wednesday morning to formally deliver the letter clearing the family.
"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," the letter states.
Oh, sure, no problem. Everybody makes mistakes. Think nothing of it. At least now they can look for the real killer. Probably that one-armed guy.
I confess to having several conversations with friends and family in which most of us thought the Ramseys probably had something to do with the death, all that stuff about "presumed innocent" aside. I think it had something to do with how creepy we all thought the kiddie beauty pageant stuff was.
Comments
In this case, I suspect the parents quickly reached the conclusion that their son was guilty of the killing, resulting in them lawyering up so quickly - and probably writing that strange ransom note.
Most murders that are solved, it's a case of being killed by family member or close friend. I'm not sure if that's because other murders aren't solved - or because you have to be pretty close to someone to infuriate them enough to commit murder.
So after seeing a gazillion murder mysteries, it's natural to think that friends or family did it.
My question:
They originally found blood on her longjohns that didn't come from any family member. Now they've found "touch DNA" on the longjohns that didn't come from any family member. Why does the "touch DNA" clear the family when the blood didn't? It seems to me that the "touch DNA" is much more likely to have come from someone investigating the crime than the blood would be. I guess that's one of those things they teach prosecutors in law school - how to ignore common sense.