So they found some DNA that seems to be male--that proves that her mother had nothing to do with her death?

How dio we know that, say, her mother wasn't selling her to pedophiles, and killed her to shut her up? Or that the male DNA came from the tailor who made her costumes?

That the Ramseys haven't even been charged with anything points to how much evidence you have to have against you to even go to trial. And yes, the fact that, despite try after try, we still haven't exonerated someone who was convicted through other evidence through a DNA test proves how obviously guilty you have to be to be executed in this country.

The Ramsey's are the exception that proves the rule. You are right, lack of evidence is not necessarily exoneration --- and this very argument is routinely used by prosecutors to put people in jail and to keep them there. The Ramsey's had the money and the sense to 'lawyer up' early, in addition they were an affluent upper-middle class couple who came across very sympathetically to many people. That helps explain why they were not in jail already. The fact that a prosecutor would write them a letter telling them they are no longer suspects is in itself an occurrence rarer than a hen's tooth. This is a "big media" case, and the normal rules that apply to 99.999% of cases get thrown out the window.

In our nation, it is black letter law that the testimony of a single eyewitness can get you convicted (with the rare exception of 'Treason', whose requirements are written into the Constitution). In the U.S. young men are routinely put in prison on nothing more than a single eyewitness identification. You only need DNA evidence when the defendant is someone who the jury might like/believe. You have to overcome their prejudices. But given a "throw away" defendant, almost anything will do.

If the Ramsey's had been dirt poor (and minority helps) and lived in Harris County, Texas, and if the crime hadn't attracted media attention, the "machine" probably would have procured a conviction without breaking a sweat. And you can bet that today a prosecutor would issue a press release saying "The new DNA evidence does NOT exonerate Mrs.. Ramsey...."

All the DNA findings prove is that there was someone else involved. I fail to see how this proves her mother and father's innocence.

I've children of my own and I can say with all certainty that if they were awakened by a stranger they would most certainly fight and scream. However, if I or their father were to wake them or any other family member, they might find it strange but would not likely make a fuss. What I find hard to believe is that a perfect stranger walked in, woke her up, and managed to convince her to walk quietly down the stairs.

Furthermore, I asked my children once that if they were going to leave a note for me (for whatever reason), where they would leave it. All of them replied the table. I bring this point up since it seems strange that anyone would put so important (albeit morbid) letter on the floor at the bottom of a set of stairs, where, in all likelihood it would go unnoticed or kicked out of the way. When you have a house with children in it (and even some adults) it is NOT uncommon for paper to build up around the house and get lost. Why? Because it ends up on the floor and most things on the floor become trashed or trash. I would think, someone demanding ransom, would have likely planned it all out before hand, thought through what they were going to do, and would have put some effort into where they placed the note, so as not to leave any chance that it would go unnoticed. Seems pretty careless to me to just put it on the floor. Also, wasn't the writing in the note strangely similar to the mother's when tested?

The other thing I find strange is: If you receive a ransom note stating your child has been kidnapped and you call the cops who search the crime scene why then would you, five hours later, search your own house? I would think, you would be out there (one person remaining at home in case the kidnapper calls) and the other all over the place looking for any sign of the their child. Who would re-search their own home? Someone who expects to find the child in the home. Why would they expect the child who they just learned was kidnapped to be in their own home? Because they knew full well she was murdered - not kidnapped!

Something else that doesn't sit right. They were to take a trip the next day (or that is at least how I read it). As most people know they returned at 10 pm the night she was killed and would in all likelihood have stayed up preparing for their trip (making it even later) and then would likely have plans to get up early the next day so as not to be late for their trip. So, the kidnapper just happened to know the exact window of time they would ALL be sleeping so they could saunter in, take their child, and murder her in her own home. I feel this is unlikely given that they probably stayed up much later than the norm (with not much time to fall into a deep sleep) as many parents do the day before a trip to get ready - especially when they were already out all day and would have had no other time to prepare for the next day's trip.

Most parents I know complain about lack of sleep. Why? After having kids you tend to sleep with one eye open. Even in my two storey house with my children sleeping on the top floor, two fans, one air filter, and a humming computer in my room, I can tell when they are up. Especially when I go to bed late and haven't had much time to fall into a deep sleep. Her parents were not likely in a deep sleep given the lateness of their return home and the trip planned for the next day.

This last thing I found to be odd about the whole case was the fact that the person who asualted and killed her, dressed her afterward. Serial killers aside, everything I have read or know about kidnappings suggest that many victims are found dumped with little regard afterward. It seems more likely to me, that the individual who killed her had a relationship with her (as twisted and sick as it was) and therefore felt compelled to dress her attributing as much honor to her as their sick and twisted mind could muster - most likely out of guilt and remorse.

I believe all the DNA evidence shows is that there was another individual involved besides her parents. I believe they were likely involved in a much bigger plot - likely child porn -and the individual's involved were in such positions as to render both mother and father silent even after such a horrendous and tragic act. She was not likely intended to die and something went horribly wrong.

Even kidnappers who take children directly from their homes remove themselves from the home with their victims - never heard of one killing the victim in their home and then leaving a ransom note. If the murderer intended to kill her they would have done just that without the note. If they intended to kidnap her for ransom, they would have gone as far away from the house as possible. How in all of this, did someone manage to not only kill this little girl in her house but torture her so that not one other person in that home heard a thing?

This little girl deserves to have the truth be known. It isn't fair to rule out all other suspicious evidence based on new evidence that only suggests another person was involved - it doesn't prove this individual acted alone!

What if she'd gotten up in the middle of the night and wandered into the kitchen, where someone who had been stalking her recognized his window of opportunity, snuck in, grabbed her in a way she couldn't scream, and took her to the basement?

Also, if you wouldn't search your own house first, you're pretty foolish. You search for clues where the kidnapping was committed before spreading out into random woods, if only to know where to concentrate the search.

Always possible I guess. also possible they managed to get her down that twisted staircase in the middle of the night without much noise. I doubt it though. Her autopsy showed she had eaten pineapple not long before she died. So I suppose she could have wandered downstairs, made herself a bowl of pineapple that just happen to only have the mother's finger prints on it (both parents claimed they don't recall giving her any). Then this stalker could have jumped out. Given how long after she ate the pineapple and the time that she died (was only about 2 hours), I just don't think that the parents would have had much time to get to sleep in either case and if there was any noise at all they would have likely heard it. Perhaps some parents wouldn't get up upon hearing their 6 year old walking around making herself a snack in the middle of the night. I would.

Of course you would search for clues - and that is exactly what the police did right after they arrived. I'd be there right along with them. I would have searched it right after calling 911. With a portable phone, I'd be searching it as I was talking to them. Depends what I noticed first. If I woke up and went directly into my child's bedroom and they weren't there at so early an hour (was around 5am) I would immediately look for them - inside and out. If I woke up at 5am and found the ransom note, I would immediately call 911. My point was, searching it 5/6 hours later seemed an odd thing to do after it already had been searched and they *knew* their child was kidnapped from the note. But I have since learned that it was in fact the police who asked the father to perform this search as a means to give him something to do while waiting. Maybe they wanted to get the father and mother out of the same room. Now I don't know about the rest of the world, but I'm not a detective and quite frankly waking up and finding my child missing would put me into such a frantic state that I'd have no clue what clues to look for to help me decided where to concentrate my search. I'd call any and all authorities that could help me with that. All I would be thinking at that point is that my child is gone and I want to get them back safely.

Which brings me to this: Dont most B&Es occur through basements? I would have thought that immediately after arriving the police would have done a thorough search of the basement - turns out this was not the case. It didn't get searched until 5/6 hours later when her father performed the search. There was a window propped open with a suitcase under it but there were no footprints in the snow outside near the window where they would have entered and left...that alone seems suspicious.

Perhaps the stalker flew to the window. Both her parents took sleeping pills and went directly to sleep. She, having not felt filled enough from the huge Christmas dinner they had, snuck downstairs, grabbed some pineapple, snuck back up stairs and put her moms fingerprints all over the bowl, snuck back down, had a few, and then the stalker having flown through the window made their move, and just prior to grabbing her she never issued one scream or protest before they clamped their hands down over her mouth. I don't believe any drug (or sleep inducing) chemical was ever found to have been used.

Back to the stalker. They walk/flew in there with every intention of kidnapping her and yet they only wrote the ransom note asking for money once inside, using the family's note pad no less and asking for money in the exact amount that her father had been given as a bonus. So the stalker is smart enough to do his detective work but too stupid to put the ransom note on the table and bring a note already done up. Then they restrain and torture her using other items from the house (her mom's paint brush and some duct tape) and then leave her in the house. Isn't the whole point of kidnapping and ransom to kidnap and get demands met in return for the release of the victim? Wouldn't someone who had planned this out (such as a stalker) have already had a note done up so they could spend as little time on the scene as possible so as not to get caught? Wouldn't they have taken her and left instead of killing her in her own home? Something doesn't add up. My whole point was, there are too many wierd things that I suppose you could have ten different explanations for which brings me to the fact that some of those explanations still include the family as being suspects in the death of their daughter. Nothing has ruled that out.

The article is typical of how the media have handled this
"revelation." In other words, lazy journalists who don't know Jack about the evidence, taking the DA's word for things.

Look at all the evidence and explain how likely it is that someone outside the family wasn't involved in some way. It's a really tough sell. There was the ransom letter...along with a rough draft of it. The killer either took the time to write it while still in the house, then killed her before fleeing. Or he killed her first, then took the time to write a meaningless ransom letter. Neither option makes any sense. But, a ransom letter makes a whole lot of sense if you're a resident of the house trying to make it look like some intruder did the deed.

Then, you are always left with John and Patsy acting guilty as hell from the first minute. Possibly they were just a cold, cold set of parents who just happened to have their daughter murdered and followed horrible PR advice. Or there was a simple reason they were acting guilty: because they were.

And, never forget the DA, Mary Lacy, has a whole lot to gain from the Ramseys being eliminated as suspects. About a year back she paid to have some total schmuck with a kiddie porn fetish flown back from the Far East just to try and pin the murder on him. When that fell apart in the first five minutes of him being back, she was left to go with her second option: finding some new evidence to clear the Ramseys.

To Ghostlink-

This case has bothered me a lot and I am glad to see others are questioning like they are. You raise good points, and I will tell you something that has been eating at me since the occurence.

Did you see the interview with the Santa Clause guy...friend of family? I caught it and a big red flag went up for me. He stated something like,...She was my little angel...something like...When I used to go up to her room...

Yeah...

Then in another part of the tv coverage, they mentioned that the santa guy had a daughter murdered at about that age. Well, do you wonder why this has bothered me for so long. I wish I could see those two airings again.

It would make sense that a guy hiding in the basement with the intention of kidnapping the girl wrote a note while the family was gone, waited until her parents went to bed, grabbed her from the kitchen where she was eating (fingerprints being a non-starter since the mom is probably the one who washes the dishes and puts them away, easily explaining how her prints would be on them), dropping the note in a random place in his excitement.

Then maybe he got overexcited and raped her in the basement instead of where he'd planned on doing it, killed her when she started making too much noise or threatening to tell on him, fled out the window, and wiped away his footprints (or jumped or shimmied or managed to pull this off just before new snow fell)

There are a million explanations for all the oddities and holes- some of which involve the parents, and some don't. Maybe the parents were selling her to other men in the middle of the night, and when one killed her, they tried to cover it up, but it seems to me that a night you've gotten home late and exhausted, with your son in tow, is not the night I would pick to sell my daughter in the basement.

As for your disbelief that they could have fallen asleep so quickly and so deeply as to missed muffled cries or steps, I guess you've just never been exhausted. I've fallen asleep sitting up on my couch in the middle of the day with the TV on and a cell phone and a glass of water in my hands. I eventually woke, to find that it had been an hour, I had spilled my water on myself and that my phone had been ringing in my lap- I had four missed calls. Granted, I was taking a lunch break on the Saturday of an 80-hr workweek, but my point is that it can happen.