An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

I. The Focus of my Case My case is centred around the idea that, while certain things are hard to explain in any theory, others are impossible to explain without assuming that there was no “foreign faction”. II. Basement Entry Mark Beckner, former police chief and head of the JonBenet investigation, said this in a recent Reddit AMA: “Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in. Lou Smit always believed it was the basement window, but we did not agree with him, as the dust and spider web were undisturbed.” [1] The suitcase evidence, however, is harder to dispel. I concede that there was a suitcase in the basement, that there were scuff marks, etc. However, if, as my case holds, the parents were apt enough to at least attempt to stage a kidnapping attempt, they were apt enough to move a suitcase beneath a window. This is not even to speak of the possibility that the suitcase was just there incidentally. I’m happy to concede the above; I think my case still makes more sense than any alternative even with the suitcase weighing against it. III. DNA Evidence Withheld Firstly, the source my opponent provided does not go into detail about the DNA evidence gotten from “blood.” I had not heard about the blood being of another individual, just that DNA from other sources had been found commingling with the blood (see: Beckner, below). There is much doubt as to where this DNA came from. Occam’s Razor requires us to do the opposite of what my opponent suggests; there are many, many explanations for the DNA’s origin, and only one is via direct, physical contact during an invasion. Thus, it makes sense to conclude that, while possible, such an explanation is unlikely. In addition, the DNA in no way exonerates John nor Burke, for, if the DNA came from an unrelated source, the question of the killer is not affected. Only if the DNA is established as being from the killer will any exonerations occur. Beckner, on the possible explanations of the DNA found: “Manufacturing process is one. Interactions with other people is another. Intentional placement is another. Belongs to an intruder is another. Yes, you can often tell where DNA comes from. In this case, it is small enough that it is difficult to tell. CBI thought it was either sweat or saliva.” [1] IV. Media Bias That the media was biased against the Ramseys is no surprise, given how much sense their guilt would make. I feel that the opinion of one judge is not as relevant as my opponent makes it seem; after all, if one is to argue from consensus, my opponent’s claim that the media, police, etc. suspected the Ramseys places the consensus against the intruder theory. V. False "Evidence" Re: Snow, Beckner (he’s a great source) had this to say: “It was patchy from an older snowfall, but there was frost on the ground from the humidity and temperature that night. No footprints were observed near the window well or on the deck to JonBenet's bedroom.” It is clear from this that the conditions were such that it would be very unlikely for no footprints to be left anywhere; once again, Occam’s Razor. Re: Handwriting, When showed Patsy’s own handwriting, both Patsy and John were unable to identify its origin. When held next to the ransom note, the similarities are obvious; regardless of this, both parents flat-out denied any obvious idiosyncrasies. Simply from looking at the handwriting side by side, it seems clear that one cannot rule out Patsy. This point is intuitive and common-sense. [2] VI. Conclusion My opponent points out that all mysteries have, well, mysterious elements. This is true; it is almost never that investigators are able to explain every event, every object, every motive. Some things are unable to be solved, which is why we accept things on probability, rather than wait for absolute certainty. This is exactly what is so unique about this case: most of it is unexplainable regardless of the theory one uses. Some things just refuse to fit into one narrative or another, or, if one element seems at home, another gets knocked out of place. This does not mean that we must remain absolutely agnostic. It is clear that, given the sheer magnitude of very, very vital circumstances which would remain senseless under the theory that a “foreign faction” killed JonBenet, we must believe, strongly, over the alternative, that the murder involved no invader. This is an incredibly intriguing debate; back to Con! [1] http://extras.denverpost.com... [2] Intermittent times: