But why? Why blame a pedo? Seriously, let’s say Burke hit JonBenet over the head and it killed her. Why strangle her? Why make it look like an intruder? Why not make it look like she fell down the stairs? Why not make it look like MORE of an accident if it were an accident? And if it was Burke’s murder, why not make…

It’s IN THE AUTOPSY REPORT: http://lubbockonline.com/news/021597/autopsy.htm

I mean frankly, the idea that the parents covered up an accidental death is absurd to start with. Most parents in that situation call 911.

Yes she was. The autopsy showed evidence of rape with an object, instead of a penis. Her hymen was torn, there was internal and external vaginal bruising and bleeding, all consistent with sexual assault. There was no sperm or seminal fluid. There was trace DNA from what may have been saliva. But she was absolutely…

He also talks about the case in “The Cases That Haunt Us” if you haven’t read that one. I don’t think I’ve read “Law and Disorder,” but I’ve read (and own) all his other books. There was a point in my life where being a profiler was all I wanted to do.

And also, the theory of any family member doing it is that the head wound came first and that’s pretty hard to believe because it didn’t bleed:

It was the footprints in the snow that was the false story they leaked, not the lack of. The lack of was the truth.

And the reason the DA chose not to press charges was because they couldn’t legally charge a 9-year-old.

They’re so young and uncontoured.

Justin Bieber trampled on a bunch of Icelandic moss and no one is very pleased with him.

I mean I believe both that a child would kill a child, and that parents can and have done unspeakable things to their kids (even in the service of another kid), but like... in this case, the evidence doesn’t point that way. It points the other way.

I can’t. Maybe it was someone the family knew. Maybe it was someone who broke in, killed JonBenet, then wanted to buy themselves time in escaping/having the police called so they wrote a ransom note. Maybe they knew the police would treat the investigation differently if it was a kidnapping instead of a disappearance…

I feel broken record-y but I’ll keep doing it.

I’m happy to keep repeating this: Matching DNA was found in JonBenet’s underwear, under her fingernails and on the waistband of her leggings.

I’ll reiterate: The same DNA was found inside her underwear, under her fingernails and on her leggings. I’ll try again, since people don’t seem to be reading: The same DNA was found inside her underwear, under her fingernails and on the waistband of her leggings.

Here is Lou Smit entering the basement window as the intruder could have/probably did:

There was no snow. From the court documents: “contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of a “footprint in the snow,” there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to defendants’ home on the morning of December 26, 1996. (SMF P 139; PSMF P 139.) Hence, a person…

Well, it certainly would have been hard to get the DNA inside her underwear and under her fingernails just by picking her up and carrying her somewhere. Seriously.

Yes. There was evidence of sexual assault but not of “traditional” rape, which means she was likely raped with an object (part of the broken paintbrush used for the garrote, it’s been theorized) but not a penis. No fluids, no semen, no DNA, but evidence of penetration.

...No?