Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey - Case Study Example

Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey? Case’s Overview In 1996 on Christmas day at around 5:00 am, John Ramsey found his six year old daughter body JonBenet Ramsey lying lifeless in the basement. This was after reporting to the Boulder police and having read a ransom letter where they resulted to a meticulous search in quest of ascertaining his daughter’s whereabouts. The night before her demise, John Ramsey and his wife Patsy had attended a Christmas party where afterwards returned to their residence while the little girl asleep in the car. In the house, they ensured their child was sleeping comfortably in her bed before proceeding to sleep. Morning at around 5.00 a.m Patsy was the first to wake up heading to the kitchen where she found a ransom letter demanding $118,000 (“Crime Investigation Network”). This was in exchange for their daughter if they wished to have her alive because based on the letter she was in the hands of kidnappers. As a result, Patsy yelled calling her husband whereby the entire commotion attracted even neighbors and police though the latter came several minutes later after John had called them through 911 at 5:25 am. After arrival of the police, they found Ramsey’s at advanced stages of seeking money to total the stated ransom from their friends where they waited for one hour but the kidnappers never call to confirm whether that had the money. It is during this time when law enforcement officers made regrettable mistakes that led to this case’s inscrutability that has persisted to date. Police exhibited unprofessionalism by not securing the crime scene immediately but did so fours later. Hence, allowing bystanders, curious neighbors and John while carrying his daughter’s lifeless body from the basement temper with the evidence. Physical evidence showed the victim died out of asphyxiation caused by strangulation, which from nylon cord strapped around her neck and blunt bang on the head. Besides contamination of evidence due to Boulder police’s lack of professionalism in tackling this matter appropriately, media turned it into a complete tragedy leading to unjustified speculations. Due to this case’s initial contamination of evidence, it yielded to various suspects cited to have been responsible for JonBenet’s demise including her parents and the 41 year old John Mark Karr (“Crime Investigation Network”). The latter confessed to have been responsible but after thorough investigations that encompassed DNA tests, keen interrogating by law enforcement officers and forensic studies ruled out these claims. When forensic experts were conducting investigations, they noticed foreign DNA in the victim’s underwear and fingernails. However, this degraded DNA after keen scrutiny neither did it match that of Karr’s nor of her parents’ hence ruling whether the cited suspects were responsible for JonBenet’s death (“Crime Investigation Network”). However, this case’s entities despite torn between “intruder’s theory” and parents being responsible, majority contended the latter were responsible especially the wife based on handwriting (“Crime Investigation Network”). Hence, complicate the case further besides the media turning it into the most famed tragedy, which has ever reported concerning homicide due to its incongruent evidence. Divergence of DNA resemblance with that of Ramseys and Karr cited being responsible in this case, prompted some contend who could have committed the crime was “somebody from outside” (Bellamy & Bardsley). This theory gained support from Ramseys and forensic experts who conducted varied studies that showed clearly lack the former’s involvement. However, media together with other entities hold onto the opinion parents should be held accountable as their child’s molesters and termination. “Somebody from outside” or an “intruder’s theory” support encompasses varied forensic examinations confirming the cited key people did not take part in this misdeed (Bellamy & Bardsley). First indication supporting this claim is the presence of pubic hair on the white blanket wrapping JonBenet’s body (Bellamy & Bardsley). After cuticle analysis of the hair rendered this claim void due to lack of any resemblance with the color of Ramseys’ hairs. Cuticle in this case is responsible for human hair’s color, which is a simple test for comparison before embarking on ascertaining whether there is any resemblance with the claimed suspects in terms of cortex. Cortex is the largest part that comprises shaft of human’s hair and varies across people, which after analyzing differed significantly from those of cited suspects. Consequently, this ruled out whether possibility of JonBenet’s parents being the ones who could have killed their child (Bellamy & Bardsley). This is regardless of the media contending parents’ behavior in time of interrogation insisting of written questions, which the law enforcement experts declined. In addition, unknown traces of semen on the victim’s thighs supporting the assailant might have raped the child either before or after termination did not align with John’s DNA (Bellamy & Bardsley). This is after physical evidence indicated there was an indication of somebody having wiped the victim’s genitals probably after raping her to disrupt any probable efforts of tracing him. Therefore, this questions who could have done that act before killing the child if all those were inside the house after DNA tests theirs could not align with those characterizing semen’s traces on the victim’s thighs (Bellamy & Bardsley). However, further investigations ruled out these claims whether there were any traces of semen on the victim’s thighs because of weak evidence. But some people contended authorities ought to hold parents responsible for chronic virginal injury of the minor though this up to date does not have strong backing because DNA tests failed completely. Forensic tests concerning physical examination of circumstances surrounding JonBenet’s death support intruder’s responsibility. For instance, unidentified palm print found on the wine cellar’s door, which does not resemble those of John, Karr or Patsy (Bellamy & Bardsley). This disqualifies the involvement of child’s parents on the claims they were responsible in that when experts intended to search that section John vehemently objected it. Therefore, it could have been impossible if John was the killer because the found palm print would have aligned with his without any alterations indicating otherwise. In support of this evidence, physical revelations like broken glass under the basement window confirmed the intruder’s both exit and entrance during the crime. Hence, disqualifying numerous people’s claims Ramsays committed the offense whose arbitration has remained pending up to date due to lack of adequate evidence. Arguments in support of this physical revelation together with the palm print claim suppose the killer was one of the Ramsays’ friends he or she would have not used that route. This is because he or she could have used other alleys including open windows, which were then throughout the night remained unclosed (“Crime Investigation Network”). Conclusion In support of findings indicating non-involvement of JonBenet’s parents in this crime, forensic evidence reveals biological connections with varied components found on the victim’s body (“Crime Investigation Network”). Hence, prompting to the avoidance of numerous arguments especially from the public and judicial courts whereby the latter demands concrete facts. This is evident in the case of pubic hair found on the white blanket wrapping JonBenet’s body, which is it were not for forensic tests court have not decided this case citing Ramsays were responsible. In addition, DNA tests of blood found in the child’s underwear and traces of semen differed significantly from those of the parents. Hence, disqualifying any justifiable arguments by people based on logic that Ramsays killed their own children. Forensic evidence regarding palm print has also played a significant role in proving noninvolvement of Ramseys in this murder though some people cite the court ought to hold them responsible for their child’s abuse. Work Cited Bellamy, Patrick & Bardsley, Marilyn. Murder of JonBenet Ramsey: Someone Outside the House. Crime Library. n.d. Web. 7Th February 2014. “JonBenet Ramsey: The Investigation.” Crime Investigation Network. 2013. Web. 7Th February 2014. Read More