Nobody Likes a Sore Loser

Definitive conclusions don’t exist in the Ramsey case. So, it should be no surprise that here we are, four days after the dismissal of the Burke Ramsey vs. CBS defamation lawsuit, and the topic of who won is up for debate. 

I’ve heard it said many times before that the Ramseys are trying to get rich off of their daughter’s death, but I’ve never really subscribed to that notion.  Yes, they like money and have made money after her death, but more than anything else, what the Ramseys love most is saving face. 

In the simple act of filing a lawsuit, they get to shame and temporarily silence their accusers.  Win or lose at the end, controlling the narrative up front has always kept them free. In that respect, they have won. But in terms of this lawsuit, Lin Wood’s and John Ramsey’s post-dismissal demeanor, tells a very different story. It’s certainly in stark contrast to lawsuits from the past.

When Steve Thomas published JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, the Ramseys sued him, his co-author and publisher for libel. Before doing so, they faced him on Larry King, and Patsy taunted Thomas by telling him he would meet his Waterloo.

Despite the aggressive statements about how Thomas would go down, they ended up settling with Thomas in 2002 for an undisclosed amount. Even though Lin Wood victoriously called it a repudiation, Thomas’ book is still available for purchase today.  That’s not exactly winning either.

“They didn’t sue this case under any false impressions, that it would be easy or worth millions,” he said. “They sued this case as a matter of principle.  And win, lose or draw, they were not going to tolerate it.” – Lin Wood, 2002

Interesting to note, in all of the Ramsey’s previous settlements, the news reported an undisclosed amount had been paid. That verbiage has been notably omitted from all the press about the CBS settlement.

In September 2016, when CBS aired The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey, Lin Wood came out with the same ole guns blazing.  He had hissy fits on Twitter, went on TMZ, red-faced, and told everyone that CBS was “immoral”, what they did was “asinine” and that the people involved, despite their extensive years of experience in their fields, were “phony experts”.

He then proceeded to file a whopping 750 million-dollarlawsuit against CBS and others involved in the making of the show. 

According to point 17. in the complaint:  Defendants’ accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was based on a compilation of lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and avoidance of truthful information about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.

In response to this, CBS essentially said, Ok, let’s bring it.

While Burke’s legal team only subpoenaed the Boulder PD for limited records, primarily those pertaining to the bowl of pineapple on the dining room table, on which Burke’s fingerprints were found, CBS came out swinging with their requests.

CBS Request List viathe DailyCamera

This list includes, but is not limited to:

  • all DNA reports and related case communicationsprepared by the Bode Technology forensic laboratory
  • all documents prepared by former Boulder CountyCoroner John Meyer
  • all handwriting analysis
  • all communications relating to the possible useof a stun gun
  • documents relating to fecal matter found smearedon items in JonBenet’s bedroom
  • materials relating to the analysis of otherevidence found in JonBenet’s bedroom
  • reports pertaining to what was found in thechild’s digestive system
  • a flashlight shown in crime scene photos
  • evidence relating to a Hi-Tec bootprint foundnear JonBenet’s body
  • a palm print on a door to the basement room whereJonBenet was found
  • reports and communications relating tolinguistic analyst Don Foster
  • “all case synopses” prepared by thepolice department
  • Subpoena of Alex Hunter (to include everydocument he retained since retiring)
  • Ellis Armistead (former family privateinvestigator who resigned in 2000)
  • Mary Keenan Lacy
  • High Peaks Elementary School (records)
  • Dr. Francesco Beuf (records) – Beuf passed away in 2017

Hunter was vocal about not wanting to testify.  He said, not only because it ruined his vacation plans, but because he was concerned about maintaining privacy for an on-going case. Westword interviewed Lin Wood and asked his opinion about Hunter’s subpoena.

WESTWORDWhatinformation do you believe Alex Hunter has that pertains to the lawsuit?

WOOD:  Based on his (Hunter’s) May, 1999, pressstatement and his October 2000 sworn affidavit (executed one year after the endof the grand jury investigation), whichcleared Burke of any suspicion based on the actual evidence, I am confident that the only informationMr. Hunter could offer in this case would support Burke’s case against CBS.

The responses from both Hunter and Wood are fucking laughable.  It’s like grinning children telling their mom, there’s nothing to see here, while hiding stolen cookies behind their back. Neither one of them ever wanted Hunter involved in any litigation of the Ramseys!

Back in 2000, as Wood was getting ready to do his national tour of sue-the-pants-off-Burke-haters, he concocted a plan to get a sworn affidavit on file from then-DA, Alex Hunter, saying Burke has never been a suspect. It was something he could use for years to come, akin to the Mary Keenan Lacy exoneration letter for the Ramseys.

So, Wood drafted the affidavit and gave it to Hunter who agreed to sign it.  Imagine that – Hunter refuses to sign indictments from a grand jury against John and Patsy, and then agrees to sign a document that aids Burke.  We also have to realize that the affidavit benefited Hunter too.  In most cases, it prevented him, and other DA office staff, from having to provide information about Burke in future civil proceedings.  Again, driving home the point that nobody ever wanted Hunter on the stand.

It is interesting to note that Hunter didn’t sign the document as it was presented to him, he did need to tweak some of Wood’s verbiage.  Instead of outright saying Burke was never a suspect, as Wood suggested, he toned it down a bit – I suppose to be a little less egregious – and said through the course of investigation, Burke had never been elevated from the status of witness to suspect.   Regardless, Wood still runs all over town saying the DA’s office cleared Burke even though that’s not what the document says.

Long story short, Burke was investigated for the murder of JonBenet.  Wood and Hunter know that, obviously, and they’ve done everything in their power over the years to suppress it.

Ultimately, after much legal back and forth this past year, in November, Burke’s team withdrew their subpoena requesting records from the Boulder PD, and that motion was granted by the court.  A sign that Burke was backing down.

From all of the language I’ve read thus far in this outcome, it doesn’t appear that CBS paid anything, or if they did, it was minimal.   As with almost all civil lawsuits, regardless of what the representatives say, neither side ever really wants to go to trial. It’s mainly a legal game of chicken. The fact that John Ramsey’s and Werner Spitz’s cases were also dismissed, without any comment about settlement or money, supports that CBS had the upper hand.

When the case was dismissed with prejudice – meaning it’s closed for good with no chance to re-file – there was no formal announcement, no photo shoots, and no press conference at a microphone like days of past. 

The news simply trickled out to the papers a few days later.   

the suit has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.” – Lin Wood

Wow.  Amicably resolved, no further comments, that’s it.   Doesn’t sound like the usual blustery Lin Wood, does it?

Wasn’t the primary point to put CBS in their place, makethem look scandalous for producing such trash, and in doing so, reiterate Burke’sinnocence?   One would think if Burke had “won” that they’dbe shouting the scandal from the rooftops.  Wood follows it up with awhimpering:

 “After handling many defamation cases for them over the past 20 years, hopefully this is my last defamation case for this fine family” – Lin Wood, Twitter, Jan 4, 2019

 “In my 42 years of law practice, my clients have always felt like winners when a legal dispute is resolved to their satisfaction.” – Lin Wood, Twitter

Well damn, if that doesn’t ring of defeat, I don’t know what does.  Have we ever heard Wood say hopefully this is my last?  And to their satisfaction isn’t exactly dripping with victory.   I’m sure the Ramseys are satisfied, but probably not for the reasons most would assume, or that Wood is hinting at in his generic tweets.

I’m sure the Ramseys are satisifed that Alex Hunter won’t have to leave himself open to questions about affidavits and not signing indictments. I’m sure they’re also happy they won’t have to hear from Ellis Armistead.

Armistead was the Ramsey’s private investigator who was tasked primarily with protecting the Ramsey’s reputation, and not so much with solving the case. An odd task for a paid investigator. Yet, after repeatedly asking the Ramsey’s lawyers to see the case files, and being denied, Armistead became fed up and quit. He was quoted in the Daily Camera, in 2001, saying, “It seemed to become a contest of who could be on television next, and I don’t think that’s where these cases belong. I don’t think that the clients belonged on TV.  To me, it’s nonproductive and took away from the focus of the case.” He voiced his concerns about the bizarre use of PR by the Ramseys to Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, but was ignored. Considering his aversion to PR, I’d be curious to hear what Armistead thinks of Lin Wood.  

The IDIs (Intruder Did It) camp seem to believe that there’s a big kudos due to Burke & company for taking down CBS. But CBS, like most large corporations, has defamation insurance. So potentially paying out a sum of money – and I’ll reiterate, there’s no statement whatsoever that any undisclosed amount has been paid – really isn’t that much skin off their back. The fact that they fought as long as they did, and got team Burke to back down, including withdrawing their subpoena for documents from the Boulder PD, is actually further proof that this battle was always in CBS’s favor.

In the end, nothing has changed since 2016. If you want to watch The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey, here you go, check it out:   Amazon Prime Video.  Nobody is retracting any statements about Burke, nobody is stopping their investigative work, forums aren’t being closed down, authors will continue to write books and no precedents have been set. 

In the introduction of his lawsuit, Burke stated that he sought to redress the permanent damage done to his reputation, but in the end, he quietly bowed out of that fight, has remained in the shadows and amicably resolved the matter with the supposed immoral, phony folks who slandered him on TV.  How that can be considered a win of any sort for team Burke, is truly beyond me.


by Cottonstar & Juror13


“It’s a clue.” – John Ramsey to Barbara Walters, March 2000

For far too long, JonBenet’s pink Barbie nightgown that was found next to the victim spattered with her blood, has been known as an anomaly of sort, a paradox. It has been one of the most ignored pieces of evidence in any theory involving the still unresolved death of JonBenét Ramsey. We have studied the nightgown in search of not only the physical evidence but also the circumstantial.  We have looked at the statements, interviews and depositions over the years to discern what the gown could tell us, if anything.

In her first interview with investigators, Patsy Ramsey said “I am not quite sure this is hers” in the hopes her dismissal of the gown would deem it insignificant.  John’s revulsion of it had a different intent altogether.

 “It looks like it’s a shinier material than I remember.  That looks more like what I kind of remember was on the Barbie doll itself…. God, I can only imagine it.  That, that, was something very perverted.” – John Ramsey to Lou Smit in 1998

Given what we believe, that the Ramseys were equal in their misdirection, the nightgown has been stranded on a moldy wine cellar island with other misfit toys for over two decades.  Partially opened gift boxes from FAO Schwarz, a Batmobile Bicycle with only one working wheel. A fancy set of unwrapped LEGOS with no wrapping paper or card for its new owner.  And a pink Barbie nightgown, all by its lonesome, now without a princess to love it. It’s clinging to JonBenet’s body on the cold cellar floor, like a soldier’s service dog at his casket.

The truth is, each item in the cellar is significant.  Some more so than others. We’ll show you precisely why we believe the Ramseys, in an attempt to evade culpability, were left with no choice but to mislead everyone, not only about the gown, but also the swanky gifts found in the cellar room.


Nedra Paugh’s early declaration to investigators that the pink Barbie nightgown was JonBenet’s favorite clearly put a crimp in John and Patsy’s narrative.  If the nightgown were just a set of every day pajamas and nothing more, then it would have been easy for them to say, yea, JonBenet owned the nightgown and we’re not sure why it’s there.  But a young child’s favorite possession that she dragged around with her everywhere she went, well, that’s an entirely different story with different implications, and Patsy and John had to deal with that.

Don’t let Patsy fool you.  We believe her indifference to the gown was all an act to make you think it wasn’t relevant. However, her bitterly defensive stance tells another story.  There’s no better illustration of that than in this exchange:

HANEY:  When would she have worn that last, do you know?

PATSY:  Well, she didn’t wear it that night because she had her – she had the long underwear pants and her little white shirt.

Do you see it?   Patsy doesn’t answer Haney’s question.  She pauses mid-sentence to carefully consider how she wants to address it.   Her biggest goal is hammering down the point that JonBenet did not wear the nightgown on Christmas night.  Her emphasis on it draws an enormous red flag.  If JonBenet did wear the nightgown then the entire Ramsey story falls apart.

When Patsy’s sister, Pam, spoke publicly about the gown in 1999, she confirmed what Nedra said. JonBenet had an affinity for the gown.

“It is my information that this gown was found in a closet….and yes, she (JonBenet) was fond of it because it had a Barbie picture on the front which looked like her. My mother purchased it here in GA at a local Kmart. I was with her.” – Pam Paugh,1999

The detail about the gown being purchased at Kmart is something that intrigued us, and we wanted to see if we could verify that.  We also wanted to analyze why Pam would say this:

“I am aware of one woman who hated the nightgown, was terribly jealous of Patsy’s life and hated JonBenet’s success… go figure??? The police have been told of this and say it is on NO Concern….yea right.” – Pam Paugh, 1999

The jealous woman Pam is referring to is Priscilla, Fleet White’s wife.

Pam had her own habit of misdirection.  Can you say Santa Bear?   But it wasn’t just simple misleading on her behalf, she was calculating in her attempt to connect the Whites to the crime.  Interesting that she uses the nightgown, this supposed insignificant evidence, to try and achieve that goal.

“Patsy knows how much JonBenet loved that nightie,” said Linda, who’s been notified she’ll be a witness before the Grand Jury. “I did the washing three times a week – and the Barbie nightie was always there.” – Linda Hoffman-Pugh


No matter the pervasiveness of the leaks in this case, some crime scene photos have gone unleaked.  They’ve been locked away, like the 2008 DNA testing of the nightgown and other clothing JonBenet was wearing, courtesy of Mary Lacy.  If we couldn’t get our hands on the crime scene photos of the nightgown, we agreed, we were going to hunt this thing down by other means.  It became imperative for us to see the gown in its entirety.  

So, we set out on a nearly year-long search, becoming Barbie experts along the way, using the photo from the 2016 Daily Camera article as a reference.

Trust us when we tell you, it’s been a maddening, painstaking, process to find and verify the gown.  With that said, we were finally able to hunt and pin down the actual nightgown/design of the pink Barbie nightgown found next to JonBenét’s body.  At first glance, it didn’t look like the bubblegum pink, glared-out, half-tilted picture shown in the Daily Camera. 

However, for the first time we are sharing exactly what JonBenet’s pink Barbie nightgown did look like, and what we believe, JonBenét was wearing the night of her death.

While our research (as of yet) has not revealed exactly who bought the nightgown for JonBenet, we can tell you this, as fact…

  • This nightgown was made exclusively for Macy’s / Bloomingdales and sold in their stores in November of 1995.
  • We also have it from an internal source at Kmart that this is not a Kmart-sold gown.
  • This wasn’t a gown made for a life-sized Barbie doll.

We looked at upwards of a thousand vintage gowns from all over the world.  Among them, we also found many pictures from the 90s of little girls posing proudly in their own Barbie gowns with siblings and friends.  Many of them posing for their pictures on Christmas Day.

In 1995, the FAO Schwarz store in New York City opened a newly designed two-level Barbie boutique and hundreds of other department stores followed suit.   Back then, every girl on the planet wanted to own Barbie gear, and JonBenet was no different.  Can you imagine how JonBenet’s eyes must have lit up when she saw that boutique on Fifth Avenue? Patsy, Pam and Nedra were all there with her to witness it.

It wasn’t just the Kmarts and Walmarts of the world carrying Barbie, the brand crossed over into the luxury market, where Patsy loved to shop.  

From the October 1995 article in Ad Age:

The latest moves are putting Mattel back in a market it has largely given up – high-end department stores.  Boutiques are planned for May Department Stores Co., Carson Pirie Scott & Co., Bloomingdale’s, Filene’s, Kauffman’s, and R.H. Macy & Co. stores.

Little girl-size Barbie nightgowns will be sold alongside adult-priced Nicole Miller silk scarves.

One of the things that helped us to identify her gown was the vintage Barbie logo found on the dress portion of the graphic.  It was consistent with the Barbie collectors campaign mentioned in the article.

If you haven’t put it together yet, you may be wondering the significance.  We have a nightgown that’s been purchased at Macy’s/Bloomingdales alongside other gifts purchased at the same exact stores, just a month prior on a family trip.

Take another look behind the half-torn FAO Schwarz gift boxes and what do you see?  A LEGOS parking garage / ramp system that’s completely unwrapped, which stands out from every other gift in that room.  Why are the LEGOS unwrapped?

We know from Patsy that those LEGOS were Burke’s.

“…lately he (Burke) had taken baths in his father’s bathroom.  She (Patsy) knew for sure, because his LEGOS were always at the bottom of the tub when she drained the water.” – PMPT

“You could make Burke behave by telling him no, she said, but sometimes JonBenet had to be given a “time-out” for doing things such as stomping on Burke’s LEGO creations.” – Suzanne Savage, former Ramsey nanny

“Burke plays downstairs in the living room by the Christmas tree.  He’s trying to assemble a mechanical robot made of the LEGOS he got for Christmas, so I sit down on the floor to help him put it together, but it’s way too complicated for tonight.” – John Ramsey, The Other Side of Suffering

“Yeah, I had some toy I wanted to put together. I remember being downstairs after everyone was kinda in bed and wanted to get this thing out.” – Burke Ramsey on Dr. Phil, 2016

These items in the cellar were gifts from a special trip, purchased for special people, wrapped in special gift wrap, within weeks of JonBenet’s death on Christmas.  So many of these prized and pristine, specialized packages surrounding JonBenet’s body. The mostly white, adorned-with-rocking-horses, gift wrap is instantly recognizable as being from FAO Schwarz.  It’s coveted by kids, just like Tiffany’s blue boxes are by adults.

Who’s most drawn to gifts, like a magnet to metal, on Christmas?  Who would, as a kid, use a flashlight after the lights were out and everyone else is in bed, to become a spy kid; sneaking, peeking, and peeling at wrapped Christmas presents inside their home?

It also deserves stating again – there’s no way the Ramseys used that moldy, decrepit cellar to store any of their valuables.   No, those valuables got there a different way.

“I don’t know why that would be there. I mean that room was usually full of Christmas stuff. It’s a nasty room.  Just you didn’t go in there.” – John Ramsey, 1998


“JonBenet was in the TV room, sitting at a small table, in her nightgown…” – Linda Wilcox, former Ramsey babysitter, talking about JonBenet in August 1995

In the numerous stories shared about JonBenet, it’s clear, she primarily wore nightgowns to bed.  You see it in the photos and videos of Christmases past.  On the random occasions she didn’t, she wore something that was girly and pink.   Perhaps not so ironically, in the measly three photos of Christmas that the Ramseys reportedly took on Christmas day 1996, JonBenet is wearing a long john set, but it’s pink and has lace detail at the shoulders.  They’re pajamas for a girl.

That’s why it’s so hard to rectify the clothing she was found in.  She was in the same shirt she wore out to a party that night, pants that were obviously designed for a boy, underwear that was 6 sizes too big.    It’s a nonsensical scene.  While we assumed for years, after seeing a picture of them, that the long john pants were boy’s, we’ve now received confirmation that they were.

In a summary of the DNA testing from Bode in 2008, in which they tested the waistband of the long johns, it’s noted:

“S6-8 Boys Arctec Long Johns”

Why is JonBenet wearing her brother’s long johns?

We shared in a previous post, The Pink Nightgown Paradox, it’s our belief JonBenet was wearing her nightgown on Christmas night when the attack occurred.  If this is true, that means the long johns, and way-too-big Bloomies were nothing but staging.  If they were staging, and JonBenet was redressed, who was the most likely in the family to choose this nonsensical outfit for redressing?

There are two primary reasons why we believe JonBenet was wearing the gown.  As stated in this post, it was her favorite and she wore nightgowns almost every night.  But second, the cut-outs made by DNA technicians tell an important story.  There are five pieces of fabric cut-out (17 A, B, C, D & E) and they’re spread out across the front.  What that implies is the stains weren’t smears or transfer, instead, they were individual droplets.  The most logical source of droplets on the front of a garment is the nose or mouth.

When the DNA tests came back, it was confirmed the blood belonged solely to JonBenet. However, it was later revealed in subsequent tDNA testing, that Burke and Patsy’s DNA was identified on the shoulders and hem of the nightgown.

DNA testing from January 9, 1997

As far as the GAP silver sequin-star top that JonBenet was found in, it contained two spots that indicated blood (5 A & B).  One is them is visible in the following rare crime scene photo.

The stain appears to be a smear on the bottom left hand corner of the shirt, which could indicate a transfer while re-dressing.   Another critical question to address at a later time – Is there an absence of urine on the bottom of the sequin-star shirt?

8,027 days, or nearly 22 years ago, a girl smitten with her gifts and the magic of Christmas was killed on Christmas night inside her own home.

But, as the world turns and time fades away, there continues to be a foggy, surreptitious snow blanketing the truth of what happened that one cold, silent night. It’s not just this blanket of snowy slush preventing lady justice to speak, but the hush underneath it all.

Shovel off a few layers and one will find miles of mountainous misinformation and misdirection. But, it’s the silence and continued secrecy, mixed with a medley of malfeasance, that continues to hinder the case today.

All opinions and conclusions included in this post are our own and we don’t claim to know the killer of JonBenet. Our goal is to uncover and bring to light the lesser-known truths of this case.

The Pink Nightgown Paradox

by Cottonstar and Juror13

What should we make of the pink Barbie nightgown (12KKY) that was found next to JonBenét’s body in the wine cellar? It’s a piece of evidence that doesn’t fit the scene. It doesn’t belong.

There’s long been what we believe to be a myth that the nightgown is somehow innocently lying next to JonBenét as a random grab from the dryer or a symbol of comfort left by the killer or an accessory who had some sympathy for her.

illustration of JB

There’s no question that at some point during or after the murder, based on her injuries and evidence of wiping, JonBenét’s clothing was removed and possibly changed.  With that in mind, what does a discarded piece of clothing owned by the victim tell us?

We believe it’s a critical piece of evidence that’s long been ignored.  Let’s examine why.

In 2000, Barbara Walters asked the Ramseys about the nightgown in the wine cellar. This is what John had to say:

JOHN: That’s a very strange… that nightgown should not have been there. It’s, it’s, a clue of some type. We don’t know what.

John is right. It is strange. It shouldn’t be there. Perhaps this next bit of info will shed some light on why it is…

In the last days of 1996, DNA tests revealed JonBenét’s pink nightgown had blood stains on it.  Those stains belonged to JonBenét.

nightgown dna

Why does her nightgown that supposedly hadn’t been worn that night, or the night before, have her blood on it?  Furthermore, why is it balled up next to JonBenét at the murder scene?

An even bigger question to ponder… when JonBenét was found, she wasn’t outwardly bleeding from any exposed areas of her body, so when did that blood get on the nightgown?

Now, take that information and ask yourself, if there’s significance to Burke’s tDNA being found on four areas of her nightgown?

clip1clip 2

We mentioned this in our last post.  Burke could NOT be excluded on ALL FOUR of the areas tested on the nightgown.

When John was questioned in 1998, he appears to let a clue slip.

JOHN: I laid her on the bed. I didn’t — I don’t remember the cover, if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up to put her NIGHTGOWN on and get her ready for bed.

Why doesn’t anybody discuss this?  Certainly, Lacy and the Ramseys haven’t for obvious reasons.  But if any third-party DNA was found on the nightgown, such as Karr’s, or the “Unknown Male 1’s”, then you can bet there would have been a press conference the same day.

What we’re looking for is what Kolar refers to as a “nexus of contact”.  He found that in the undigested pineapple in JonBenét’s system and Burke’s fingerprints on the bowl containing the pineapple.   We found it in the blood on her nightgown along with Burke’s skin cells.

Both nexuses between brother and sister occurred, presumably, after the Ramseys returned home on Christmas night.  Isn’t this further evidence of JonBenét being awake after they returned?   A nightgown belonging to JonBenét, with JonBenét’s blood on it, is lying next to her body in the wine cellar with Burke’s tDNA all over it.  Not in one spot or two spots – four spots – on the exterior and interior of the bottom hem, and on the front and back of her right and left shoulder.

We believe JonBenét was wearing the nightgown when she was assaulted on Christmas night.  We theorize the gown was left next to her on purpose but not with the intention of undoing or caring, but rather as a place to dump all blood evidence in the basement.



All opinions and conclusions included in this post are our own and we don’t claim to know the killer of JonBenét.  Our goal is to uncover and bring to light the lesser-known truths of this case.


Is Burke Ramsey a Contributor to the “Unknown Male 1” CODIS Profile?

by Cottonstar and Juror13

A local Boulder journalist, Charlie Brennan, uncovered a DNA report that was unknown to even members of law enforcement which found that although the family was previously excluded, that may not be the case. There is a reasonable chance that what has been attributed to a single individual actually represents DNA from multiple individuals that have been hobbled together into a single profile, but that report had been put aside and very few people knew about it. – from Lawrence Schiller’s Overkill: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét documentary.

We’ve known about the DNA report discovery since 2016, but we’re taking it a step further.  Just like Alex Hunter kept the Ramsey indictments secret with the intention of them never being found out, so too did Mary Lacy with the tDNA results from 2007.  The reason WHY deserves examination.

It’s maddening when you hear Lacy make statements like: “The public assumes they know more based on what they see in the media, and that’s the part that’s personally difficult for me.” – spoken to journalist, Heath Urie in December 2008

The joke of the matter is Lacy deliberately made sure the public didn’t have all the information.  She publicly issued an exoneration letter to the Ramseys without showing us anything to back up her claims that the DNA pointed to a killer, and away from anybody in the family.

She also withheld the tidbit that Burke Ramsey couldn’t be excluded from some of those results.  101-5B bode clip

“Cannot be excluded” means just that – the individual cannot and should not be ruled out as a suspect.  Lacy, a seasoned prosecutor, knows this and yet, we have this…

From Lacy’s letter to John Ramsey in 2008:

“…new scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.”

“The Bode Technology laboratory was able to develop a profile from DNA recovered from the two sides of the long johns.  The previously identified profile from the crotch of the underwear worn by JonBenét at the time of the murder matched the DNA recovered from the long johns at Bode.”

In the chart below, the mixed sample collected (in 1996) from the blood stains on the crotch of JonBenét’s underwear is compared to JonBenét’s and Burke’s DNA, as well as the profile identified as “Unknown Male 1”.  You can see that “Unknown Male 1” is essentially a column for remaining contribution, or what I prefer to call leftover alleles, that don’t match JonBenét’s. The leftover male alleles are how the “Unknown Male 1” came to be. In the comparison below, you can see that Burke’s alleles are consistent with the alleles from the bloodstain sample in 10 out of 13 markers.

Burke and the “Unknown Male 1” have some interesting similarities, don’t they?

Chart 1 revised

More from Lacy’s “exoneration”:

 lonjohns“The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing (the underwear and long johns) worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items.  Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of the murder.”

“Based on the DNA results and our serious consideration of all the other evidence, we are comfortable that the profile now in CODIS is the profile of the perpetrator of this murder.”

Lacy repeatedly and boldly refers to the unknown individual as an individual – one person.  But the DNA summary couldn’t be clearer. “The remaining DNA contribution should not be considered a single source profile.”

longjohns bode conclusion

The bogus “Unknown Male 1” profile has unsurprisingly been sitting in CODIS for more than a decade with zero hits.

So, was the “Unknown Male 1” profile a scam all along?  In other words, was Lacy pointing us one way to prevent us from looking elsewhere?  If she was, Why?

The “Unknown Male 1” has been revealed to be a lie, a myth by design, a farce – it’s never been one person, so we’re not saying the profile is solely Burke.  But…that profile is comprised of real people (plural), and we believe there’s enough information to support that Burke is part of the mix.  More to the point, that his presence is masked by creating a phantom, single person “Unknown Male 1”.

This idea that Burke’s presence at the murder scene is being masked is bolstered when you add in the findings on the pink nightgown.  This also was never publicly revealed until James Kolar revealed it in his book, Foreign Faction.

Burke could also not be excluded as a contributor to ALL four spots that were tested on the pink nightgown found next to JonBenét’s violated body.

Chart 4 revised

It’s interesting that with the advancement of DNA, Mary Lacy became more insistent on ruling out suspects based on whether or not they matched “Unknown Male 1”.  It’s a perfect safety net to protect someone from being tied to the scene, while preventing an innocent person from being convicted (John Mark Karr).

“…this is a DNA case and that the best chance for solving the case will be a hit and match on the DNA in the future.” – Lin Wood, 9News, October 2016

To be clear: Burke Ramsey cannot be excluded as a contributor to the tDNA on the waistband of the long johns that JonBenét was found in. Furthermore, on all four samples tested on the pink Barbie nightgown, including the front and back of the hem area, Burke Ramsey’s tDNA is present.

For more analysis on the pink Barbie nightgown and the evidence it reveals, check out our next post, The Pink Nightgown Paradox.



All opinions and conclusions included in this post are our own and we don’t claim to know the killer of JonBenét.  Our goal is to uncover and bring to light the lesser-known truths of this case.