true crime over the last 100 years or more. It's yeah, wherever. It's quite obvious that there are people who don't look like good suspects who become the actual killer later on. Uh, you know who would have thought Ted Bundy? Who would have thought John Wayne gacey, Who would have thought the b t K killer? These people didn't seem like killers. And Susan Smith, I mean, you can go on and on and on about people who just, you know, they just didn't seem like they would be the killer. And they even have, you know, uh, stories to tell, you know. But then they find out later that they're responsible, and I think it's highly irresponsible, too. Just say, Oh, well, they're going through a hard time because what matters here do do the parents matter? Or does finding justice for a poor six year old who was assaulted in murder manner? I want to talk about some of this intruder evidence because we can't let it go. You can't You can't say, Well, we're just going to cover this and that we need to cover evidence of the intruder because especially early on when Lou Smit gets involved that this is not some disgraced cop. This is a guy who's got a very long respected history, and so you can't just look at him and dismiss them outright. So we have to. We have to kind of go through what he presents as evidence of an intruder. So one of those things is a pubic hair found on the blanket that was on Jon Bonet. Now the trouble with this is when they first find it, they think it's a pubic hair. As time goes on, they get better testing methods and they end up finding out. It's an axillary hair, which is a body hair, as you would put it, and they can actually run mitochondrial tests now. When they first used this as evidence of an intruder, they say, well, it was probably a pubic hair from the intruder. Well, after they are able to run these mitochondrial DNA tests, they find out that well, you can't exclude Patsy Ramsey or any female in her lineage. Interesting. And it's a body hair. So it didn't come from Jean been a. She's a six year old. No, so doesn't leave too many other people. No There are also some unknown latent prints found downstairs because, as we said, she's found in the wine cellar. There are prints found in the room on the frame of the door. These prints are later identified as belonging to a couple of them belong to Patsy Ramsey, and another one belongs to John. Well, they live in the house. Yeah, exactly. It's it's It's hard when you live there. Your D N A. Your fingerprints are gonna be, should be over all over everything. Yeah, it should be all over everything, and we'll get to that. Um, there's a high tech boot print now. It's not a full print. From what I understand, it's It's mostly the Poon, which is the area between the front and and the hell of the foot where they put the logo. And they tried to track down who went to the house that day that had high tech boots. Now, one of those people that they were able to track down was Ron Walker, and he was with the FBI. He was a supervisor. He had high tech boots. Well, the thing about this is from what is left of the print on the floor. There are no wear marks on this boot. It's pretty new looking tread. That's the best way to put it is it's new tread. So it's a new boot. They did discover, but in their investigation that Patsy Ramsey had purchased hi tec boots for Burke. But they never able to find them in the house. Interesting. Bought them within, I believe, uh, a short time prior to the murder. So within a month, and they hadn't traveled to any other other homes or anything, I mean, this was their primary home. Well, they were very well to do so he might have had many pairs of footwear, so I'm saying if he wore the boots to another house or another location and then left him there, But it doesn't appear that that was the case. They should have been at the primary residence, right? They should have been in Colorado. So in other words, the boot print doesn't necessarily mean that was an intruder, is what I guess I'm trying to get at. In terms of the evidence, I'd say some of the biggest evidence here is the fiber evidence. Uh, now it took them a long time to procure the clothing worn by the parents that night because the detectives couldn't get cooperation from their own superiors on this and they didn't want to bother. The Ramseys is basically what they're being told, and so after quite a while, they were able to get those items. But what's odd is is one of the pieces of evidence that they wanted was. They knew she had worn a jacket that was pretty distinct, and it was a black and red essentials brand jacket. And when they finally got that, it had looked either as if she had handed them a brand new one, or it had been professionally pressed and clean, dry, clean. What they did do, though, is they started examining the fibers from that jacket because there were lots of fibers all over the ligatures. The sticky side of the duct tape, the paint tray that was located near the door of the room she was found in and the actual wine cellar floor that she was found on. And when they examine these fibers, they're a perfect match in every way you can think of to the fibers from the jacket again. You can make the argument that they live there. You can make the argument that she could have been wearing the jacket, but I don't think the wine cellar is somewhere. She would have gone any time in the recent days or weeks leading up to this event and the fact that the fibers from the jacket were found on not the murder weapon, but a utensil used in the crime and on the tape that was on JonBenet's mouth. Right, So we have to go over this a bit. But keep in mind when they talk to the Ramseys. The Ramseys ended up wearing what they were that night when they were talking to the police. So it's kind of odd. It's like, Did you just remain in those clothes all night or what happened there? You know, if you went to bed and so you kind of have to wonder about the real timeline of what was going on, but that just kind of leads to if they're wearing the same clothes from the night before, somebody could say, Well, that's how the fibers got on. John Boehner is She was wearing those things, but at the same time, why are they wearing the same clothes? If they went to bed, well, there's a question of transfer. So there were a lot of fibers found on the sticky part of the duct tape. Now what they did was they took this this jacket and they did a test with duct tape where they had the blanket to, and what they do is they use the duct tape with the blanket in terms of a transfer or a transfer from the jacket to the duct tape. Now, in the case of the blanket, hardly any fibers came off from the blanket onto the duct tape. And this is relevant because they brought her body upstairs that morning, placed her down and put the blanket on her. So that's where she would have picked up the fibers. Well, how she was handled. There's a blanket, and then we'll and then Patsy fell down over her daughter. I was expressing grief over her daughter, so they wondered if there was transfer that way. That doesn't explain the fibers in the wine cellar, on the ligature, other places or on the duct tape. Because the duct tape had been pulled off by John, he says. He pulled it off and dropped it there. So if he pulled it off and dropped it in the cellar, there shouldn't be any fibers from the jacket. No, it's well, it's really, really strange. Um, JonBenet had been already attacked and probably killed when the duct tape went over her face because there was mucus from her nose. They came down over her lips and when the duct tape was placed over it, and then there was no impression from her tongue coming out while she's being around. There was nothing like that on her unconscious at the time the tape was applied, never, never regained consciousness because she never her. Usually, if someone has duct taped, their tongue will come out and affect the tape, and it never did. So that's that's a questionable thing. Another, another strange and consistency is they did test because when Fleet White opened up that wine cellar door originally, he couldn't find a light switch, and it was dark in there. She was in there at that time, supposedly, yeah, because that was the the initial searches. They didn't find her. Yeah, and so he looked in there and didn't see any things. We closed it back up. But when John went, he opened the door and he saw her immediately, which seems impossible. And they did test on this, and it didn't seem like you would be able to see her in the room for where he was standing with no light in there. So it's It's almost like the note where Patsy knew how the note ended, even though she said she didn't read the whole thing and John knew his daughter was in there. When how could he have known he couldn't see her? What it's called is prior knowledge. Like you, These people are intelligent people. They have to be. But you can't do the perfect crime. You just can't orchestrate it without any errors. So if you look at this as it was, an inside job, these are totally red flags. These are wow. Well, how would he? How would he see her all the way across? You know, into the wine cellar if he had the door open, but there was no light inside. It's too dark. It's like Mary Bell. She knew exactly where that second child was, but we should say they found DNA. What's interesting is that they didn't find a lot of DNA. Now they found up to six different profiles. But when you go to submit DNA to databases, there are requirements because you need to be able to exclude people. And so you and I, we can have our d n a tested, and some of our markers could have the same numbers. So let's say you have a marker and then that number on that markers. 17. Well, my mark, my same marker might be 17 to, but if we compare 12 of our markers, most of them are gonna be different. But the less markers you have to compare, that's when you start getting into what's known as partial profiles. Partial profiles usually happen because it's degraded. D n A. It's old d n A. That's been around a while. Fresh D N. A. Is full profile. You'll have lots of markers. You'll be able to easily include or exclude people. Given the fact that she had been assaulted and strangled, uh, and bludgeoned, you would think that there would be a full profile somewhere. I mean, they look for DNA under her fingernails, um, on her body and her clothes. Um, to give you an idea. They found DNA. The best DNA they found was in her underwear, and it had 10 markers. The rest of them had less than that. So 10 markers was the best. It was not quite enough, but it's still DNA. They know it was male, but they don't since it's not a full profile. They don't know what kind of DNA it is. They don't know if it's skin or if it's saliva, or if it's blood, or if it seemed they just don't know, because it's not good enough. So you can only draw the conclusion of, Well, we have DNA, but we don't know what to do with it. Uh, they did buy some underwear like that, and they tested it and found D N a partial profile d n a. And it as well from brand new brand new in the package. Because the factory workers leave DNA when they're making the clothing, they make it overseas and, you know, in Indonesia, Vietnam or China or wherever. But the district attorney in Boulder says this DNA profile on the underwear has to be. The murder has to be the killer. And on July 2000 and eight, she releases a statement saying, We've cleared the family in this murder. Their DNA does not match, and a lot of people that that's all they needed to hear was the DNA doesn't match. So it's not the family. And even if the DNA does match, they say, Well, they live there. So of course, their DNA would be on there. So this rogue DNA profile, they say it excludes people from being the murderer. But that's not exactly how DNA works. You know, that's we don't know if this DNA profile was from the perpetrator of the crime or if it was just DNA that was left on the clothing. So for this District attorney Lacey, to make this announcement, I don't know. I mean, it was I would think that they know what they're doing, right? So, no, in fact, Mary Lacy, who made that statement, she she instructed investigators as the investigation went on to leave the family alone, essentially so she didn't want them being pressed. So this is kind of a politics thing. It's a political thing. She wants them left alone, and she figures if she gets public support for the family this way, she can create sort of a buffer where, you know, you already have the family hiring lawyers and saying we won't work with the Boulder Police Department so they're already ostracised then they're being ostracized by their own leadership. So it's designed. This is a designed to keep people away from the Ramsey family. Wasn't there to investigators that we're trying to essentially just vet the family and they were pulled from the case. Yeah, you. There's no way that that you could continue to investigate this family and stay on board. It's just not going to work out. Uh, now, things have changed in Boulder now, but for a long time that was the case. If you we're investigating the family and you presented evidence, uh, to give you another example of Mary Lacy's failings is she and Alexander both said that the grand jury that was convened didn't return in an indictment, and as we've learned now, they sure as hell did, and they knew that they lied. They lied openly to everyone in the media, So why wouldn't they lie about the d n? A. So that they this? This went to a grand jury and the jurors move to indict the parents. And they did not go through with this. And they did They what? They just abandoned the trial before it finished. Or did they just declared a mistrial? How did they get around this? Well, uh, what happened was Alex Hunter just chose not to sign off on it. Now. He did say before he found out what they chose to do that he didn't feel there was enough evidence. Now I think here's the point where we can say something if for anyone who's sitting there going Oh, you guys are horrible, You keep blaming the parents. Sure, I'm gonna come out and say it. I think something happened within that household. I think when you look at all of the evidence, the people who are for the intruder theory, almost every bit of evidence they used from the beginning has been debunked. There's just not enough evidence for the intruder theory to stand up when you build these little mountains, these little ant hills, the ant hill against the intruder theory. That one's big, but it's still just a lot of circumstantial evidence so we don't have video of the murder. We have large numbers of inconsistent statements. We have fiber evidence. We have a body that when they examined it were surprised by the lack.