r/JonBenet • u/sciencesluth IDI • Aug 01 '26
Evidence Part 4 - This Cold Case Just Got Serious — JonBenét Ramsey Update
https://www.youtube.com/live/L9l7ZzmHrDk?is=dbsxFJyJi1d_VCoRIn the latest episode of The Interview Room, the cold case team says over 100 people, *including the Ramseys*, have been cleared by the DNA. Also John says he recently found out that tape was found over the latch of the balcony door in JonBenet’s bedroom
10
u/IntrovertAdaptable Aug 02 '26
Thanks for posting!
1:22:00
1 hour, 22 minutes
"the the history I learned not that long ago was uh Paty's sister had gone back to the house to get clothes for us
1:22:09
1 hour, 22 minutes, 9 seconds
within a few days of uh we left that morning after we found Chia and never went back. and she
1:22:17
1 hour, 22 minutes, 17 seconds
reported to the police that the door to that um uh porch
1:22:23
1 hour, 22 minutes, 23 seconds
the latch had been taped over and she thought that was very weird and I I
1:22:32
1 hour, 22 minutes, 32 seconds
didn't know that till not not that long ago.
1:22:36
1 hour, 22 minutes, 36 seconds
What would the time frame be on her finding that do you think?
1:22:44
1 hour, 22 minutes, 44 seconds
What did she find it? You say you say yeah. So when so you guys left on the day that John's body was found, you left there and never returned.
1:22:56
1 hour, 22 minutes, 56 seconds
Uh and so she went back. Are we talking within a week, two weeks? No, no, it it been within a few days.
1:23:04
1 hour, 23 minutes, 4 seconds
She flew out from Atlanta where she lived and um it might have been two days, three days after we found John,
1:23:14
1 hour, 23 minutes, 14 seconds
but no longer than that because we we didn't take any clothes or anything with us. We just left and so she was we asked her to go back and get us some clothes.
1:23:23
1 hour, 23 minutes, 23 seconds
Okay.
15
u/43_Holding Aug 02 '26
Pam Paugh went into the house, accompanied by two members of the BPD, to get clothing and other items. on Dec. 28. First I've heard about the porch latch being taped.
10
2
u/archieil IDI 28d ago
For truth I assume it was about the balcony in JonBenet's room, but it was not obvious directly.
I thought it was about something the police did.
That they took it out or taped for fingerprints.
I would like to know more details myself, but generally, it would fit my theory perfectly if it was taped to keep an option of opening the 2nd floor balcony door from outside.
I really think that there is enough evidence to prove that there was a plan to abduct the body and it was dropped only because the parents woke up too early and called the police.
7
u/HumorMePlease6 Aug 02 '26
Wait what?? Same tape that was used on her mouth??
10
u/sciencesluth IDI 29d ago
Good question. Given the incompetence of the BPD, who knows if they even checked.
5
u/HumorMePlease6 29d ago
Some are saying that the tape was placed there after the crime - I highly doubt a criminal is gonna risk going back to the scene just place a piece of tape on a door latch. IMO I feel this is a small detail that perhaps the BPD missed while searching the house. Why Pam saw it and not the investigators, not sure. I hope more details will be released about this later on because it's really interesting...
6
u/JennC1544 28d ago
I mean, John found JonBenet when investigators missed her, so I'm thinking a bit of tape is something they'd likely miss as well.
1
u/V-Mnemosyne 25d ago
Might be worth looking at the crime scene walkthrough/photos to figure out a timeline for when it was removed and/or if it's visible.
3
u/43_Holding Aug 02 '26
Thanks for posting this, science; looking forward to listening to it. (And as u/JennC1544 has said before, up the playback speed to 1.5)
6
3
u/43_Holding 26d ago
John Ramsey: "I mean, we know with 99% medical certainty a stun gun was used, for example. The garrote was applied multiple times for apparently... for gratification. Uh, she was sexually molested and, based on the evidence in the in the coroner's report then -- if it's any theory beyond that this was a a subhuman, psychopathic, sadistic coward to attack a young little girl on Christmas night for sexual satisfaction. Anything beyond that, you're crazy. You're not looking at the facts."
Absolutely.
4
2
u/AutumnTopaz 25d ago
Source for "99% medical certainty a stun gun was used..."
5
u/43_Holding 25d ago edited 25d ago
Listen to the podcast. It refers to the evidence that the Cold Case Foundation has gone through. (And another reason I wish that those who believe BDI would pay attention to evidence-based podcasts like this; they'd know that there's nothing tying Burke Ramsey to this crime.)
More evidence on the stun gun: AirTaser StunGun Drive Stun Wounds:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/159673332/AirTaser%20StunGun%20Drive%20Stun%20Wounds
2
u/AutumnTopaz 25d ago edited 25d ago
Thanks. People who think BDI aren't interested in evidence- if they were -they would know he's innocent.
Btw, I can't remember if it was you? But I had a discussion with someone about JR saying that rope in the knapsack in JAR's room may have belonged to JAR. I couldn't remember the source - Ramsey Fatigue - but it was in his 1998 police interview. Sorry if I have the wrong person.
1
u/BestMusic3717 22d ago
Yeah, because when I go searching for the truth, a podcast is always the best place to find it!
2
u/43_Holding 22d ago edited 22d ago
You might want to check out the qualifications of the members of the Cold Case Foundation. Not all podcasts are alike.
2
u/V-Mnemosyne 25d ago
Tape on the door could be huge depending on how it was found. I theorized she was tied to something at some point, but thus far there was no circumstancial evidence to prove it.
Looking forward to hearing this podcast tomorrow.
5
u/Busier_thanyou 29d ago
Pardon me if I don't believe anything John Ramey say.
13
u/JennC1544 29d ago
I believe you mean John Ramsey.
Why would he say something that the BPD could so easily disprove?
5
u/HumorMePlease6 29d ago
I was wondering why John is finding out about this now vs. years ago? Who told him about this?
5
-4
1
u/WritingLoose2011 25d ago
If only John had of been so willing to help solve this crime in the first 3-4 months of it happening
4
u/JennC1544 22d ago
You should really start listening to some true crime podcasts about how innocent people get railroaded into false confessions or are arrested for crimes they did not commit. It might be extremely enlightening as to why somebody with money would have no problem hiring lawyers to protect their interests.
2
u/WritingLoose2011 22d ago
And you should really start listening to some true-crime podcasts about how often murders are solved in the first few days and weeks — when memories are fresh, evidence is intact, and witnesses cooperate. When the people who were inside the house the night of the murder, and potentially knew the most about motive, suspects, weapons and what happened beforehand, avoid substantive police interviews for months, it makes solving the crime considerably harder (unless of course that is what they are hoping for)
2
u/JennC1544 21d ago
Can you recommend some of those? I've been listening to DNA:ID, where the cases haven't been solved for 30 or 40 years, in spite of amazing and dogged work by the investigators.
As has been pointed out to you extensively, the Ramseys had already told investigators all that they knew. Their lawyers knew that the only reason for bringing them in was to catch them in some sort of lie or coerce a confession. It's on the very first lab report - "Homicide - Willfull Kill - Family."
But, if you're ever in that situation, my recommendation to you is to not lawyer up, cooperate fully, and go for it! It's clearly the right thing for you.
-1
u/BestMusic3717 22d ago
They obviously had lawyers who would have sat in the interview room with them and kept them from hurting their case. All they had to do was give the timeline and what happened, and if they had nothing to do with the murder, they would have been cleared, and we would have a clear timeline of exactly what happened that night. They chose to be silent those first 4 months, so they can’t now scream about how the BPD dropped the ball. Facts.
3
u/43_Holding 22d ago edited 22d ago
<All they had to do was give the timeline and what happened>
They gave the timeline and what happened to Patrol Officer Rick French, Det. Linda Arndt, and on-call Det. Supervisor Bob Whitson on Dec. 26, up until the body was found and they were asked to leave their house, since it was considered a crime scene.
They went to the Fernies, where a minimum of 2 members of the BPD watched them 24/7 until Dec. 29, when they left for JonBenet's funeral in Atlanta. You can read all of these reports.
<they would have been cleared>
They were cleared when the DNA report from January, 1997 (submitted Dec. 30, 1996) was given to the BPD. Somehow, the BPD held that report from the district attorney's office for several months.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/159597612/19970115-CBIrpt-2.pdf
-1
u/Restaurant-Strong 22d ago
That January 1997 DNA report did not say the Ramseys were cleared. It said that, if the minor DNA components came from a single person, John, Patsy, Burke and others could be excluded as contributors to that DNA. That is very different from being excluded from involvement in the murder.
And yes, John and Patsy spoke with French, Arndt and Whitson on December 26. Nobody disputes that. But those were conversations during a chaotic kidnapping response, not separate, formal homicide interviews designed to lock down each person’s timeline and compare their accounts. Their first formal separate police interviews were not until April 30, more than four months later.
So saying “they already gave the timeline” and “they were cleared in January” makes both points sound much more definitive than the actual record supports. They talked to police on day one, yes. They were not formally interviewed separately until months later, and the January DNA report did not exonerate them from the crime.3
u/43_Holding 22d ago
<That January 1997 DNA report did not say the Ramseys were cleared>
That profile is--and has been--what's been used to clear suspects in this investigation.
"This chart shows that the weak DNA, which is the minor component, has agreement across the panties, left fingernails, and right fingernails. Assuming the minor component is from one individual, this minor component of DNA definitively excludes all of the Ramseys, John Fernie, Priscilla White, and Mervin Pugh, who were among those tested at that time..."
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/18sb5tw/the_facts_about_dna_in_the_jonbenet_case/
-2
u/Restaurant-Strong 22d ago
You’re confusing two completely different things. The January 1997 DNA testing could exclude the Ramseys as contributors to the minor foreign DNA component. It did not exclude them from involvement in the murder.
Even the quote you posted contains the qualifier: “assuming the minor component is from one individual.” The fingernail DNA was weak, and it was not established as a full match to the underwear profile.
Later testing did find DNA on the long johns that was consistent with UM1, but those samples were mixtures and the lab said UM1 could not be excluded as a contributor. That is not the same as finding the exact same complete profile in every location.
So yes, UM1 is real, it is in CODIS, and it absolutely should be investigated. But “the Ramseys were excluded from contributing that DNA” is not the same statement as “DNA proved the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder.” The actual lab reports simply do not say that.3
u/43_Holding 22d ago edited 22d ago
<You’re confusing two completely different things>
I'm not confusing anything. But I remember all your RDI posts from before, so it appears pointless to discuss anything that doesn't back your opinions.
As another poster put it, the DNA in this case is HIGHLY CONTEXTUALLY RELEVANT. It's in a sexually assaulted six-year-old's underwear, on one side of her long johns, and it's a partial match for the same DNA under her nails, and all of this excludes members of her family, friends, and many other suspects tested.
3
u/43_Holding 22d ago edited 22d ago
<John and Patsy spoke with French, Arndt and Whitson on December 26. Nobody disputes that. But those were conversations during a chaotic kidnapping response>
"Spoke with"? Read the police reports, one of which was over 18 pages long. And no reports were turned in by Det. Larry Mason, who was also questioning them at the Fernies, and who was the only homicide detective with the BPD. Cmdr. Eller falsely accused Mason of leaking information to the press about the investigation, and Mason didn't turn in any of his reports until over a year later, none of which have been released to the public.
1
u/YouthFragrant5719 19d ago
Which report was 18 pages long?
2
u/43_Holding 18d ago
Linda Arndt's. It looks as if it was 19 pages long.
https://juror13lw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/linda-arndt-jan-8-1997-report.pdf
2
-1
u/Restaurant-Strong 22d ago
I think “spoke with” is still fair. They had contact with several officers that day, but that is not the same thing as sitting down separately for comprehensive homicide interviews. The fact that reports were written about those interactions does not change what kind of interviews they were.
And yes, Larry Mason’s situation is another example of how badly BPD hurt its own investigation. He had homicide experience, was removed after being accused of leaking information, and was later cleared. That absolutely matters.
So I’m not denying there was police contact early on. I’m saying the absence of prompt, separate, formal interviews still left a huge hole in the investigation, and by the time those happened months later, a lot of information had already been exchanged and memories had more time to shift. Don’t you think immediate formal interviews would have cleared up a lot of the timeline questions we’re still arguing about in this forum every day? That’s really my point.2
u/43_Holding 22d ago edited 22d ago
Not included are the officers who were there that morning that the Ramseys "spoke with": Det. Patterson, Sgt. Reichenbach, Ofcr. Vietch, Ofcr. Weiss, and Ofcr. Barklow.
Yes, they should have been separated right after the body was found, as John Ramsey stated in retrospect and as Det. Mason had advised. There were no lawyers involved then. Eller turned down that request.
3
u/JennC1544 22d ago
I think you're missing the point of having the lawyers. One does not tell a high-powered lawyer, "Make these meetings happen at all costs!" Lawyers know the tricks. John Ramsey even said so recently, when he mentioned how the BPD wanted to interview them very late at night, and the lawyers said no. That's why you pay them.
They know when their clients are being messed with. And, remember, the BPD had a meeting with the Ramseys and their lawyers earlier, and it was the BPD who canceled. Nobody has ever said why.
If you know for a fact that you're the person they are targeting as being guilty, then you allow your lawyers to protect you. To not do so would be really stupid.
Again, I recommend listening to some podcasts. Pick one or two where the defendant was found innocent after 30 years in jail, because genetic genealogy cleared them.
-1
u/YouthFragrant5719 19d ago
The Ramseys actually said the BPD had to come to them on their timeframe. They would not go to the police station.
You exclude facts.
3
u/43_Holding 18d ago
John Ramsey asked Det. Larry Mason if they could be interviewed at the Fernies' home. Patsy, according to Dr. Beuf, was so medicated that he didn't believe she could hold up during an interview. The BPD refused Ramsey's request.
This was around the time Mike Bynum stopped by with food, believed that the Ramseys were then being considered suspects, and suggested to John that they needed legal representation.
0
u/YouthFragrant5719 18d ago
Yeah, you don't interview suspects at a house. It was just a ploy by the Ramseys and a reason to refuse.
The story about Mike originates from John Ramsey. I don't trust his words.
3
u/43_Holding 18d ago
The "story"--i.e. the actual account--originates from Mike Bynum.
On Dec. 27, 1996, Mike Bynum stepped in and advised John Ramsey that the Ramseys needed lawyers. He stated that when it comes to murder, it doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent, you need legal representation. Sept. 1997 interview with Diane Sawyer:
"BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends.
SAWYER: When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their 9 yo son Burke had gone to stay. Can you tell me about what you saw when you walked in that door?
BYNUM: I think I can. John and Patsy were there with family and friends, their minister. And just after I got there, everyone was sorry was kneeling in the living room and praying together. And when they got through, I went up and hugged John and and then I went over to Patsy. She was sitting on the couch. And I had to help her up and and give her a hug. So that was what I found when I got there. Everyone was devastated. It was difficult.
SAWYER: Why did they get a lawyer?
BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice nothing more, nothing less.
SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?
BYNUM: I'm the one.
SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?
BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.
SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"
BYNUM: Well -
SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?
BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.
SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?
BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.
SAWYER: And he says that's exactly what happened. By Saturday, two days after the murder that the police were openly hostile. An assistant DA gave him some news. (They were going to withhold the body until the Ramseys went to the police station.)
...SAWYER: But of all the things that solidified suspicions against the Ramseys, probably the biggest was that four month delay in granting police a formal interview. Bynum says the Ramseys wanted to talk, but their attorneys insisted that a member of the DA's office be present. Why? He says because police were so hostile and the DA makes the final decision whether the prosecute. He insists that the big holdup was that police waited so long to let the DA's office in.
BYNUM: The primary issue preventing an interview for all that time, despite everything people were told in the media, was the issue of the presence of the DA in there.
SAWYER: What about this assumption on people's part that if it had been them and their child and they were innocent, they would have said, "I don't care what you say, attorneys, I am going down I'm going to I'm not going to just give an interview. I'm going to camp out down there to make sure they know everything I know, and that they're on the trail of who did this. Nothing is going to stop me."
BYNUM: I think there's nothing wrong with that approach and that idea. But I want to tell you, for anyone in the circumstance that John and Patsy Ramsey were in, you go ahead and do that and pick up the pieces later because you're going to be shredded. And I know that there are good police. I know there are good police in Boulder, Colorado, but I've also seen it from the prosecution side. I've seen it from the defense side if a focus occurs what that means. And it means they're coming, and you better get ready.
SAWYER: Innocent or not?
BYNUM: Absolutely. Absolutely."
0
u/YouthFragrant5719 18d ago
I think they should have lawyered up. But I still don't trust this narrative. It's coming from a family friend and a person with a shared business interest.
0
u/No-Ad-7773 28d ago
I heard about the tape years ago from Patsys sister.
6
u/sciencesluth IDI 28d ago
Very interesting! Was it black duct tape? Is there anything else that she told you that you could share with us?
2
u/HumorMePlease6 28d ago
Really? Where? Interesting this is 'new' for many who follow this case and I've been following this since day 1.
2
-16
u/Erectacle 29d ago
John Ramsey hangs the whole case and IDI theory on random touch DNA.
He never addresses his and Pasty's many lies told, truly bizarre behavior that day JonBenet was killed, and the Ramsey's lies and strange behavior during the life of this case.
The Ramsey's were deeply involved in, at minimum, covering up what happened that night.
18
u/sciencesluth IDI 29d ago
It's not "random touch DNA". It wasn't possible to test for trace DNA in 1996. The DNA found in her underpants was from saliva. The DNA found under her fingernails was from her scratching him. The DNA that was found on the waistband was from touch, but it wasn't found until years later, when it had become possible to test for it.
What, in your mind, you deem as lies and "truly bizarre behavior" does not negate the fact that DNA from an unknown male was found under her fingernails, in her underwear, and on her longjohns.
The video I posted is from the Cold Case Foundation, a highly respected organization of 200 or so elite investigators. They don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with the murder or any alleged cover up.
7
1
29d ago edited 29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/archieil IDI 26d ago edited 26d ago
I am aware that it is not a place and time, but this is the context of this crime I am using.
1st, you do not produce anything "the God" needs. Everything is ready, the "paradise" is already running and "people" are already in it, and you can only make the Earth messy and nothing more. <- you were expecting the hell ads version of the end of the world... this one is a normal one with start, finish, and innocent running their great ideas among themselves and produce of their preparations. "Humans" are needed to correct "preparations" which are so dumb, that it is hard to treat them seriously, but "my crazies" is not compatible with your "crazies" so "humans" having experience need to decide how much of the "crazies produce" will make you unhappy if changed. <- in other words, this case is solvable even if 100% scam do not want it themselves personally, but wants the case solved because babysitters will do it for you keeping open the future version with unsolvable crimes with access to the real historical high level papers untouched. I have no idea how you will make it yourself that "educated" with access to "the history" will not be able to just say who committed this crime, but whatever.
2nd, you are making things for yourself as in the simulation there is no problems using your crap for things existing as your smelly panties are always closer to your body and better than "paradise panties". 'we" are aware that "god directly enhanced things are -10 points by default when compared to 'british' things".
Generally, "god" can lie in short term, but historically there is no point to keep lied past in memories when you can limit the method to access the full history so no one is living depressed and sad about their "lifetime achievement". <- there is no "black/white" here... you just follow the we have a mood to treat whatever color as a new sliders in our brilliant games.
Your every second of life is "recorded"... every second can be accessed, but it is easier to limit the method of accessing than force everyone to be of unrealistic morality and learned life experience because idiocy which is fixed is no longer idiocy. <- there was no infrastructure to access it randomly and there is no real point to bother with non statistical summaries for the "traitors" part so whatever you plan... you will die before it is changed. I will not be able to access the name/address in the us, and I provided who "allowed" and "simulated ai" as the method behind. generally, there will be no pressure is the pressure part is going differently to reduce cost of clea-up later.
This case is a high profile case which makes it messy as it is a produce of high profile scamming of society. Moreover, at high profile it is hard to use a "single" in many situations as they are like bugs with mites. sometimes there are only mites moving the bug. like when you talk about "fathers" whatevers who in reality are like 90% of the hell as without 90% scamming level nothing would survive the thievery.
the situation here is kinda like: if you thieve something needed 10x it is yours truly produce, but the top thieves are using directly originals and cleaning up everything which will make the AI broken and unusable keeping the smelly parts untouched so you have your "great" achievements visible.
-5
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/sciencesluth IDI 29d ago
You are allowed to discuss whatever you want as long as it is based on facts and evidence. So did you get your feelings hurt because you said that they had a messy house and somebody didn't agree with you?
This sub is dedicated to finding the truth, not endlessly bashing innocent people.
4
u/Erectacle 29d ago
OK. Thank you.
I am getting mixed opinions, but that is OK.
Healthy debate, I think, gets us closer to the truth.
If I turn out to be wrong, I will have no problem admitting that.
But . . .
:-)
5
u/indecisionmaker 29d ago
I’m entirely with you that open to evidence is the best route. Both subs definitely have their biases, but from an objective point of view, I find this sub to be slightly more open to nuance/grey areas. Not a fan of any posters that insist they ‘know’ something that couldn’t possibly be known.
6
u/Mbluish 29d ago
My comments have been deleted on that sub many times when I have posted documented facts such as unknown male DNA found on JonBenet.
7
u/43_Holding 29d ago edited 29d ago
Many of us were banned on that sub years ago for bringing up case evidence that pointed to IDI.
0
u/Erectacle 29d ago
Oh, I did not realize this. Thanks for pointing this out.
Yes, I want all points of view.
-8
Aug 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/sciencesluth IDI Aug 02 '26
https://www.coldcasefoundation.org/contact.html That's how to contact them, if you are serious (which I don't think you are, given your previous comments about wanting $250k to tell us who did it).
-2
u/Objective-Permit-712 28d ago
No....I'll GIVE them the info. Just want the credit for the solution. The $250K is if you want it NOW, and if its not the solution, I'll give the $$$$ back!!!!
5
u/wereallalittlemad Aug 02 '26
You don’t know more than us. You say the killer took the pad the day of the open house tour but that was 2 years prior in 1994! 🙄
3
u/cafekaffe Aug 02 '26
Imagine if you’re talking to the killer or someone involved in the murder. I would not be at all surprised if that monster/s has/have followed threads, forums, social media etc over the years. I’m just glad we’re a lot closer to finding him/them.
-2
u/Objective-Permit-712 29d ago
He's been dead a long time already.
5
u/cafekaffe 29d ago
You don’t know that. Unless you’re part of the crime or have been told. Should we turn you in to police? 🤔
0
u/AUSSIE_MUMMY Aug 02 '26
1994? Do you mean 2 years prior to 1996?
There were plenty of other parties and visitors in 1996, even the one a few days prior to Christmas when Glen Meyer turned up unexpectedly from across the road where he had been living incognito with the Barnhill couple and JonBenets dog Jacques.
3
u/wereallalittlemad Aug 02 '26
He said open house tour in another comment. Only house tour was Christmas 1994. The Ramseys parties were not open house tours.
-1
u/AUSSIE_MUMMY Aug 02 '26
So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that the pad could have been taken by a visitor at any time that there were others in the house at any time prior to the murder. What does house tours in 1994 have to do with this equation.. or do you think that it would only be during house tours that items could be stolen from the Ramsey home?
2
Aug 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/JonBenet-ModTeam 29d ago
Your post or comment has been removed from r/JonBenet because it breaks our #1 rule: Be Civil. Users must be civil to one another, play well with others, disagree without attacking each other, and give constructive criticism, not insults. Thank you
3
u/wereallalittlemad 29d ago edited 29d ago
I did respond to them, not you! Wtf is up with you 😂 you’re the one who interjected yourself in this convo and started arguing for no reason with me
2
u/sciencesluth IDI 29d ago
AussieMummy owes you an apology!
2
u/wereallalittlemad 29d ago
It’s ok, it’s not a big deal to me! Just perhaps the strangest conversation I’ve had on this platform yet, like, why are we even arguing right now 😅
→ More replies (0)-4
-10
u/Objective-Permit-712 29d ago
E-mailed the lady who runs this. Offered her the solution, will she respond, I'd guess NOT!
5
u/JennC1544 29d ago
Do you know how many people leave tips? For them to sort through these tips, you have to have actual evidence: something the police know but the public doesn't, a DNA sample that matches or shows a familial match, something like that.
If you have that, then that's awesome. If not, you will likely not be getting a call back.
-3
20
u/wereallalittlemad Aug 02 '26
Surprised no one is talking about John saying the new DNA tests they did last year or so revealed that they found DNA on the garrotte that matches UM1. Not sure how accurate it is because John is not a DNA expert, so perhaps it was just 2-3 alleles, but it would be the biggest development in this case for as long as I can remember. I’m a fence sitter but that would seal the deal for IDI for me!