The Boulder Police have been given back the JonBenet Ramsey “cold case” from the D.A.’s office, and are said to be forming a multi-agency task force “including some of the region’s most experienced investigators” (1) from the federal and state level to take a fresh new look at this case. I am so happy to hear this.

Read moreLast year, many of you will remember the previous district attorney, Mary Lacy, got back Touch DNA evidence from JonBenet’s leggings that matched DNA from her underwear found at the crime scene. With that, Lacy cleared the entire Ramsey family of any involvement because they did not match the DNA.

Lacy automatically assumed that whoever touched JonBenet, in two places, had to be the killer. And for those of you who followed this case, I felt (along with many others) that this was a reckless move. Until the case is solved, no one can conclusively be cleared.

While I don’t know what the truth is, or what happened that night, I just have to ask this:

1. How can we be certain that JonBenet wasn’t molested that night by a family friend or relative at that Christmas party, before they arrived home? DNA doesn’t give us the timing of events, or tell us when things occurred. With that, can we can conclusively say that the person who molested JonBenet is the same person who killed her?
2. Furthermore, is it possible, and I don’t know, that JonBenet played with some children that night, scratched them, and contaminated herself on her leggings and underwear when going to the bathroom? Or that one child touched her on her leggings, while playing, and she then scratched them, and contaminated her underwear? Is that a possibility? Or can that be ruled out?
3. Can we be certain there was no DNA cross-contamination at the crime scene or by the lab?
4. Since Touch DNA is new, can we be certain it is foolproof? There have been other forensic evidence techniques developed in the past and used by the FBI that were later found to be flawed. Remember Touch DNA is new. We may not know all the pitfalls of using Touch DNA. The above referenced link talks about how a 40-year-old forensic technique was found to be flawed. Touch DNA was only used for 8 years prior to the JonBenet Ramsey case.
5. Last, there are people who can be an accessory to a crime. That is, they know what happened, and keep it quiet in an attempt to protect others. How do we know that this is not the case in this situation? How can we conclusively say that John Ramsey or Patsy Ramsey could not be accessory?

I think each of these things are plausible reasons why no one should be excluded from this investigation, including the Ramseys.

Do I think John Ramsey killed his daughter? I don’t know. I just know I personally don’t trust what John Ramsey says. Something isn’t right. In every interview I have seen of John Ramsey over the years, I have seen red flags.

Watch what was discussed on Nancy Grace last night: