He's not going to be charged by the prosecution because the DNA does not match.

Article

By Crystal915 on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 05:51 pm:

I have had doubts that he really was the killer, even though he confessed to it. I'm not sure why he confessed, but DNA doesn't lie.

By Cocoabutter on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 05:56 pm:

How wonderful.

I am beginning to get the feeling it was all a hoax.

By Mrsheidi on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 08:03 pm:

I thought it WAS a little weird that he said "I love Jon Benet" like it's in present tense. And, how can that kind of a death be an accident? Never mind the fact that many many witnesses said he was with them on the night of the murder...what a weirdo.
Although...he *might* know who it is...perverts always have some sort of "underground" knowledge of each other.

By Hol on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 12:51 am:

I always felt that he was lying. He's just a nut job looking for notoriety. It's just too bad that they had to spend all that money to get him over here to find out. However, they are now shipping his butt to California since he is wanted on child pornography charges there. Also, he was due to start a teaching job in Thailand, and he was already a little too interested in a couple of his little female students, so it's good that they got him.

Ugghh!! I hope they can charge him with something just to get him locked up somewhere and away from children.

I don't think the killer of Jon Benet will ever be prosecuted because too much time has gone by. I still think that the killer was real close to home. With all of his money, if there WERE a real killer, John Ramsey could have found them. I think it's the same as OJ, looking for "the real killer" on every golf course in Florida!

By Hol on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 12:56 am:

I think that's why John Ramsey cautioned the press (and everyone else) not to jump to conclusions. HE knows who the real killer is.

By Vicki on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 07:08 am:

Just curious, but those that think the family is involved...whos DNA is it that was found on her body and do you think he "planted" it there??

By Hol on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 12:07 pm:

I admit that the DNA part has me puzzled. Since she was playing with other children earlier in the evening, is it possible that she accidently scratched another child? The DNA obviously doesn't belong to anyone that they tested. They would have no reason to test her playmates.

By Hol on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 12:09 pm:

Of course I am talking about DNA from skin under her fingernails. Was there other DNA evidence?

By Bellajoe on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 02:04 pm:

There was blood on her underwear, and apparently it wasn't hers.