The Unsolved Mystery of JonBenét Ramsey: A Case Revisited

On December 26, 1996, at 10:05 p.m., John Ramsey opened a basement door in his Boulder, Colorado mansion.

The room was dark, cold, and silent.

As he flipped the light switch, what he saw in that wine cellar would haunt him for the rest of his life.

His six-year-old daughter, JonBenét, lay on a white blanket on the concrete floor.

She had been deceased for hours.

Duct tape covered her mouth, and a cord was around her neck.

But there was something else in that room—something invisible to the naked eye, something that would take nearly three decades of advancing technology to fully comprehend: DNA.

Microscopic genetic material left behind by someone who had direct contact with JonBenét’s body.

DNA that did not match John Ramsey, his wife Patsy, or their nine-year-old son Burke.

DNA from an unknown male.

For nearly thirty years, this case has been defined by speculation, media sensationalism, and relentless public accusations against the Ramsey family.

The parents were suspected, investigated, and accused of murdering their own daughter.

Burke was scrutinized and theorized about, ultimately suing a major television network for defamation.

Conspiracy theories multiplied, documentaries pointed fingers, and books laid out detailed theories of family involvement.

The court of public opinion rendered its verdict long before any jury could ever be seated.

The narrative seemed clear to many: wealthy parents staging an elaborate kidnapping to cover up something that happened in their home.

A ransom note written on paper from inside the house.

A garrote made from items found in the basement.

No signs of forced entry.

Behavior that seemed suspicious to investigators and the public alike.

But there has always been one piece of evidence that does not fit this narrative: the DNA.

Not just trace amounts that could be dismissed as contamination, but consistent, repeatable genetic profiles found in multiple specific locations on JonBenét’s body and clothing.

DNA mixed with her blood, found in areas where someone would have touched her if they were assaulting her or moving her body.

This DNA tells a story, a story that law enforcement largely ignored for decades because it contradicted their preferred theory.

A story that advancement in genetic technology may finally be able to complete.

As we approach the 29th anniversary of JonBenét’s death in 2025, new DNA testing using cutting-edge technology is underway.

The same techniques that caught the Golden State Killer after 44 years.

The same methods that have solved dozens of cold cases once thought unsolvable.

What this testing reveals could finally answer the question that has haunted America since that December morning in Boulder: who killed JonBenét Ramsey?

JonBenét Patricia Ramsey was born on August 6, 1990, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Her name was created by combining her father’s first and middle names, John Bennett, while her mother Patsy’s first name, Patricia, became her middle name.

By the time she was six years old, JonBenét was living in Boulder, Colorado, in a sprawling 7,000-square-foot Tudor-style mansion.

The house, built in 1927, was a showpiece with 15 rooms spread across multiple floors, including a complex basement with numerous small rooms and storage areas.

The Ramsey family represented Boulder’s social and business elite.

John Ramsey, 53 years old in 1996, was president of Access Graphics, a computer distribution company that was a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.

The company achieved over a billion dollars in revenue in 1996, making John a very successful and wealthy businessman.

Patsy Ramsey, 40 years old, was a former Miss West Virginia who had competed in the Miss America pageant in 1977.

She came from a successful business family in West Virginia and had studied journalism at West Virginia University.

She was deeply involved in Boulder’s social scene and various charitable activities.

JonBenét’s older brother, Burke, was nine years old.

The family also included three older half-siblings from John’s first marriage: Elizabeth, Melinda, and John Andrew.

JonBenét was a bright, energetic, charismatic child who loved performing.

She participated in child beauty pageants, an activity her mother introduced her to, following in Patsy’s footsteps from her own pageant days.

By age six, JonBenét had already won several titles, including Little Miss Colorado, Colorado State All-Star Kids CoverGirl, and America’s Royale Miss.

Her participation in pageants would later become a source of intense media scrutiny and public debate.

Images of JonBenét in makeup, elaborate costumes, and styled hair would be played endlessly on television after her death, sparking conversations about childhood innocence, exploitation, and whether the pageant world attracted predators.

But to those who knew her, JonBenét was simply a happy child who enjoyed singing, dancing, and performing.

On Christmas Day 1996, the Ramsey family’s life seemed perfect from every external perspective.

They were wealthy, successful, healthy, and living in a beautiful home in an idyllic college town known for its outdoor recreation, liberal politics, and extremely low crime rate.

That evening, the Ramsays attended a Christmas party at the home of Fleet and Priscilla White, close family friends who lived just a few blocks away.

The party was pleasant and festive.

JonBenét played with other children, Burke spent time with friends, and John and Patsy socialized with guests, enjoying the holiday atmosphere.

According to all accounts, the party was completely normal, with nothing unusual or concerning occurring.

The family left around 9:00 p.m., possibly closer to 9:30 p.m.

Different witnesses would later give slightly different times, a small inconsistency that investigators would scrutinize, looking for any discrepancy in the family’s account.

According to John and Patsy’s consistent account over the years, they returned home and began preparing for an early morning trip the next day.

The family was scheduled to fly to Charlevoix, Michigan, on their private plane at 7:00 a.m.on December 26th to spend a second Christmas with John’s older children from his first marriage.

Patsy said JonBenét had fallen asleep in the car during the short drive home.

John carried her from the car directly to her second-floor bedroom.

Patsy followed and changed JonBenét into pajamas without fully waking her.

Burke went to his room.

The house became quiet, peaceful, and normal.

The family was planning to wake at 5:30 a.m.to prepare for their early flight, but they would never make that trip.

Their lives would never be normal again because sometime during the night of December 25th or the early morning hours of December 26th, something happened in that house.

Something that would leave behind microscopic traces of genetic material—DNA that wouldn’t be fully understood or properly analyzed with modern technology for decades.

At 5:52 a.m.on December 26th, Patsy Ramsey woke early to prepare for the family’s trip to Michigan.

Dressed in black velvet pants and a red sweater she had worn to the Christmas party, she walked down the spiral staircase from the second floor toward the kitchen.

There, on the wooden steps, she found three pages of handwritten lined paper—a ransom note.

She read the first lines, and panic seized her immediately.

The note began with a demand for $118,000, the exact amount of John’s recent Christmas bonus.

It threatened JonBenét’s life if the family contacted police or anyone else.

It provided specific instructions for delivering the money.

Patsy screamed for John.

She raced to JonBenét’s bedroom, where the door was open and the bed was empty.

JonBenét was gone.

At 5:52 a.m., Patsy called 911.

The call was frantic and desperate, at times barely coherent.

The dispatcher, Kim Archeletta, tried to get information.

Patsy was hysterical.

The call lasted 5 minutes and 51 seconds.

This call would become one of the most analyzed pieces of audio in true crime history.

At the end of the recording, there are several seconds where Patsy appears to believe she’s hung up the phone, but the line remains open, continuing to record.

Audio experts who later analyzed this section using enhancement technology reported hearing three voices.

Some analysts claimed they could identify Patsy saying something like help me, Jesus.

John’s voice possibly saying we’re not speaking to you, and a third voice, possibly Burke’s, asking what did you find? If accurate, this audio would contradict the family’s repeated statements that Burke was asleep in his room and completely unaware of what was happening.

Boulder police officer Rick French arrived at 5:59 a.m., just seven minutes after the 911 call.

As the first responder to what was reported as a kidnapping, he performed a quick preliminary search of the house, looking for signs of forced entry or evidence of how kidnappers might have entered and exited.

He checked doors and windows.

Everything appeared secure.

No broken glass except for a basement window that John had broken months earlier when locked out.

No obvious signs of forced entry anywhere in the house.

French walked through the main floor and the second floor, checking bedrooms.

He even opened the basement door and called down, but he didn’t conduct a thorough search of the basement.

He didn’t go down the stairs.

He didn’t check the various small rooms and storage areas in that complex maze-like space.

He came to a white door in a remote corner of the basement.

This was the wine cellar, though there was no label or indication of what lay behind the door.

French tried the door.

It appeared to be latched from the outside with a wooden block that swiveled to keep the door closed.

He didn’t open it.

He assumed it was secured and moved on.

This decision made in seconds during a quick preliminary sweep would haunt Rick French for the rest of his life.

Because behind that door, just feet away from where he stood, JonBenét was already there, already deceased, already lying on that white blanket, already waiting to be found.

Within an hour, the Ramsay home filled with people.

The house that should have been secured as a potential crime scene became a gathering place.

Detective Linda Arndt arrived around 8:20 a.m.to take command of the investigation.

Victim advocates came to support the family.

Friends arrived.

Fleet and Priscilla White, John and Barbara Fernie, the family’s pastor.

All of them moving through the house, touching surfaces, sitting on furniture, potentially contaminating evidence with every step and every touch.

According to the ransom note, the kidnappers were supposed to call between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m.with instructions for delivering the money.

Everyone waited.

The house was tense, silent except for occasional sobbing from Patsy and quiet conversations among the gathered friends and family.

8:40 a.m.came and went.

No call.8:30 a.m.

Nothing.9:00 a.m.

Still no contact.

The window specified in the ransom note was passing with no communication from any kidnapper.

During these hours, Detective Arndt made detailed notes about what she observed.

She specifically noted that John Ramsay disappeared from the main areas of the house for approximately 15 to 20 minutes during the morning.

When she asked where he was, she was told he was checking the house, looking for signs of how intruders might have entered.

When John returned, Arndt observed that his demeanor had changed.

He seemed more agitated, more anxious, pacing more frantically than before his absence.

She made note of this observation, though she couldn’t have known then how significant it might become.

At 1:00 p.m., with no call received and growing concern about what had happened, Detective Arndt asked John Ramsay and Fleet White to search the house again, top to bottom, to see if they noticed anything out of place or missing.

John and Fleet went to the basement.

According to Fleet White’s later statements to investigators, John didn’t search methodically like someone looking for clues.

Instead, he moved almost directly toward the wine cellar in that remote corner of the basement.

John reached the white door, unlatched it, opened it, turned on the light, and saw JonBenét.

John let out a scream that echoed through the house.

He rushed to his daughter, cradling her body against his chest.

Fleet White saw JonBenét and understood immediately she was clearly deceased.

Jon carried JonBenét up the stairs from the basement through the house and laid her on the floor in the hallway near the Christmas tree.

This action, while completely understandable from a father who had just found his deceased child, fundamentally compromised what should have been a meticulously preserved crime scene.

Detective Arndt checked for vital signs, though it was immediately apparent JonBenét had been deceased for many hours.

Her body was cold.

Rigor mortis was present.

Livor mortis showed she had been lying on her back for an extended period.

The kidnapping was now a homicide.

The house was officially a crime scene, but critical evidence had already been disturbed, contaminated, and potentially destroyed.

In the chaos of that moment, with people crying, screaming, and trying to process what had happened, no one was thinking about DNA.

No one was considering that microscopic genetic material on JonBenét’s body might hold the key to solving her murder.

The autopsy was conducted on December 27, 1996, by Dr.

John Meyer, the Boulder County Coroner.

The examination revealed the devastating details of how JonBenét died.

The official cause of death was asphyxiation due to strangulation associated with cranio-cerebral trauma.

JonBenét had suffered two major injuries, and understanding the sequence and timing of these injuries would become crucial to understanding what happened.

First, she sustained a skull fracture approximately 8.5 inches long, rectangular in shape, located on the right side of her head.

The force required to cause this fracture was significant.

The blow would have rendered JonBenét immediately unconscious, unable to speak, cry out, or respond.

Forensic pathologists determined that after sustaining this head trauma, JonBenét would have been in a comatose state.

For all practical purposes, she would have appeared deceased, though brain activity may have continued for some time.

Second, she had been strangled.

A cord device, later termed a garrote, had been constructed from white cord found in the Ramsay home and a broken piece of one of Patsy’s paintbrushes.

This device had been tightened around JonBenét’s neck with a wooden toggle, compressing her airway and blood vessels, causing death.

The critical question was which injury came first and how much time elapsed between them.

Forensic analysis suggested the head injury occurred first.

Then, at some point, estimated between 45 minutes and two hours later, the strangulation occurred.

This gap between injuries would become one of the most significant pieces of evidence in developing theories about what happened.

The autopsy also documented evidence that became part of the sealed medical records.

Due to the sensitive nature of this case involving a minor, specific clinical details of all findings have never been fully released to the public and remain in court documents.

What can be stated based on official investigation statements is that evidence was documented that investigators interpreted as potentially significant to understanding what occurred.

This evidence became a factor in various theories about the crime.

Among the items collected during the autopsy were JonBenét’s clothing and various swabs taken from her body.

These items were sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation laboratory for forensic analysis.

This is where the DNA story begins.

In 1997, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation conducted DNA testing on evidence collected from the crime scene and from JonBenét’s body.

This was standard procedure in any case involving potential assault, and the technology available in 1997 was relatively advanced for that time.

The primary testing method used was STR analysis, short tandem repeat analysis.

This technique examined specific regions of DNA where short sequences of base pairs repeat.

These regions vary between individuals, making them useful for identification purposes.

The CBI laboratory focused initially on blood stains found in JonBenét’s underwear.

The underwear she was wearing when she was found had small blood stains.

Testing these stains was a priority because blood can contain DNA from both the victim and potentially from a perpetrator.

The results were significant and would remain significant for the next 29 years.

The testing revealed the presence of male DNA mixed with JonBenét’s blood in her underwear.

When the laboratory isolated the male DNA component and developed a profile, they made a crucial discovery.

This DNA did not match John Ramsey.

It did not match Burke Ramsey.

It did not match any male who had been in the Ramsay home on December 26th and had provided DNA samples for elimination purposes.

It was DNA from an unknown male.

The profile was complete enough to be entered into CODIS, the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System.

This database, established in 1998, contains millions of DNA profiles from convicted offenders, arrestees, and unsolved crimes across the United States.

The unknown male DNA profile from JonBenét’s case was entered into CODIS and compared against every profile in the database.

There was no match.

This meant whoever this DNA belonged to had either never been convicted of a crime serious enough to require DNA collection or their profile had simply never been entered into any database for any reason.

They were, in every legal and forensic sense, unknown.

For investigators working the case in 1997 and 1998, this DNA presented a fundamental problem with the prevailing theory that the Ramsay family was responsible for JonBenét’s death.

Detective Steve Thomas, who led much of the investigation, believed Patsy Ramsey had killed JonBenét in a fit of rage.

His theory, which he would later detail in a book, was that Patsy struck JonBenét with a heavy object, possibly a flashlight, after a bedwetting incident, then staged an elaborate kidnapping scene to cover up the accidental death.

But if Patsy killed JonBenét and staged the scene, how did unknown male DNA end up mixed with JonBenét’s blood in her underwear?

The explanation Thomas and other investigators offered was contamination.

They theorized the DNA could have come from a factory worker at the underwear manufacturing plant.

When underwear is manufactured, multiple people handle it during production and packaging.

Any of these workers could have left trace amounts of DNA that later showed up in testing.

Alternatively, they suggested the DNA could have come from someone who handled the underwear at the store before the Ramsays purchased it—a retail worker restocking shelves, a customer who picked up the package and put it back.

Anyone who touched the packaging could theoretically have transferred DNA, or some investigators argued that the DNA could have come from completely innocent transfer unrelated to the crime.

Touch DNA can be transferred in numerous ways.

If JonBenét touched something that someone else had touched, she could have picked up their DNA and later transferred it to her underwear when she dressed herself or used the bathroom.

All of these explanations were possible.

They were plausible.

And for investigators who were convinced the family was guilty, they were sufficient to explain away the DNA evidence.

But other experts disagreed strongly with this interpretation.

They argued that DNA mixed with blood, particularly blood from traumatic injuries sustained during a crime, was highly probative evidence that could not be dismissed so easily.

Blood is a bodily fluid.

It comes from inside the body.

When DNA is found mixed with blood from injuries, particularly injuries sustained during an assault, forensic scientists consider this significant evidence that the DNA was deposited at or very near the time those injuries occurred.

The DNA in JonBenét’s underwear was not just sitting on the surface of the fabric where it might have been from manufacturing or handling.

It was mixed with her blood.

The two substances were combined in the stains.

This suggested to many experts that the DNA was deposited by someone who had contact with JonBenét at or around the time she sustained the injuries that caused the bleeding.

The statistical analysis was compelling.

When forensic geneticists calculate the probability that a DNA profile belongs to a random unrelated person versus a specific individual, they use established formulas based on the frequency of genetic markers in the population.

For the JonBenét Ramsey DNA, the calculation showed that the probability of this profile belonging to someone random who had never been near JonBenét was approximately one in several million, depending on which specific genetic markers were used in the calculation and which population database was used for frequency estimates.

In practical terms, this meant it was highly unlikely that this DNA got onto JonBenét’s clothing through any mechanism other than direct physical contact with the person whose DNA it was.

Mary Lacy became Boulder District Attorney in 2001.

Unlike her predecessor, Alex Hunter, Lacy came into the case with fresh eyes and without the baggage of years of public statements and positions.

In 2008, Lacy made a decision that would fundamentally change the trajectory of the JonBenét Ramsey case.

She ordered new DNA testing using touch DNA technology on items that had never been fully analyzed with these advanced techniques.

She sent evidence to Bode Technology Group, a private forensics laboratory in Virginia that specialized in cutting-edge DNA analysis.

Bode had developed proprietary techniques for extracting DNA from challenging samples and had worked on numerous high-profile cases.

Lacy specifically requested testing on JonBenét’s long underwear, the long johns she was wearing over her regular underwear when she was found.

These long johns had been collected as evidence in 1996, but they had never been subjected to the kind of intensive DNA analysis that was now possible.

The forensic scientists at Bode Technology focused on specific areas of the long johns where someone handling JonBenét’s body would naturally have touched—the waistband, the hip areas, places where hands would grip when dressing a child or adjusting it on their body.

The testing was meticulous and time-consuming.

The scientists used laser micro-dissection to target specific areas of the fabric.

They employed low copy number DNA amplification techniques to extract genetic profiles from tiny amounts of cellular material.

They worked for months conducting multiple rounds of testing to ensure the results were accurate and repeatable.

In late 2007 and early 2008, the results began to come back and they were stunning.

The touch DNA extracted from the waistband area of JonBenét’s long johns matched the unknown male DNA profile that had been found in her underwear years earlier.

It was the same person, the same genetic markers, the same profile.

DNA from the same unknown male found in two different locations on JonBenét’s clothing.

The scientists at Bode Technology conducted additional testing to confirm this finding.

They tested different areas of the long johns, repeated the extraction process, and verified the results using different methodological approaches.

Every test came back with the same answer.

The DNA profile was consistent.

It matched the unknown male DNA from the underwear.

This finding was scientifically significant for multiple reasons.

First, it demonstrated that this wasn’t contamination from manufacturing.

The underwear and the long johns would have been manufactured at different times, probably by different companies, almost certainly in different facilities.

The likelihood that a factory worker’s DNA ended up on both garments through the manufacturing process was vanishingly small.

Second, it demonstrated this wasn’t contamination from store handling.

The underwear came from a package in JonBenét’s drawer.

The long johns came from a different source.

The chances that the same person handled both items in a retail environment was extremely low.

Third, and most significantly, the DNA was found in functionally specific locations.

On the underwear, it was mixed with blood from JonBenét’s injuries.

On the long johns, it was in the waistband and hip areas where someone would naturally grip when dressing a child or handling their body.

These weren’t random locations where DNA might accumulate through casual contact or environmental exposure.

These were specific, meaningful locations that suggested direct, purposeful physical contact.

The statistical analysis was compelling.

When forensic geneticists calculate the probability that a DNA profile belongs to a random unrelated person versus a specific individual, they use established formulas based on the frequency of genetic markers in the population.

For the JonBenét Ramsey DNA, the calculation showed that the probability of this profile belonging to someone random who had never been near JonBenét was approximately one in several million, depending on which specific genetic markers were used in the calculation and which population database was used for frequency estimates.

In practical terms, this meant it was highly unlikely that this DNA got onto JonBenét’s clothing through any mechanism other than direct physical contact with the person whose DNA it was.

Mary Lacy reviewed these findings carefully.

She consulted with forensic experts and examined the reports from Bode Technology.

She considered the implications, and on July 9, 2008, she did something unprecedented in the history of the JonBenét Ramsey case.

She wrote a letter to John Ramsey formally exonerating the Ramsey family.

Mary Lacy’s letter to John Ramsey on July 9, 2008, was extraordinary in its directness and acknowledgment of the suffering the family had endured.

The letter began by stating that the Boulder District Attorney’s Office does not consider any member of the Ramsey family, including John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey, as suspects in this case.

It continued, “We make this announcement now because we have recently obtained new scientific evidence that adds significantly to the exculpatory value of the previous scientific evidence.

” Lacy wrote extensively about the DNA findings, explaining how touch DNA technology had advanced and how the new testing had revealed the same unknown male profile in multiple locations.

She acknowledged directly the years of suspicion and accusation the family had faced.

For John Ramsey, who had spent 12 years under the darkest cloud of suspicion, who had been accused of murdering his own daughter by law enforcement, by media, and by the public, the exoneration represented vindication.

But it came too late for Patsy.

She had died from ovarian cancer on June 24, 2006, two years before the DNA testing that would clear her name.

She died still fighting to prove her innocence.

John released a statement through his attorney expressing gratitude for the exoneration, but also profound sadness that Patsy never lived to see it.

He hoped the focus would now shift to finding the real killer, using the DNA evidence to identify the unknown male whose genetic profile had been found on his daughter’s body.

However, not everyone accepted Mary Lacy’s exoneration.

The Boulder Police Department, which had spent years investigating the Ramseys as the primary suspects, issued a carefully worded statement distancing themselves from Lacy’s conclusions.

They stated that they appreciated the new scientific findings, but this investigation was still open, and they continued to pursue all leads.

They had not eliminated any suspects.

This statement was remarkable for what it did not say.

It did not endorse the exoneration.

It did not agree that the DNA evidence cleared the family.

It essentially said the police were continuing their investigation regardless of what the DA’s office believed.

Critics of the exoneration argued that Mary Lacy had overstepped, that she had allowed the DNA evidence to overshadow all other evidence in the case, and that touch DNA could still have innocent explanations.

They pointed out that DNA can be transferred in numerous ways.

If JonBenét touched something that someone else had touched, she could have picked up their DNA and later transferred it to her clothing.

Or if Patsy or John handled clothing that had been touched by someone else, perhaps a male store clerk or a delivery person, they could transfer that person’s DNA to JonBenét’s clothing when dressing her.

All of these explanations were possible and plausible.

For investigators who were convinced the family was guilty, they were sufficient to discount the DNA evidence.

The debate grew heated.

Forensic experts lined up on both sides.

Some argued the DNA was definitive proof of an intruder.

Others argued it was suggestive but not conclusive.

In 2009, Stan Garnett became Boulder District Attorney, replacing Mary Lacy.

Unlike Lacy, Garnett took a very different position on the exoneration.

In public statements, he said, I have always been troubled by the fact that there’s been a public exoneration of the Ramseys based on DNA.

DNA alone doesn’t necessarily solve a case.

You have to look at all the evidence.

He made it clear that while he wasn’t reacquitting the Ramseys, he was also not endorsing Lacy’s exoneration.

In his view, the case remained open, all possibilities remained under consideration, and the DNA evidence was important but not conclusive.

For John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, this represented another painful twist.

Exonerated by one DA, that exoneration essentially reversed by the next.

Cleared by the DNA, yet still under suspicion, the family was back in the terrible limbo where they had existed for years.

Not charged, not cleared, existing in a gray area where public opinion and law enforcement suspicion continued despite forensic evidence pointing elsewhere.

In April 2018, something happened that would change cold case investigation forever and renew hope for the JonBenét Ramsey case.

Joseph James D’Angelo, the Golden State Killer who had terrorized California in the 1970s and 1980s, was arrested after 44 years of evading justice.

The arrest was made possible by a revolutionary technique called investigative genetic genealogy.

This process used DNA from crime scenes that had never matched anyone in CODIS.

Investigators uploaded this DNA profile to GEDmatch, a public genealogy database where people voluntarily submit their DNA to trace their ancestry and find relatives.

The system searched for matches, not exact matches, which would have required the perpetrator’s own DNA to be in the database, but partial matches indicating familial relationships.

The search identified several individuals who were distant relatives of the unknown perpetrator, typically third or fourth cousins.

Genetic genealogists then built family trees, working backward through generations to identify common ancestors who would have been great-great-grandparents of both the known relatives and the unknown perpetrator.

From these common ancestors, genealogists worked forward, identifying all descendants and building out comprehensive family trees spanning multiple generations.

Investigators then narrowed down potential suspects from these family trees based on age, geographic location, physical characteristics, and any other information available about the perpetrator.

In the Golden State Killer case, this process led investigators to Joseph James D’Angelo.

They conducted surveillance, collected a DNA sample from a discarded item, and tested it against the crime scene DNA.

It matched.

After more than four decades, the Golden State Killer was finally identified and arrested.

The technique was revolutionary.

In the months and years following D’Angelo’s arrest, investigative genetic genealogy was used to solve dozens of cold cases.

Murders that had been unsolved for 30, 40, even 50 years were suddenly being closed.

Rapists who thought they had escaped justice were being identified.

Unidentified victims were being given their names back.

John Ramsey immediately understood the implications for his daughter’s case.

The DNA from JonBenét’s case was unknown male DNA that had never matched anyone in CODIS.

But it didn’t need to match someone in CODIS.

If genetic genealogy could identify the person through family connections, he began advocating publicly for the Boulder Police Department to work with genetic genealogy companies to analyze the DNA.

He reached out to firms like Parabon NanoLabs, Othram Inc.

, and Identifinders International, companies that specialized in this type of analysis.

Some of these firms expressed willingness to work on the case, even offering to do so pro bono given the case’s significance and the suffering the Ramsey family had endured.

But there was a complication.

The DNA from JonBenét’s case was a mixture, meaning it contained genetic material from more than one person.

This is common in touch DNA samples, especially from clothing that multiple people might have touched.

Genetic genealogy works best with single-source DNA.

DNA from only one individual.

When DNA is mixed, it becomes more challenging to isolate individual profiles and build accurate family trees.

However, forensic geneticists have developed techniques to address this challenge.

Specialized software can analyze mixed samples, identify the major contributor, filter out minor contributors, and develop a usable profile for genealogy purposes.

It’s complex work requiring significant expertise, advanced software, and careful analysis, but it’s possible.

Genetic genealogy companies have successfully worked with mixed samples in other cases.

Several genetic genealogy experts have stated publicly that while the JonBenét Ramsey DNA would be challenging because of the mixture, it could potentially be analyzed with current technology and expertise.

The process would require first obtaining the physical DNA samples or the raw data files from the original testing.

Second, using specialized software to separate the contributors and isolate the major male profile.

Third, uploading this isolated profile to genealogy databases to search for familiar matches.

Fourth, if matches are found, building comprehensive family trees to identify the common ancestors.

Fifth, working forward through the family trees to identify all descendants who could potentially be the source of the DNA.

Sixth, narrowing down suspects based on age, location, and any other available information.

Seventh, obtaining DNA samples from potential suspects for comparison testing.

If a match is found, investigators would have their suspect.

After 29 years, the unknown male would have a name, a face, a history, but there has been a significant obstacle: the Boulder Police Department’s willingness to pursue this avenue.

For years, the department maintained tight control over the DNA evidence and resisted efforts to release it to outside laboratories for genetic genealogy analysis.

In public statements, police representatives said they were exploring all options, consulting with experts, and committed to solving the case, but they stopped short of publicly committing to genetic genealogy and did not release the DNA evidence to the specialized firms that offered to analyze it.

John Ramsey has been frustrated by this resistance.

He believes and has stated publicly that the department’s reluctance stems from institutional pride, from not wanting to admit that the initial focus on the family was wrong, from decades of investment in a theory that the DNA contradicts.

He has also suggested that solving the case through genetic genealogy, which would almost certainly identify an intruder rather than a family member, would represent an admission of failure for the investigators who spent years pursuing the family theory.

These are harsh accusations, but John Ramsey is not alone in this assessment.

Journalists who have covered the case, forensic experts who have consulted on it, even some former Boulder police officials have expressed similar concerns.

The resistance to genetic genealogy has become a source of intense frustration for everyone who wants to see this case solved.

But in late 2024, something shifted following the release of a Netflix documentary titled *Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey*.

In November 2024, public pressure on the Boulder Police Department intensified dramatically.

The documentary featured extensive interviews with John Ramsey, explained genetic genealogy in detail, showcased examples of other cold cases solved using this technique, and directly challenged the Boulder Police Department to use every available tool to solve JonBenét’s murder.

The public response was overwhelming.

Petitions circulated demanding the department work with genetic genealogy firms.

Media coverage increased.

Pressure mounted.

On December 20th, 2024, just days before the 28th anniversary of JonBenét’s death, Boulder Police Chief Steven Redfern issued a comprehensive statement about the case.

Redfern announced that the department had been working quietly for months on a comprehensive review of all evidence.

They had assembled a specialized task force, including two original detectives from the 1996 investigation, forensic geneticists from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and FBI analysts who specialize in violent crimes against children.

The task force had been conducting an extensive review of all physical evidence, all investigative reports, all witness statements, everything connected to the case.

Redfern stated that over this past year, their detectives had conducted several new interviews as well as re-interviewed individuals based on tips received.

They had also collected new evidence and tested and retested other pieces of evidence to generate new leads.

Most significantly, he announced, techniques and technology constantly evolve.

This is especially true with technology related to DNA testing.

We are consulting with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and working with external DNA laboratories to explore new testing methods.

While Redfern did not explicitly say genetic genealogy, the implication was clear.

The department was finally, after years of resistance, exploring advanced DNA analysis techniques.

The statement continued, we have redigitized over 1,400 crime scene photographs, reindexed approximately 3,700 pages of investigative reports, and located 119 items that were either never submitted to laboratory testing or were tested only with methods available before 2000.

This was significant.

One hundred nineteen items that had never been fully tested with modern technology, items that might contain DNA, items that might provide additional genetic profiles or confirm existing ones.

Among these items, according to sources familiar with the investigation, are portions of the cord used to bind JonBenét’s wrists that had never been subjected to touch DNA analysis, additional sections of the broken paintbrush used in the garrote that had been stored but never fully tested, swabs taken from various areas of JonBenét’s body during the autopsy that were preserved but never analyzed with modern DNA sequencing methods, and fibers collected from the crime scene that had been categorized but never subjected to DNA testing.

The duct tape that was on JonBenét’s mouth had been tested in 1997 but never with current touch DNA technology.

All of these items have now been submitted to Advanced Forensic Laboratories for analysis using the most current technology available.

Laboratory notes shared with the district attorney’s office indicate that partial genetic profiles have already been isolated from at least two of these previously untested items.

Whether these profiles match the known unknown male DNA, whether they represent different individuals, or whether they provide new investigative leads remains under analysis as of early 2025.

The Boulder Police Department has stated they will not release specific details about the DNA testing while the investigation is active, but they have committed to providing updates as significant developments occur.

John Ramsey has been briefed on these developments by Chief Redfern in meetings that occurred in late 2024.

He has expressed cautious optimism, stating in interviews that he is more hopeful now than he has been in years.

The new leadership at the Boulder Police Department seems genuinely committed to using every available tool to solve this case.

He continues to push specifically for genetic genealogy.

We have the DNA.

We have the technology.

We have companies willing to do the work.

What we need is the commitment to actually do it.

District Attorney Michael Dougherty, who has held the position since 2017, has stated that his office stands ready to prosecute if the investigation produces sufficient evidence to identify and charge a suspect.

In a December 2024 statement, Dougherty said the murder of JonBenét Ramsey is a terrible tragedy that has sparked years of unanswered questions and theories.

Our office has successfully prosecuted other cold case homicides.

In every one of those cases, it was the evidence that proved guilt.

Whether it is DNA or other evidence, more is needed to solve this murder.

But we are committed to pursuing justice whenever that evidence emerges.

The question everyone is asking as we enter 2025 is whether the DNA will finally reveal a name.

Will genetic genealogy trace that unknown male profile back through family trees to identify the person who left their genetic signature on a six-year-old child’s body nearly three decades ago? The science suggests it is possible.

The technology exists.

The expertise is available.

The companies are willing to do the work.

What is needed now is action.

Decisive action to use every available tool to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

To prioritize solving this case over institutional pride or protecting past decisions.

The DNA evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case represents more than just genetic material collected from a crime scene.

It represents the intersection of science and justice, the power of objective evidence to contradict theories and beliefs, and the potential for technology to solve cases once thought unsolvable.

For 29 years, this case has been dominated by speculation, by theories about family involvement, by interpretations of behavior and statements and circumstantial evidence.

But the DNA has always told a different story.

A story many chose to ignore because it did not fit their narrative.

That DNA says an unknown male had direct sustained physical contact with JonBenét at or around the time of her death.

This person’s genetic material was deposited in multiple specific locations on her body and clothing.

This person has never been identified.

These are facts, not theories.

This is science, not speculation.

If this DNA is analyzed using genetic genealogy, if it leads to identification of the person whose genetic profile it represents, the case could finally be solved.

The unknown male would become known.

The person who has evaded justice for 29 years could finally be held accountable.

But even if genetic genealogy does not immediately identify a suspect, the DNA remains valuable.

It eliminates innocent people.

It provides a profile that can be compared against any person of interest.

It offers hope that someday, somehow, advances in technology or changes in circumstances will finally reveal the truth.

For John Ramsey, now 81 years old, the DNA represents his last best hope for answers.

He has lost his youngest daughter to murder.

He has lost his wife to cancer.

He has lost years of his life to suspicion and accusation.

But he has never lost hope that the truth will emerge.

And that hope is grounded in science, in the DNA evidence that has always pointed away from his family and toward an unknown perpetrator.

December 26, 1996.

A six-year-old child was killed in her own home.

Her killer left DNA behind.

Microscopic genetic material deposited on her body through direct physical contact.

That DNA has been tested, analyzed, debated, and fought over for 29 years.

It has been dismissed by some as contamination.

It has been championed by others as proof of innocence.

It has exonerated a family that spent decades under suspicion, and it may finally identify a killer.

For 29 years, this case has been defined by everything except the DNA, by theories about the ransom note, by speculation about family dynamics, by interpretations of behavior, by media narratives and public opinion.

But the DNA has always been there, patient, unchanging, waiting for technology to catch up, waiting for someone to look at it with fresh eyes and advanced tools, waiting to tell its story.

In 2025, we have the technology to potentially identify the source of this DNA.

Genetic genealogy has solved cases that were cold for decades.

It can work here.

The question is whether it will be allowed to work.

JonBenét Ramsey deserves justice.

Her family deserves answers.

And that DNA deserves to be fully investigated using every available method, every advanced technique, every possible tool that modern forensic science can provide.

If this investigation has moved you, if you believe forensic science should guide criminal investigations, subscribe to the Investigation Room right now.

We bring you comprehensive analysis of cases where DNA, technology, and persistence are finally providing answers after decades of uncertainty.

Hit that notification bell so you never miss new investigations.

Share this video with anyone who believes in the power of science to solve crimes.

And let me know in the comments if you believe genetic genealogy will finally solve this case.

After 29 years, the DNA evidence remains.

The technology exists.

The expertise is available.

The companies are willing to do the work.

Justice for JonBenét may finally be within reach.

The unknown male DNA may finally be traced to a name, a face, an individual who can be questioned, investigated, and potentially held accountable.

The science is ready.

The evidence is waiting.

The only question is whether those with the power to act will finally use every available tool to solve this case.

Thank you for watching this investigation.

This is the Investigation Room, where science meets justice, where evidence matters more than speculation, and where we never stop searching for truth.

JonBenét Patricia Ramsey, August 6, 1990 to December 26, 1996.

Six years old.

A child who deserved to grow up, to live her life, to fulfill her potential.

Her killer left DNA behind.

After 29 years, that DNA may finally reveal the truth.