Investigators in Boulder, Colorado, are retesting evidence from the JonBenet Ramsey case using newer DNA technology, Police Chief Steve Redfearn confirmed, as the 1996 killing approaches its 30th year without a conviction. The retesting includes items that were originally tested in 1997, when the methods available were far less sensitive than today's tools.
Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty said he is more hopeful that the case can be solved because of advances in forensic science. Redfearn said a cold case review panel has been convened in Boulder, and that local, state and federal investigators continue to work the case together. Authorities have not announced new suspects or charges.
JonBenet was found dead in the family home on December 26, 1996, and the case has remained unsolved since. No one has been convicted, and over the decades investigators and the public have examined many suspects and theories. The case has drawn intense public attention for nearly three decades, and the family has remained closely identified with it.
Her father, John Ramsey, has pushed for the use of investigative genetic genealogy, a technique that can help identify relatives of an unknown contributor of DNA by comparing profiles against public genealogy databases. John Andrew Ramsey, a half-brother of JonBenet, said the new round of testing began in the fall of 2025. He and investigators have indicated that mixed DNA samples present a particular challenge, because separating overlapping profiles can consume or destroy the small amounts of material that remain. Investigators have therefore been careful about how they proceed with each item.
Officials said they are holding back some evidence that has not been made public, a common practice in cold cases that allows investigators to test whether information from tips is accurate. If needed, they said, that material could be released later to help the public. Tips continue to arrive, and authorities urged anyone with information about the case to come forward.
The renewed effort reflects a broader pattern in cold case work, where forensic advances can revive evidence that once seemed exhausted. For a case that has been examined from many angles over nearly three decades, investigators are now relying on tools that did not exist when the crime occurred, with the hope of finally identifying who was responsible. The outcome of the retesting, and whether it produces new leads, remains unknown.