The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey - General Discussion

[TattleTeeny]

Oooh, I hope I didn't violate--overlap is tough to avoid with this case. I would not blame you guys a bit if you said "screw it" and lumped all of these shows together into one thread!

[Josette]

Quote

Another thing that doesn't make any sense?  The kidnapping note says that if the family speaks to anyone about their situation, their daughter will be beheaded.  So they decide that the best course of action is to call 911 and invite friends over?  It's almost like they aren't taking the ransom note very seriously.

Calling the police is what almost everyone does when a loved one is kidnapped.  Ransom notes always tell them not to involve the authorities or else.  As to the friends, it is odd to me, but maybe they were the kind who needed a lot of support.  They didn't have any family in Boulder, so they turned to friends.   Or maybe that was just Patsy.

 

Quote

 

to knowing that Patsy purchased cord and duct tape at a hardware store a few months earlier and going

out and buying identical cord and duct tape.

 

As they said, the duct tape and cord were not matched to anything within the Ramsey home.  And there is no proof that Patsy bought those items. 

 

Quote

I think of all of the crime shows I have watched, and there have been many, many cases where an identification has been wrong.  People have been incorrectly suspected, accused, or even wrongly convicted, but there has usually been something identifiable about them, either as a specific name or some other identifier: a handyman, a grifter, etc.  Yet, 20 years after the fact, all we have as a descriptor is "intruder."  I find that suspicious.  Intruders can definitely break into houses.  However, at some point, the intruder theory has to become more than just a factual possibility. 

People are murdered and there are no suspects at all.  People vanish and nobody sees it or knows who did it.

 

Quote

 

  Imagine it is 1996, and the Boulder police and DA announce that they suspect that Burke did it.  The headline would be, "Police suspect six-year-old Little Miss Colorado was killed by nine-year-old brother."  

 

Actually, there were people who thought Burke did it back then. 

From an interview:  After Geraldo Rivera broadcast a mock trial of the Ramseys, Patsy went to bed for two days. They took all of the TV sets out of the house and cancelled the newspapers. One day, Patsy was in a supermarket checkout line with her son. "The headlines from a tabloid screamed out that Burke had done it,” John says. “She dropped her produce and rushed Burke out, but the damage had been done." Burke saw a child psychologist for two years.

Burke definitely came across as a strange boy in this show.  I never knew about his scatolia.  It doesn't mean he killed his sister,  but I wonder what sort of help, if any,  he was getting before the murder.

[Ohmo]

Quote

A cursory review of the Twitter reactions to this segment indicates that many viewers could not make out any of what Clemente and Richards claimed to hear. "In the headphones it was incredibly clear,"

I'll agree with that.  I could not make out any of what they claimed to have heard...and I paused and re-wound a bunch of times.

I have to believe that CBS knew that a legal response from the Ramseys was likely.  The special flat out held Burke as the responsible party, be it intentional or accidental.  I can't imagine the legal department not having vetted this before air or stating the likelihood of legal action.  That's why I think CBS might have done it to spur on further investigation of Burke.

Since the mods did some housekeeping and shifted some things around, I'll re-ask the question that I'd love to know the answer to if anyone has any legal background: If Burke or the Ramseys sue CBS over this special, can he be deposed on the record?

[choclatechip45]

19 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

I'll agree with that.  I could not make out any of what they claimed to have heard...and I paused and re-wound a bunch of times.

I have to believe that CBS knew that a legal response from the Ramseys was likely.  The special flat out held Burke as the responsible party, be it intentional or accidental.  I can't imagine the legal department not having vetted this before air or stating the likelihood of legal action.  That's why I think CBS might have done it to spur on further investigation of Burke.

Since the mods did some housekeeping and shifted some things around, I'll re-ask the question that I'd love to know the answer to if anyone has any legal background: If Burke or the Ramseys sue CBS over this special, can he be deposed on the record?

I asked my dad who is a lawyer and he said he would have to be. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by choclatechip45

[OSM Mom]

On 9/20/2016 at 8:02 AM, TattleTeeny said:

Oh, it really is! Weird--I don't think I know many people at all who subscribe to the intruder idea!

Most of the people I know think for a certainty that an intruder did it.   That there's no was the family was involved at all.  I just smh at them. 

[pamplemousse]

4 hours ago, Josette said:

As they said, the duct tape and cord were not matched to anything within the Ramsey home.  And there is no proof that Patsy bought those items. 

Yeah because maybe they got rid of it. Direct proof such as store surveillance footage showing her purchasing those items? No, but although Patsy's receipts from the hardware store didn't list the names of the items purchased just the prices and the departments/areas of the store those items were stocked in, the police went through all the items in those departments/areas of the store and none of them had the same pre-tax prices as what Patsy purchased other than cord and duct tape that looked exactly like what was found on Jonbenet. I am not suggesting that she went out and bought those items with criminal intent or malice aforethought.

If the police had so-called confirmation bias against the Ramseys then people like Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, John Eller, Lou Smit had confirmation bias in favor of the Ramseys because the Ramseys were treated in the beginning with kid gloves as though they were victims not suspects, it was only due to their own sketchy behavior that police started suspecting them (and police did investigate many other people including over 50 registered pedophiles, the Ramseys' friends, their housekeeper and her family, employees at John Ramsey's work, and others that have probably never even been revealed to the public). There was plenty of confirmation bias in favor of the Ramseys on the part of Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, and Lou Smit because the Ramseys were wealthy, influential, part of the elite in Boulder, ran in the same social circles, had mutual friends, white upper-class well-educated and highly successful God-fearing church-going folk. Even a lot of arguments still persisting in favor of intruders did it/Ramseys are totally innocent basically boil down to "moms wouldn't do that to their kids," "parents wouldn't do that to their kids/the favored child," "I can't imagine they/Burke/parents/a nine-year-old child could/would do that," "I'm a mom, dad, brother, and I would never do that/my siblings would never do that," "blah blah anecdotal story about my kid/brother/father/neighbor's uncle reacting that way in some situation so it's possible why the Ramseys/Burke did," etc., which is hardly evidence or proof and also confirmation bias. Or maybe we should just go with the Mary Lacy School of Logic and Critical Thinking as to why the Ramseys are innocent because she said Patsy Ramsey, being a mother, wouldn't have anything to do with it and also doesn't look like someone who would be involved. Ummmmhmmm, ok.

Btw, I'm only posting this in this thread because I'm responding to a post made in this thread that quoted one of my previous posts (also in this thread). Any further comments not strictly related to this episode will be posted in the general case/theories thread.

Edited September 22, 2016 by pamplemousse

[ghoulina]

18 hours ago, Maharincess said:

 

I remember reading in numerous places how, after the death of his daughter Beth (?) John was inconsolable, cried constantly and took to his bed for a while.  He seems completely emotionless when he speaks about Jon Benet.  I don't expect him to fall to his knees and weep on camera but there's no softening of the eyes when he speaks about her, no catch in his voice, nothing.   It seems to be the polar opposite of how people say he was after his older daughter's death. 

 

I think Beth's death really broke. It caused him to put up an emotional way. People in their lives (friends, housekeeper) had commented that he was gone a lot and distant. I am sure he probably loved JB, but he had already hardened himself after losing his older daughter. Whatever shady cover up stuff they did, I do think the Ramseys felt grief over this. But I also think they had an earlier start on adjusting to it than 1 pm that afternoon, when her body was "first" found. I also think protection mode for Burke, might have steeled them a bit. 

 

7 hours ago, Jel said:

The underwear. Say JB did wet the bed and needed new underwear -- opening a new package of way too big underwear = not a mom thing to do. Patsy would know what size undies her child wore. Doesn't seem plausible to me.

Unless they were in a rush and weren't really thinking. Or maybe John did it and didn't really know what size she wore. Others have posted that they think the staging is odd because there were two people involved, who were scared, hurried, and not consulting each other. And I agree. These are not professionals. So the whole thing is a mess. 

 

7 hours ago, Jel said:

If John and Patsy staged the whole thing to make it look like an intruder, why be so forthcoming about John having broken the window himself -- why wouldn't he "conveniently" forget about that?

Possibly because someone else could validate that he did that. Maybe neighbors saw him/the broken window. Maybe he told the housekeeper or gardener. So perhaps he thought he better just be upfront about it or it would look like he was trying to hide something if he pinned it on an intruder. 

 

 

ETA: Just saw mod warning, apologies! Now noted. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by ghoulina

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

because the Ramseys were treated in the beginning with kid gloves as though they were victims not suspects, it was only due to their own sketchy behavior that police started suspecting them 

How far in the beginning though? That Linda Arndt actually admitted to wondering if she'd have to shoot her way out of the house that morning? I think the cops made up their minds right off--and whether or not they turn out to be correct 20 years later, it's still terrible police work. 

[pamplemousse]

13 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

How far in the beginning though? That Linda Arndt actually admitted to wondering if she'd have to shoot her way out of the house that morning? I think the cops made up their minds right off--and whether or not they turn out to be correct 20 years later, it's still terrible police work. 

Starting from the very beginning. The initial officer in charge John Eller told them to treat them with deference because they were important to the community, which the police did.

The police made a lot of mistakes that damaged the case irreparably and that I believe contributed greatly to it most likely being unsolvable unless there is a confession from someone (which I doubt would ever happen). But it has been said over and over as though it is fact that the police had confirmation bias and investigated no one else and focused from the very beginning on the Ramseys. That is false.

[Queena]

21 hours ago, OSM Mom said:

Nothing would happen to him in that way, but maybe it was a saving face thing.  Oh the horror in their social circles of having one of their children murder the other.  Much better to have people think she was murdered by some random intruder.  That way you get maximum sympathy points.  If that is true, I doubt that they thought that it would blow back on them they way it did. 

It's so nice to talk or rather listen to rationale, sane, logical, people. I suggested that maybe the family covered the crime up to save face on another message board and it was so farfetched to them. I have often heard of rich people (and not so rich people) doing any and every thing to protect their child. Including covering crimes, both minor and major. To the Ramsey's it was far better to have a child killed by a outsider, than my their own son. 

[MsJamieDornan]

On 9/21/2016 at 10:56 AM, cpcathy said:

So Patsy had to be advised not to wear a fur coat for the press conference/interview, but no one could advise her to wax her mustache?

I cant stop laughing. Thank you for making my day. Perfect !

About calling that junk room the Wine Cellar. We had a a beautiful renovated building behind our horse barn we called the Chicken Coop. Its where an old chicken coop was before the nicer building was put there. Just saying, we all have odd names for things.

[Ohmo]

7 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

I asked my dad who is a lawyer and he said he would have to be. 

Thank you for the info, Dad of choclatechip45. :)

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

But it has been said over and over as though it is fact that the police had confirmation bias and investigated no one else and focused from the very beginning on the Ramseys. That is false.

I don't think that they investigated no one else, just maybe that they did it half-assed with chips on their shoulders. And in large part because of that, on top of grievous crime-scene ineptitude, here we are.

Edited September 22, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[choclatechip45]

Quote

Thank you for the info, Dad of choclatechip45. :)

No problem he said the case would get thrown out or Burke wouldn't be able to testify.

[SSAHotchner]

23 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I didn't get to see the Dr. Phil interview either, but I find it interesting that was Burke's opinion on the killer, because I find the Pageant Pedo theory to be the most implausible of them all. A complete stranger wouldn't be familiar with the Ramsey's routines, he wouldn't have known they'd be at a Christmas Dinner leaving him ample time to hide out in the house, he'd have no way of knowing the amount of John's bonus to put in the ransom note or to leave the note on the back staircase as opposed to the front, etc. Not to mention there was no evidence of JB being stalked at her pageants. If IDI is true, then it had to have been someone close to the family. Damn, now I need to see if I can dig up the Dr. Phil clips. 

Love your avi, by the way!

Thanks! I'm sure that one of the adults put that idea into his mind years ago...or maybe a lawyer. To the average person that only reads about crimes like this on news sites, they might buy it. And, come on, who doesn't think of a pedophile as the most despicable criminal ever? I've heard on numerous TV shows and films that even in prison the other inmates despise the pedophiles. I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just saying that I don't think Burke really believes that (especially since I now think he's the killer) but rather that was a story that the family decided people would accept and would divert suspicion from the family. 

[ElDosEquis]

The Patsy Ramsey bluster about 'We know who you are' cinched it for me.

How can you go on TV and do an interview, then state you know who the killer is when the police don't have an idea as to who could have done the crime?

There were too many little details that fly in the face of the 'Some pedophile climbed in a window and killed our daughter' story

I'd talk to the cops until my face was blue to catch the killer.

I'd tell my friend to talk to the cops and anyone who would listen.

Why would you go thru the trouble of writing a ransom note and then kill your victim?

The idea that someone wanted to k/n that child and tie her up -with piss poor knots and tied in front of her arms is a hoot.

Then you have a note that took 21 minutes to write -a kidnapper sat inside that home and wrote a kidnap note, then tried to kidnap her, but killed her. Or why kill the child and leave a kidnap note - again spending 21 minutes to ask for money for someone who is dead - and take the chance of getting caught collecting money, money in an amount that was close to a windfall bonus that Old Man Ramsey just cashed in?

"Hey who are you?"

"Oh sorry, I just stopped in to kidnap your daughter. I'll put back the pad and pen when I am done".

And fuck DNA evidence - how many crimes are solved by other kinds of evidence?

There was no fiber or fingerprints from any outside source was found - that. even back in 1996 would have been found at the scene.

[pamplemousse]

5 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I don't think that they investigated no one else, just maybe that they did it half-assed with chips on their shoulders. And in large part because of that, on top of grievous crime-scene ineptitude, here we are.

Except they didn't do it half-assed. Yes, they allowed the crime scene to be contaminated (and that was mainly because they did believe that the Ramseys were victims from the beginning and allowed them to have friends over and even called in Victim Advocates) but they investigated many people up until the totality of the evidence (which in this case is all circumstantial, on either side, although there is actually very little evidence pointing towards intruders not just 1 intruder -- the touch DNA that IDI people take so seriously means that there were 5-6 intruders) and the Ramseys' behavior pointed them towards the Ramseys. The police were told from their superiors in the department like John Eller to be careful with the Ramseys because they were Very Important People and couldn't be mistreated or accused willy nilly and the DA's office was very deferential to the Ramseys. The Ramseys were treated with a great deal of respect because of their socioeconomic status by the Boulder PD until BPD had looked into a ton of other people and had to clear them because there was nothing there. Just because they had grievous crime-scene ineptitude didn't mean that they half-assed when investigating others. In fact, their grievous crime-scene ineptitude was in large part due to directions from above to treat the Ramseys well and let them have their friends over and having a lot of faith that wealthy white upper-class Christian people wouldn't have anything to do with it.

[TattleTeeny]

Eh, I've read as much about it as anyone else here (and it was actually Steve Thomas's book that bolstered my opinion of the cops' tunnel vision), so agree to disagree.

Edited September 23, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[ElDosEquis]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 5:15 PM, Ohmo said:

The fact that Burke did that at all is extraordinarily disturbing.  Siblings typically take candy from one another.  I'd even buy Burke breaking the box in a fit of anger as "typical" sibling behavior.  I can remember one or two toys being broken in my house during childhood...with punishment to follow.  But to soil a sibling's candy with human waste?  That screams that Burke has serious issues.

THAT was another question I had, who's feces was it?

That makes no sense at all - kids love candy - so the idea that it was JBR are kinda silly. She thought enough to take the candy into the room with her, so why would she foul it?

Where did the feces come from, it was in the bed and on the candy, who smeared it and why?

When a case like this has too many unanswered question, it takes it out of the realm of being a 'logical crime'.

Kidnappings are probably the hardest crimes to pull off.

The movies make it look like its a simple process - but remember that you must feed and allow your victim to eat, drink and void.

----------

The idea that someone went thru the house, borrowed a pen and pad to write out a ransom note, take the kid and hit her on the head, strangle her and then take a shit and smear it over the kids bed and candy makes no sense at all. When you add up all the other evidence. You really cannot explain it away as an outside intruder - unless they came in thru the chimney with Santa - the only DNA he leaves is on the glass of milk and the half eaten cookie on the plate.

[TattleTeeny]

18 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

When a case like this has too many unanswered question, it takes it out of the realm of being a 'logical crime'.

Yes! That is some perfect articulation for ALL of this, no matter what theory resonates with you.

Edited September 23, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[WicketyWack]

I never believed Burke did it, but now I do see the possibility. However. There are a few things that they did not address in this show that still has me leaning more toward an intruder:

- the half-moon scratches all along JonBenet's throat, which has been described as marks from her own fingernails clawing to get the garrote off, indicating she was conscious when the garrote was applied;

- IIRC, the stranger's DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not "touch" DNA but from a bodily fluid; i.e. semen; and the same DNA was found years later as "touch" DNA on the waistband of her pants. So 2 different garments, 2 different time periods, 2 different types of DNA, same person who wasn't a Ramsey;

- the footprint found in the basement of someone wearing hiking boots that none of the Ramseys owned;

- the footprint on the top of the suitcase;

-The show's whole "JonBenet wasn't really sexually assaulted" position took me by surprise as it's always been reported that she was, with forensic evidence pointing to sexual assault. Lou Smit said her sexual assault was violent. Most notably, it has been reported that someone raped her vaginally with the paintbrush handle. I just can't see any parents doing this to their (favorite) child that had been accidentally killed just minutes ago, even to protect another child. If the BDI theory is correct, that means John or Patsy actually finished JonBenet off with the garrote ... and I can't see parents doing that to their golden child either. If there was any evidence she was alive after Burke supposedly hit her, I believe they would have rushed her to the hospital.

- Going by what Lou Smit said, a blow to the head of that magnitude would cause immediate swelling that would be noticeable in a living person, and the swelling in JonBenet's head was minimal. That, plus the fingernail marks on her throat, led him to believe the blow to the head came after she was killed with the garrote.

The one BIG thing that makes me think it could actually have been Burke was during the interview where they asked about the pineapple -- his "Oh" when it dawned on him what that was. That was recognition.

[Court]

No semen was ever found. It was all touch DNA.

[WicketyWack]

Ok so it was all touch DNA -- but still, found on 2 separate garments that had not been manufactured together. So it didn't get on the clothing during the manufacturing process. They ruled out law enforcement & the Ramseys as being the source of the DNA, and have not yet identified the unknown male that the DNA came from. This show never touched on that, though others have.

[choclatechip45]

4 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

- the footprint found in the basement of someone wearing hiking boots that none of the Ramseys owned;

It came out during the grand jury hearings that Burke owned the boots.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

[ElDosEquis]

12 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

I never believed Burke did it, but now I do see the possibility. However. There are a few things that they did not address in this show that still has me leaning more toward an intruder:

- the half-moon scratches all along JonBenet's throat, which has been described as marks from her own fingernails clawing to get the garrote off, indicating she was conscious when the garrote was applied;

- IIRC, the stranger's DNA on JonBenet's underwear was not "touch" DNA but from a bodily fluid; i.e. semen; and the same DNA was found years later as "touch" DNA on the waistband of her pants. So 2 different garments, 2 different time periods, 2 different types of DNA, same person who wasn't a Ramsey;

- the footprint found in the basement of someone wearing hiking boots that none of the Ramseys owned;

- the footprint on the top of the suitcase;

-The show's whole "JonBenet wasn't really sexually assaulted" position took me by surprise as it's always been reported that she was, with forensic evidence pointing to sexual assault. Lou Smit said her sexual assault was violent. Most notably, it has been reported that someone raped her vaginally with the paintbrush handle. I just can't see any parents doing this to their (favorite) child that had been accidentally killed just minutes ago, even to protect another child. If the BDI theory is correct, that means John or Patsy actually finished JonBenet off with the garrote ... and I can't see parents doing that to their golden child either. If there was any evidence she was alive after Burke supposedly hit her, I believe they would have rushed her to the hospital.

- Going by what Lou Smit said, a blow to the head of that magnitude would cause immediate swelling that would be noticeable in a living person, and the swelling in JonBenet's head was minimal. That, plus the fingernail marks on her throat, led him to believe the blow to the head came after she was killed with the garrote.

The one BIG thing that makes me think it could actually have been Burke was during the interview where they asked about the pineapple -- his "Oh" when it dawned on him what that was. That was recognition.

People who have had brain injuries or damage can still breathe on their own and might grab at their neck if they were being strangled. So even if JBR had been incapacitated with a blow to the head, she'd still grab at her neck if she was being strangled.

Now, here comes the tricky part?

IF J or P thought that JBR was 'dead' to them when they found her with her head bashed in, that MIGHT absolve them of the guilt of finishing the 'job'.  A totally fucked up end game for sure, but people do some crazy shit that they believe will make things right in their mind?

Why were the Ramsey's so hesitant to allow their son to be questioned by a cop? If he wasn't involved with the killing, why protect him?

Here is a child who lost a sibling and is going to want to know why and how it happened - wouldn't talking to a 'nice policeman' who wanted to protect him from the 'bad guys who did this to his sister' alleviate his fears and any anxiety he may have from that point forward?

Even the illusion of the police being there to protect him and his parents make more sense than putting restrictions on any interview. Were they afraid that he MIGHT spill the beans about what may have happened?

And just how was he 'prepared' for the interview?

The clips of the interview reminded me of "The Bad Seed" scenario?

(the bad seed was an old flick about a little girl who killed her sib - and the mom figuring it out later on and freaking out - NOT MY CHILD!!!!)

Could he have bashed her head in and never felt any angst or remorse for the act?

I believe so - He'd once again become the center of the family - mom wouldn't be obsessing about JBR and the pageants any more.

Had he killed her accidentally is pretty terrible, if he had premeditated the act?

THAT is REALLY crazy, but not out of the realm of possibility?

[CeeBeeGee]

1 hour ago, ElDosEquis said:

The clips of the interview reminded me of "The Bad Seed" scenario?

(the bad seed was an old flick about a little girl who killed her sib - and the mom figuring it out later on and freaking out - NOT MY CHILD!!!!)

Have to nitpick here--Rhoda killed her classmate Claude Daigle, because he won the penmanship award and she wanted the medal and felt she deserved it. Rhoda didn't have any siblings. But yes, her mother Christine gradually figures it out and, though horrified, tries to protect her daughter

Spoiler

although in the end she tries to kill her "peacefully" via overdose

. The movie is decent (the young actress who played Rhoda, Patty McCormack, was nominated for an Oscar) but the novel is SO much better.

 

Carry on!

[pamplemousse]

13 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

Ok so it was all touch DNA -- but still, found on 2 separate garments that had not been manufactured together. So it didn't get on the clothing during the manufacturing process. They ruled out law enforcement & the Ramseys as being the source of the DNA, and have not yet identified the unknown male that the DNA came from. This show never touched on that, though others have.

The DNA was 1) degraded; 2) touch DNA; 3) of unknown provenance; 4) consists of 1 woman and 5 different men, all unidentified; 5) only matched to 4 markers because it was so degraded when 12 markers is the standard. It has ZERO evidentiary value and cannot be the basis to rule out or include ANYONE. Mary Lacy had no business issuing an exoneration of the Ramseys citing the touch DNA as proof and many people who worked in her office were against her doing that and thought she did so out of a personal relationship with John Ramsey.

It doesn't matter that it was found on 2 separate garments, that has no probative value. Because of it being touch DNA, there is nothing to say that one of the garments could not have come in contact with the other causing some of the DNA to be transferred. 

I think some people struggle with the idea that not all DNA is created equal, DNA of any kind is not always a smoking gun that's going to blow the case wide open like CSI and other crime shows would have people believe, and some kinds of DNA have little to no evidentiary value and are not useful. Now, if this touch DNA came from only 1 male unknown source and was then matched to a pedophile via CODIS then it might be compelling, but this not the case here.

Is it impossible that a 9-year-old boy, who had practiced in Boy Scouts and knew how to tie the type of knot used in that garrote, made the garrote himself? Nah, I don't think so. He could've been responsible for both the bash to the head and the strangulation, one doesn't preclude the other. I don't want to believe that Burke was capable, but then again, I don't want to believe that any children are capable of violence and murder and yet there's many who are so unfortunately, who and what is to say for certain that he's not one of them? He has certainly exhibited very unusual behavior in the past including aggressive behavior towards Jonbenet.

[Maharincess]

1 hour ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Have to nitpick here--Rhoda killed her classmate Claude Daigle, because he won the penmanship award and she wanted the medal and felt she deserved it. Rhoda didn't have any siblings. But yes, her mother Christine gradually figures it out and, though horrified, tries to protect her daughter

  Hide contents

although in the end she tries to kill her "peacefully" via overdose

. The movie is decent (the young actress who played Rhoda, Patty McCormack, was nominated for an Oscar) but the novel is SO much better.

 

Carry on!

I was going to post the same thing. It wasn't a sibling,  Rhoda wanted that damn penmanship award!   Awesome book. 

[ElDosEquis]

4 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Have to nitpick here--Rhoda killed her classmate Claude Daigle, because he won the penmanship award and she wanted the medal and felt she deserved it. Rhoda didn't have any siblings. But yes, her mother Christine gradually figures it out and, though horrified, tries to protect her daughter

  Reveal hidden contents

although in the end she tries to kill her "peacefully" via overdose

. The movie is decent (the young actress who played Rhoda, Patty McCormack, was nominated for an Oscar) but the novel is SO much better.

 

Carry on!

NO, Pick away.

Saw the movie, as a kid years ago.

My mom would call my older sister, "The Bad Seed".......and she was.

I was thinking of another book on fratricide. thanks for the pick up.

-------

One thing about the garrotte that struck me?

When the coroner looked at the know he said that it was a 'fairly common sailor's knot'.

This was after the special made a point of telling us that the Ramsey's owned two planes and a 30 foot boat/yacht?

Edited September 25, 2016 by ElDosEquis

[SSAHotchner]

7 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Have to nitpick here--Rhoda killed her classmate Claude Daigle, because he won the penmanship award and she wanted the medal and felt she deserved it. Rhoda didn't have any siblings. But yes, her mother Christine gradually figures it out and, though horrified, tries to protect her daughter

  Reveal hidden contents

although in the end she tries to kill her "peacefully" via overdose

. The movie is decent (the young actress who played Rhoda, Patty McCormack, was nominated for an Oscar) but the novel is SO much better.

 

Carry on!

Patty McCormack also had a role on an episode ("Plain Sight") of Criminal Minds in season 1. Just a little connection with Jim Clemente. 

[SSAHotchner]

7 hours ago, pamplemousse said:

The DNA was 1) degraded; 2) touch DNA; 3) of unknown provenance; 4) consists of 1 woman and 5 different men, all unidentified; 5) only matched to 4 markers because it was so degraded when 12 markers is the standard. It has ZERO evidentiary value and cannot be the basis to rule out or include ANYONE. Mary Lacy had no business issuing an exoneration of the Ramseys citing the touch DNA as proof and many people who worked in her office were against her doing that and thought she did so out of a personal relationship with John Ramsey.

It doesn't matter that it was found on 2 separate garments, that has no probative value. Because of it being touch DNA, there is nothing to say that one of the garments could not have come in contact with the other causing some of the DNA to be transferred. 

I think some people struggle with the idea that not all DNA is created equal, DNA of any kind is not always a smoking gun that's going to blow the case wide open like CSI and other crime shows would have people believe, and some kinds of DNA have little to no evidentiary value and are not useful. Now, if this touch DNA came from only 1 male unknown source and was then matched to a pedophile via CODIS then it might be compelling, but this not the case here.

Is it impossible that a 9-year-old boy, who had practiced in Boy Scouts and knew how to tie the type of knot used in that garrote, made the garrote himself? Nah, I don't think so. He could've been responsible for both the bash to the head and the strangulation, one doesn't preclude the other. I don't want to believe that Burke was capable, but then again, I don't want to believe that any children are capable of violence and murder and yet there's many who are so unfortunately, who and what is to say for certain that he's not one of them? He has certainly exhibited very unusual behavior in the past including aggressive behavior towards Jonbenet.

I think the garrote is too sophisticated for a 9 year old. I could see him strangling her with his hands or something else, but to create the garrote? No, even though I agree he could tie that sort of knot. I think that was cover up. Also, on Criminal Minds they say all the time that covering the body is a sign of remorse. I don't think he had any. I think that was part of the parents' involvement in staging the scene. 

[Luciano]

Regarding the strangulation/head injury timeline - they made a passing reference to an explanation (I think it was Spitz) but never expanded on it, so I'm wondering if that was one of the things cut. What they believe happened was that JB was first grabbed by her shirt collar from behind and that was what she struggled against - so the nail marks were made not when she was strangled with the garrote, but when she was strangled with her shirt collar. Then she was hit on the head and lost consciousness. The garrote came after all that.

[AZChristian]

14 minutes ago, Luciano said:

Regarding the strangulation/head injury timeline - they made a passing reference to an explanation (I think it was Spitz) but never expanded on it, so I'm wondering if that was one of the things cut. What they believe happened was that JB was first grabbed by her shirt collar from behind and that was what she struggled against - so the nail marks were made not when she was strangled with the garrote, but when she was strangled with her shirt collar. Then she was hit on the head and lost consciousness. The garrote came after all that.

That was also mentioned in the book by the investigator who was on the show.  Makes sense.

[Rhondinella]

Quote

 

For all the experts they have gathered this doesn't seem like a thorough investigation to me but, rather, a presentation of selected evidence to support the investigators theory that someone in the family killed JonBenet.

 

 

 

I've been trying to think about how to word my disgust with this show since I watched it, and this about sums it up: "presentation of selected evidence to support the investigators' theory."  And it was really disappointing to me as a listener of the Real Crime Profile podcast, which is hosted by Clementi and Richards, who generally come across as knowledgeably professionals there (him more than her). They are talking about this case (and the show, to some extent) on the podcast right now, and, of course, they are selling it as a completely objective, total re-examination of the evidence from the beginning with no pre-conceived notions.  I guess it's possible they actually did that but couldn't show it all--on the podcast they said they've been at this for a year. But, if they were being truly objective, it seems they could have found some way to make it clear that they didn't start with the theory and then look at the evidence.

Quote

That whole "enhanced" audio segment was laughable to me.  It was even less convincing than audio clips used on shows like Ghost Hunters to prove the dead are talking to a bunch of nutty reality show people who wonder around in the dark and scare each other.  

Word. The whole time I was laughing and yelling at the screen "I've heard clearer audio clips from ghosts!!"  I would have picked up absolutely no words whatsoever if they hadn't told me what it was supposed to be saying. Ridiculous.

Quote

I thought a lot of what  Fitzgerald, the linguist, had to say about the ransom note was interesting, the time it took, the "small foreign faction,"  the little bit of money asked, and the movie quotes

I agree that this was the best part of the show, and the best analysis outside some of the medical stuff.  Very interesting and compelling. The ransom note is the best evidence that this was a staged scene, no matter how it happened.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rhondinella

[WicketyWack]

9 hours ago, Luciano said:

Regarding the strangulation/head injury timeline - they made a passing reference to an explanation (I think it was Spitz) but never expanded on it, so I'm wondering if that was one of the things cut. What they believe happened was that JB was first grabbed by her shirt collar from behind and that was what she struggled against - so the nail marks were made not when she was strangled with the garrote, but when she was strangled with her shirt collar. Then she was hit on the head and lost consciousness. The garrote came after all that.

Ok -- if the scenario that this show presents is accurate, then the Ramseys were horrified to discover that their beloved older child had just accidentally killed their beloved younger child -- Patsy's favorite, by most accounts. Then they stage a kidnapping to cover up for him.

If you look at JonBenet's throat injuries, you see the garotte was not just placed around her throat and pulled tightly. There is a deep furrow down her throat where the garrote was first applied and tightened, then abrasions (including one very deep one) indicating that the garotte was pulled higher and tighter up her throat to its final position. So the person choking her took some time doing it. The nail marks were found above and below the garotte, with the half-moons pointing in both directions (so the nails were above and below the item doing the choking) and I don't think this would have happened if it had been a shirt collar -- you would only have found nail marks above the collar, not below it, because a small child's fingernails wouldn't be able penetrate fabric enough to break the skin. Anyway, I would liked to have seen this show address the presence of those half-moon nail marks on her throat and they didn't touch on it -- didn't even mention it. That seems like a big omission to me.

Also ... this is the big sticking point to me ... I'm trying to imagine parents or a parent who just found out their much loved child has been killed, and the first thing they do while her body is still warm is to rape her with a paintbrush and throttle her with a garrote to the point that it leaves abrasions and deep furrows up and down her throat? ... I just can't see that happening. The Ramseys have never shown themselves to be violent to that degree before or since that night, and that's not the action of a parent who has just suddenly and unexpectedly lost a much loved child. Most parents, if faced with an unconscious or newly dead child, would rush the kid to the hospital or call an ambulance to try to save her. They had no way of knowing how severe the head injury was. There was no swelling or broken skin. The pathologists at the autopsy didn't recognize there was a head injury with the naked eye.

19 hours ago, ElDosEquis said:

People who have had brain injuries or damage can still breathe on their own and might grab at their neck if they were being strangled. So even if JBR had been incapacitated with a blow to the head, she'd still grab at her neck if she was being strangled.

So parents who believe their much loved child was accidentally killed by a sibling, start an elaborate kidnap staging to protect the other, and in the middle of it the injured child revives to the point where she's clawing at her neck ... and they keep going? Instead of rushing her to the hospital because OMG she's not dead ... they decide to finish her off instead? I can't see that happening at all.

[Queena]

27 minutes ago, WicketyWack said:

Ok -- if the scenario that this show presents is accurate, then the Ramseys were horrified to discover that their beloved older child had just accidentally killed their beloved younger child -- Patsy's favorite, by most accounts. Then they stage a kidnapping to cover up for him.

If you look at JonBenet's throat injuries, you see the garotte was not just placed around her throat and pulled tightly. There is a deep furrow down her throat where the garrote was first applied and tightened, then abrasions (including one very deep one) indicating that the garotte was pulled higher and tighter up her throat to its final position. So the person choking her took some time doing it. The nail marks were found above and below the garotte, with the half-moons pointing in both directions (so the nails were above and below the item doing the choking) and I don't think this would have happened if it had been a shirt collar -- you would only have found nail marks above the collar, not below it, because a small child's fingernails wouldn't be able penetrate fabric enough to break the skin. Anyway, I would liked to have seen this show address the presence of those half-moon nail marks on her throat and they didn't touch on it -- didn't even mention it. That seems like a big omission to me.

Also ... this is the big sticking point to me ... I'm trying to imagine parents or a parent who just found out their much loved child has been killed, and the first thing they do while her body is still warm is to rape her with a paintbrush and throttle her with a garrote to the point that it leaves abrasions and deep furrows up and down her throat? ... I just can't see that happening. The Ramseys have never shown themselves to be violent to that degree before or since that night, and that's not the action of a parent who has just suddenly and unexpectedly lost a much loved child. Most parents, if faced with an unconscious or newly dead child, would rush the kid to the hospital or call an ambulance to try to save her. They had no way of knowing how severe the head injury was. There was no swelling or broken skin. The pathologists at the autopsy didn't recognize there was a head injury with the naked eye.

So parents who believe their much loved child was accidentally killed by a sibling, start an elaborate kidnap staging to protect the other, and in the middle of it the injured child revives to the point where she's clawing at her neck ... and they keep going? Instead of rushing her to the hospital because OMG she's not dead ... they decide to finish her off instead? I can't see that happening at all.

Do you see a intruder doing all of this without leaving evidence? I don't want to think of any parent, or human doing this to their child or another human. However, I simply can't believe in ghost. It would've had to have been a ghost with the scant to zero amount of evidence that they left behind. 

[ghoulina]

On 9/24/2016 at 11:19 PM, WicketyWack said:

 

Ok so it was all touch DNA -- but still, found on 2 separate garments that had not been manufactured together. So it didn't get on the clothing during the manufacturing process. They ruled out law enforcement & the Ramseys as being the source of the DNA, and have not yet identified the unknown male that the DNA came from. This show never touched on that, though others have.

 

Touch DNA, to my understanding, is easily spread that there could be a myriad of reasons as to how that DNA was on both garments. It's possible that by Jon Benet wearing them, SHE transferred the DNA from one to the other. Or Patsy, when washing. Also, that DNA was only tested using 4 markers, not the standard 13. I would never accuse anyone of, or absolve them from, this crime based on that DNA. 

 

14 hours ago, Luciano said:

 

Regarding the strangulation/head injury timeline - they made a passing reference to an explanation (I think it was Spitz) but never expanded on it, so I'm wondering if that was one of the things cut. What they believe happened was that JB was first grabbed by her shirt collar from behind and that was what she struggled against - so the nail marks were made not when she was strangled with the garrote, but when she was strangled with her shirt collar. Then she was hit on the head and lost consciousness. The garrote came after all that.

 

Yes, they said on the show that the garrote was not needed. I think it might very well be as you say - something else caused a bit of strangulation that it left a mark, so after the fatal flashlight blow, the garrote was staged to give reason for those marks on the neck. Quite possible. 

[Jel]

On 9/22/2016 at 8:41 PM, ElDosEquis said:

The Patsy Ramsey bluster about 'We know who you are' cinched it for me.

How can you go on TV and do an interview, then state you know who the killer is when the police don't have an idea as to who could have done the crime?

There were too many little details that fly in the face of the 'Some pedophile climbed in a window and killed our daughter' story

I'd talk to the cops until my face was blue to catch the killer.

I'd tell my friend to talk to the cops and anyone who would listen.

Why would you go thru the trouble of writing a ransom note and then kill your victim?

The idea that someone wanted to k/n that child and tie her up -with piss poor knots and tied in front of her arms is a hoot.

Then you have a note that took 21 minutes to write -a kidnapper sat inside that home and wrote a kidnap note, then tried to kidnap her, but killed her. Or why kill the child and leave a kidnap note - again spending 21 minutes to ask for money for someone who is dead - and take the chance of getting caught collecting money, money in an amount that was close to a windfall bonus that Old Man Ramsey just cashed in?

"Hey who are you?"

"Oh sorry, I just stopped in to kidnap your daughter. I'll put back the pad and pen when I am done".

And fuck DNA evidence - how many crimes are solved by other kinds of evidence?

There was no fiber or fingerprints from any outside source was found - that. even back in 1996 would have been found at the scene.

I thought she said, "You know who you are."

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Do you see a intruder doing all of this without leaving evidence? I don't want to think of any parent, or human doing this to their child or another human. However, I simply can't believe in ghost. It would've had to have been a ghost with the scant to zero amount of evidence that they left behind. 

But there was evidence that is not from the family--the boot print, the DNA, maybe even the flashlight, hypothesized stun-gun marks, duct tape from a roll that was never found. Whether that stuff is from this event or not, it's still there (or, you know, conspicuously not there, as the case may be).

Oops, did not know that boot thing--never heard that. I would like to read more of that Candy Rose site but that shit is so amateurly designed, ugly, and hard to read that it makes me want to bludgeon myself with a flashlight. Less is more, Candy Rose!

Edited September 26, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[ElDosEquis]

3 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

So parents who believe their much loved child was accidentally killed by a sibling, start an elaborate kidnap staging to protect the other, and in the middle of it the injured child revives to the point where she's clawing at her neck ... and they keep going? Instead of rushing her to the hospital because OMG she's not dead ... they decide to finish her off instead? I can't see that happening at all.

Because we don't see things, doesn't mean they don't or won't happen?

After reading tons of true life murder mysteries, I have come to the conclusion that people can and will do ANYTHING to each other.

Had the Ramsey's taken JBR to the ER with such a grievous head injury, they would have had to explained what happened.

The injury wasn't one that was going to be explained away with a 'she fell down the stairs" ER/Peds/surgeons would have been on that like flies on shit.

They would have reported it in a heart beat and would have put the Ramsey family in the spotlight and in the public eye for possibly raising a child that was a monster/killer/psychopath?

[Jel]

4 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

Ok -- if the scenario that this show presents is accurate, then the Ramseys were horrified to discover that their beloved older child had just accidentally killed their beloved younger child -- Patsy's favorite, by most accounts. Then they stage a kidnapping to cover up for him.

If you look at JonBenet's throat injuries, you see the garotte was not just placed around her throat and pulled tightly. There is a deep furrow down her throat where the garrote was first applied and tightened, then abrasions (including one very deep one) indicating that the garotte was pulled higher and tighter up her throat to its final position. So the person choking her took some time doing it. The nail marks were found above and below the garotte, with the half-moons pointing in both directions (so the nails were above and below the item doing the choking) and I don't think this would have happened if it had been a shirt collar -- you would only have found nail marks above the collar, not below it, because a small child's fingernails wouldn't be able penetrate fabric enough to break the skin. Anyway, I would liked to have seen this show address the presence of those half-moon nail marks on her throat and they didn't touch on it -- didn't even mention it. That seems like a big omission to me.

Also ... this is the big sticking point to me ... I'm trying to imagine parents or a parent who just found out their much loved child has been killed, and the first thing they do while her body is still warm is to rape her with a paintbrush and throttle her with a garrote to the point that it leaves abrasions and deep furrows up and down her throat? ... I just can't see that happening. The Ramseys have never shown themselves to be violent to that degree before or since that night, and that's not the action of a parent who has just suddenly and unexpectedly lost a much loved child. Most parents, if faced with an unconscious or newly dead child, would rush the kid to the hospital or call an ambulance to try to save her. They had no way of knowing how severe the head injury was. There was no swelling or broken skin. The pathologists at the autopsy didn't recognize there was a head injury with the naked eye.

So parents who believe their much loved child was accidentally killed by a sibling, start an elaborate kidnap staging to protect the other, and in the middle of it the injured child revives to the point where she's clawing at her neck ... and they keep going? Instead of rushing her to the hospital because OMG she's not dead ... they decide to finish her off instead? I can't see that happening at all.

Wow, that is a stunner of a point! How about at least some CPR?

But these Ramseys are such loving parents that they are willing to stage an elaborate cover up for their son, but not so loving that they will call 911 for their daughter? And not so loving as to want justice for their daughter? They are conveniently both overly devoted parents and callous, uncaring ones at the same time.  Doesn't add up to me either. 

[ElDosEquis]

17 minutes ago, Jel said:

I thought she said, "You know who you are."

Even better -

Most cases where the family comes out and speaks to a criminal, they plead with them to 'give themselves up', that "You know who you are" smacks of a mom confronting an incident and NOT wanting to find out which of her children actually was responsible. She's willing to address the mess, rather than dealing with the little fucker that did it.

Cops are more likely to make a statement of "we know who you are" when they have an ID on a suspect and are looking for them.

[BitterApple]

4 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

 

Also ... this is the big sticking point to me ... I'm trying to imagine parents or a parent who just found out their much loved child has been killed, and the first thing they do while her body is still warm is to rape her with a paintbrush and throttle her with a garrote to the point that it leaves abrasions and deep furrows up and down her throat? ... I just can't see that happening. 

See, that's what trips me up as well. Believe me, I know that just because the Ramseys were rich, white and well-respected doesn't make them exempt from crossing into the dark side of human behavior, but that is just above and beyond. Choking the life out of their beloved daughter and violating her with a paintbrush? If Burke committed the murder, I think he was responsible for all three elements (head wound, garrotte, assault) and the parents found her after she was long dead and staged the cover-up. 

[ghoulina]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

Oops, did not know that boot thing--never heard that. I would like to read more of that Candy Rose site but that shit is so amateurly designed, ugly, and hard to read that it makes me want to bludgeon myself with a flashlight. Less is more, Candy Rose!

Agree. It looks like there is a wealth of information there, but I took one look and went, "nope". I just can't sit there and pour through a site like that. 

 

42 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

Most cases where the family comes out and speaks to a criminal, they plead with them to 'give themselves up', that "You know who you are" smacks of a mom confronting an incident and NOT wanting to find out which of her children actually was responsible. She's willing to address the mess, rather than dealing with the little fucker that did it.

Agree. They don't want to piss the person off. They want to plead their sense of humanity (if there is one). The Ramseys, IMO, never seemed to truly care about finding first the alleged kidnapper and then "the killer". 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Agree. It looks like there is a wealth of information there, but I took one look and went, "nope". I just can't sit there and pour through a site like that. 

Is there a way to convert websites to a simpler aesthetic or view?

Edited September 26, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Court]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

See, that's what trips me up as well. Believe me, I know that just because the Ramseys were rich, white and well-respected doesn't make them exempt from crossing into the dark side of human behavior, but that is just above and beyond. Choking the life out of their beloved daughter and violating her with a paintbrush? If Burke committed the murder, I think he was responsible for all three elements (head wound, garrotte, assault) and the parents found her after she was long dead and staged the cover-up. 

This is what I was going to say. Perhaps Burke was responsible for it all? Or Patsy snapped.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Then you have a note that took 21 minutes to write

What the experts on this show demonstrated is that it took them 21 minutes to copy the ransom note verbatim. They then pointed out the fact that it would have taken longer for its author to write it out because they would have been thinking it up as they were writing it, assuming they didn't have three whole pages of it all planned in their mind before writing it down. There also seems to have been practice versions of the note discovered as well, although I am having a hard time nailing down the veracity of that. (It's actually the alleged practice versions I find more incriminating.)

Quote

I think the garrote is too sophisticated for a 9 year old. I could see him strangling her with his hands or something else, but to create the garrote? No, even though I agree he could tie that sort of knot.

I keep hearing that Burke was in Boy Scouts and keep wondering if this garrote is something he would have learned how to make in Boy Scouts. Might it have some other use? The experts on this show pointed out how pointless/useless it would have been for an adult to make such a thing since they could just as easily pull on the rope with their hands during strangulation. Which makes me wonder if a nine-year old would have needed the extra leverage of a garrote in order to accomplish that level of strangulation.

Quote

Also, on Criminal Minds they say all the time that covering the body is a sign of remorse. I don't think he had any. I think that was part of the parents' involvement in staging the scene. 

It could also be a sign of a nine-year old child trying to hide the body to the best of his ability (hence, "what did you find?" on the 911 tape).

Quote

I'm trying to imagine parents or a parent who just found out their much loved child has been killed, and the first thing they do while her body is still warm is to rape her with a paintbrush and throttle her with a garrote to the point that it leaves abrasions and deep furrows up and down her throat? ... I just can't see that happening. 

The fact that you can't imagine it doesn't preclude it from happening though. It seems like much of the intruder theory rests on the inability or refusal to believe a parent could do this to their child, i.e. projection. I agree it's wild beyond imagination but that's not hard evidence. And I think this show did an especially good job at examining cold, hard evidence in a rational and dispassionate way. The recreation of the basement window with the cobweb, trying to enter and exit without disturbing it, did a compelling job of shooting down the intruder theory IMO.

[Orangepop]

I found this show fascinating. I didn't really follow the Ramsey case at the time, but I do remember seeing a tabloid headline screaming "Burke did it!!" and thinking wow, they're really reaching. But I must admit, this show's got me convinced Burke's the culprit.

Quote

The only two people in this mess that I ever felt sympathy for were JonBenet and Burke, even if he did it, I would still have sympathy for him because he was obviously (probably still is) a troubled young man and received no help and that is his parents' fault.

If Burke did do this - and this show has me now believing he did - his parents did him no favors by "protecting" him. By isolating him, they ultimately denied him the proper psychiatric/medical treatment that it seems he so desperately needed.

This show reminded me of two other notorious UK child-on-child crimes - nine year-old Mary Bell, who strangled younger kids in her neighborhood, and the two ten year-old boys who abducted and killed James Bulger. All three of these killer kids had no real motive for their murders, yet they all defaced their victims in very creepy ways. (Mary carved her initials on the body of one of her victims, and Jon Venables and Robert Thompson shoved batteries up James Bulger's bum.) For me, it's not so far-fetched for Burke to violate his sister with the paintbrush. Especially if he's angry.

 If Jonbenet had only been strangled with just the garotte, I might have been more open to the intruder theory. I can see some sicko bringing her close to death, then reviving her. But bashing her skull in reveals sheer anger. For me, this gives Burke away. He's the only person that would have that level of hatred in his heart to hurt her like that. Especially during Christmas, when emotions are running hot. Sleep deprived and perhaps envious of Jonbenet's "better" gifts, to me it's no coincidence that this happened on Xmas night.

One more thing that bothers me with intruder theory - if the motive was sexual molestation, wouldn't there be more biological evidence? Wouldn't the sexual assault be a bit more extreme? Even if there was no production of semen, I'd still expect more forensic evidence than just touch dna.

I'd love to see the six hour version of this show. I'm wondering if the show would've addressed the dna under Jonbenet's fingernails. If she left those marks on her own neck, she'd have her own dna under her nails, right? Did they ever check Burke's nails? And wouldn't her hands have to have been untied to grab at her own neck? For me, this means she was tied up after she was dead. Another giveaway that this was staged.

I'm really enjoying this discussion - thanks everyone!! And seriously - I hope CBS releases the missing two hours of content!

Edited September 26, 2016 by Orangepop

[pamplemousse]

2 hours ago, BitterApple said:

See, that's what trips me up as well. Believe me, I know that just because the Ramseys were rich, white and well-respected doesn't make them exempt from crossing into the dark side of human behavior, but that is just above and beyond. Choking the life out of their beloved daughter and violating her with a paintbrush? If Burke committed the murder, I think he was responsible for all three elements (head wound, garrotte, assault) and the parents found her after she was long dead and staged the cover-up. 

I agree. I feel like I am painting Burke as this evil psychotic criminal, but...there are so many boys his age and even younger who have done really, really vile things to other children that blow the mind, oftentimes not even realizing how truly appalling their actions are and only thinking in a black and white, end result way like they don't like a certain kid in their life and they just want to get rid of that kid and then their life will be perfect again. Many of these boys are from what society would generally consider to be "very good homes." Originally, I thought maybe the parents constructed the garrote, but now I think that it is not too sophisticated a weapon for a 9-year-old boy who is a Boy Scout to make.

[ghoulina]

16 minutes ago, pamplemousse said:

I agree. I feel like I am painting Burke as this evil psychotic criminal, but...there are so many boys his age and even younger who have done really, really vile things to other children that blow the mind, oftentimes not even realizing how truly appalling their actions are and only thinking in a black and white, end result way like they don't like a certain kid in their life and they just want to get rid of that kid and then their life will be perfect again. Many of these boys are from what society would generally consider to be "very good homes." Originally, I thought maybe the parents constructed the garrote, but now I think that it is not too sophisticated a weapon for a 9-year-old boy who is a Boy Scout to make.

It can be really hard to imagine young children doing such horrible things, but sadly it happens. I recently read a book about a serial killer in my area, John Joubert. He recounted having his first sadistic fantasy (about a babysitter in his neighborhood) at age 6! Granted, I don't think Burke is serial killer levels of messed up, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for him to have done some pretty horrible things to his sister. I'd prefer to think things like that can't happen, but they can.