The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[Meredith Quill]

Your Media Topic!

[Meredith Quill]

This is the spot to talk about the actual case, outside of the show - who you think did it, what you remember from that time frame, and more. Thanks!

Edited September 20, 2016 by Drogo
Added quotes to "Know" in topic title.

[Guest]

The preview for the show looks great! I'm really curious what conclusions they'll come to, if any. Me? I still think the one or both of the parents did it. 

[Mountainair]

I was probably the same age as JonBenet when she was murdered so most of my research of this case happened during my adult years. There are so many theories out there about what happened to her. I think the mom did it and the the dad helped cover it up but I still can't get over the Why? And the sexual nature of the murder? 

The pineapple, the ransom note,  it's just so heartbreaking. I now have three kids of my own which is why I had  to finally stop being such a true crime junkie, my heart couldn't take it. That being said, I am anticipating this series since I have taken such a long reprieve from this case. 

[AZChristian]

There has long been a theory that JonBenet wet the bed (again) that night, and Patsy just "lost it" . . . As much as it pains me to say so, I also think that Patsy killed her and John helped cover it up.

[formerlyfreedom]

This topic is to discuss Media about the show - this topic is for discussing the actual case, including your own suspicions, so some posts were moved over there. Thanks!

[GaT]

I don't think we are ever going to know what happened, the police were so incompetent that as soon as they arrived on the scene, that pretty much destroyed any hope of solving the case.

[Whimsy]

I remember when this happened.  The whole investigation was such a clusterfuck.  Such a shame for that little girl. 

I started to type something, but realized I didn't have enough info to even write a coherent thought.  I had remembered a few years back (turns out to have been 10- holy crap what has happened to time!?!) that there was someone they were tracking down who was hiding out in another country but then nothing came of it, so I decided to wiki it and it turns out John Mark Karr falsely admitted to killing her.  I will never understand false confessions. 

Quote

In August 2006, a 41-year-old elementary school teacher, John Mark Karr, falsely confessed to murdering JonBenét. At that time, Karr was being held on child pornography charges that originated in Sonoma County, California.

Authorities tracked Karr down by using the Internet after emails were sent regarding the case to Michael Tracey, a journalism professor at the University of Colorado.[29] Karr was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 15, 2006, and confessed to killing JonBenét. He claimed that he had drugged her and sexually assaulted her but also claimed that her death was an accident.[30] Investigators and legal authorities distrusted Karr's confession, as he provided only basic facts that were publicly known and failed to provide any convincing details. His claim of drugging JonBenét was also distrusted because no drugs were found in her body during the autopsy.

I also highly suspected the parents, but this article makes me rethink that.  That guys is really disgusting.

[Talky Tina]

I agree with @AZChristian,  I believe the theory that Jon Benet wet her bed again,  Patsy killed her and John covered it all up.  What I don't understand is the injuries to her vaginal area.   Was that done as part of the cover up? 

I also agree with @GaT, the Boulder police screwed up this case from the minute they walked into the house.   I'm just a lowly civil engineer but even I know that you secure the crime scene and don't let people roam the scene by themselves. 

[AZChristian]

Statistics are that one out of every four little girls is molested in some way, shape or form.  Some thought is that the vaginal trauma may have been from the past.

[Talky Tina]

@AZChristian, that statistic makes me weep. 

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, Talky Tina said:

@AZChristian, that statistic makes me weep. 

Sadly, it's true.  I was that one in four.

[OSM Mom]

On 8/28/2016 at 7:19 AM, AZChristian said:

There has long been a theory that JonBenet wet the bed (again) that night, and Patsy just "lost it" . . . As much as it pains me to say so, I also think that Patsy killed her and John helped cover it up.

Same here.  I remember reading somewhere that JonBenet would also not wipe herself after she went to the bathroom.  But sit there and scream until someone would come wipe her.  That always seemed skeevy at her age.  To not even try.  

[AZChristian]

I'm watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Ramseys from a few years after the murder.  Something that seemed strange to me:  When John brought her up from the basement, he put her body on the floor in the living room.  It seems to me that if I had found my child's body, (1) I would not let it go for anything, or (2) I would put her on a couch or something - NOT on the floor.

Does anyone else find that strange?

[Mountainair]

27 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I'm watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Ramseys from a few years after the murder.  Something that seemed strange to me:  When John brought her up from the basement, he put her body on the floor in the living room.  It seems to me that if I had found my child's body, (1) I would not let it go for anything, or (2) I would put her on a couch or something - NOT on the floor.

Does anyone else find that strange?

The whole case was filled with such instances. What loving, innocent parents would do any of the shit that happened following the discoverey of her body? I know grief presents itself in different ways for different people but none of their actions even remotely represented a truly grieving parent. The ransom note that pretty much was an identical match to the moms handwriting? I mean come on! The pineapple, the fact that she had so many documented cases of UTI's at such a young age (which normally doesn't seem so odd as I have nieces that get them often) coupled with the garroting leads me to believe she was sexually abused by some member of her immediate family quite frequently. 

[AZChristian]

Regarding the ransom note - it was SOOOOO long, and written on paper that was in the house.  Patsy was very dramatic and a talker.  And she knew where the note paper would have been.  As they said on the report I just saw, if this was a planned kidnapping by an intruder, the note would have been written prior to the break-in.  And it's doubtful it would have been that long.

[Mountainair]

The whole case was textbook CYA (cover your ass). It's ridiculous they got away with it. It's been years since Ive read up on this but I researched this case pretty extensively at one point. They tried to place blame on everyone. Even their elderly neighbor that played Santa if I remember correctly. I think the ransom note was the icing on the cake so to speak. Like you say, paper from the house, the length, terminology known to have been used by Patsy, an amount of money that matched a recent bonus the dad had just received from work. 

[Guest]

And don't forget John Ramsey's "vow" to find the "real killer" which turned out to be as authentic as the same "vow" OJ made as well. 

There's a Jonbenet show appearing on A&E this week (I think) in which John and Burke are interviewed. I'm sure it's gonna be more CYA nonsense. Oh, and Burke is gonna appear on the Dr Phil show sometime this month as well. Seems to me they want to get ahead of this show for some reason. 

[Court]

3 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

And don't forget John Ramsey's "vow" to find the "real killer" which turned out to be as authentic as the same "vow" OJ made as well. 

There's a Jonbenet show appearing on A&E this week (I think) in which John and Burke are interviewed. I'm sure it's gonna be more CYA nonsense. Oh, and Burke is gonna appear on the Dr Phil show sometime this month as well. Seems to me they want to get ahead of this show for some reason. 

I saw the preview for this and had that feeling. It was mainly there was an intruder and no one would believe us.  Or maybe the family staged it to look like that.

I definitely think that the police did a terrible job and because of that we'll never know the truth.

The family know what happened or was involved in some way. I don't believe it was random.

[tobeannounced]

I really don't have a firm opinion one way or the other about what happened, but with the advent of "touch DNA" tests, didn't the Boulder PD officially rule out any of the immediate family members since the DNA found on JB's body was from an unknown person and not one of the family?

[Guest]

The A&E show airs tonight. 

Yes, the DA claimed that whatever DNA they found on Jonbenet exonerated the family members. However, the former police chief who headed the investigation thinks it's not enough to say for certain. Here's a link to his AMA the Denver Post hosted. It's clear, though he doesn't say it, that the Ramseys are the likely killers. 

[Maharincess]

I've heard about the pineapple but I've never understood why it's such a big thing in the case.  Can some kind person explain it to me please?  Google just has the same old stories. 

[AZChristian]

A small bowl of pineapple chunks was found on the countertop in the kitchen after the murder.  JonBenet had pineapple chunks in her stomach, found during the autopsy.  Friends of the Ramsay family had gone into the house to help clean up (because the police apparently believed in an "open-door" policy), and someone dumped the leftover pineapple and washed the bowl.  Good-bye fingerprints.

[formerlyfreedom]

Just a heads up that the A&E Special has a topic over here - not that you can't post about it here, but that's going to be the spot for fuller discussion of the show.

[zxy556575]

What's the import of her eating pineapple (or anything) not too long before she was killed? Wouldn't the fingerprints of any family members on the bowl be normal/expected? Jon Benet probably didn't serve it up herself.

Maybe we should rename the title of this thread: What some people already know and I don't. ;)

[jenrising]

5 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

The A&E show airs tonight. 

Yes, the DA claimed that whatever DNA they found on Jonbenet exonerated the family members. However, the former police chief who headed the investigation thinks it's not enough to say for certain. Here's a link to his AMA the Denver Post hosted. It's clear, though he doesn't say it, that the Ramseys are the likely killers. 

It seems like the DNA is the only thing that suggests the parents didn't do it, but that scene (and whole investigation) was such a mess. Which can work both ways. Could be just tainted DNA, or could be one thing that points to someone else they didn't manage to screw up/miss. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by jenrising
finished the thought

[Guest]

What's the import of her eating pineapple (or anything) not too long before she was killed?

Patsy and John insisted she was put to bed immediately upon arrival at home. The pineapple had not been digested which would seem to indicate that she had eaten shortly before or near the time of her death. Someone had to have fed the bowl of pineapple to her at some point in the evening and both deny that she had eaten anything or that they had fed her anything. And I'd guess it's highly unlikely JonBenet was preparing and eating her own pineapple in the middle of the night.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, lordonia said:

What's the import of her eating pineapple (or anything) not too long before she was killed? Wouldn't the fingerprints of any family members on the bowl be normal/expected? Jon Benet probably didn't serve it up herself.

 

 

But if there were fingerprints OTHER than family members . . . but we'll never know.

[jenrising]

The A&E special seems to be preemptively debunking this series. Very interesting strategy. 

Spoiler

Science shade: Clip from the series with them saying it was impossible anyone could've gotten in the basement window shown AFTER the special shows a middle-age dude climbing in without much trouble.

Edited September 6, 2016 by jenrising
Spoiler notes something from promos for the series.

[Guest]

I was troubled by the sneering narration of that show -- as well as its one-sided POV -- so I looked up the production company. Seems they're based in England and this was just one of many pro-Ramsey "documentaries" they've produced. Look, I'm convinced of the parents' guilt in this case but am open to other, meaningful evidence pointing elsewhere. That show presented nothing that compelled me to think I was wrong.  

To your spoiler info, jenrising: from the preview for this series, it appears they attempt to prove the exact opposite. 

[Maharincess]

3 hours ago, lordonia said:

What's the import of her eating pineapple (or anything) not too long before she was killed? Wouldn't the fingerprints of any family members on the bowl be normal/expected? Jon Benet probably didn't serve it up herself.

Maybe we should rename the title of this thread: What some people already know and I don't. ;)

That's my confusion as well. I know all of the facts about the case and the pineapple but I never understood why it seemed so important. 

Thank you @AZChristian and @Giant Misfit.  

The main thing that made me suspicious of the Ramseys was that according to the book I read, the one by Steve Thomas the time the "kidnappers" were supposed to call came and went and John and Patsy didn't even notice. 

I know nothing  about body language or that type of thing,  but the way Patsy speaks with her eyes closed for half the sentence and looong blinks tell me she's lying. 

[GaT]

I watched the A&E show, & my opinion of the Boulder police has not improved. They screwed up the case from the very beginning IMO.

[jenrising]

4 hours ago, GaT said:

I watched the A&E show, & my opinion of the Boulder police has not improved. They screwed up the case from the very beginning IMO.

They really, really did. And their sloppiness is what I think makes it impossible to find out what really happened to that little girl. While the A&E special is certainly very biased to exonerate the Ramseys, it was pretty good. I remember studying this case for a investigative procedures class in college and it was such a disaster. Which makes it really hard to know because we can't tell what's good evidence and what's the police covering their asses. 

Quote

To your spoiler info, jenrising: from the preview for this series, it appears they attempt to prove the exact opposite. 

Yes, that was my poorly worded point. It's clear from the clip that in this series they say it's impossible, but it's clearly done without much struggle. Which I just found funny. Both are going to push what supports their theory, of course. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by jenrising
words

[Arynm]

13 hours ago, Maharincess said:

The main thing that made me suspicious of the Ramseys was that according to the book I read, the one by Steve Thomas the time the "kidnappers" were supposed to call came and went and John and Patsy didn't even notice. 

I know nothing  about body language or that type of thing,  but the way Patsy speaks with her eyes closed for half the sentence and looong blinks tell me she's lying. 

I am not well versed in this case, but these two items really make me think they had something to do with the murder. God Forbid this ever happens to me, but I would be glued to the clock waiting for the call. Who could ever forget that? Some of the other stuff I could chalk up to people grieve differently i.e. putting her body on the floor etc. but the ransom call? Never in a million years unless you knew it was never coming.

[Jellybeans]

I do not believe the Ramseys did it.  There was no motive and I do not buy the bed wetting theory.  The stun gun, DNA (points to a hispanic male) and ease in which Dectective Smit entered the window was a surprise.  He also believed the suspect's name was in his case files but he died before he could find the killer.  I think it will be solved eventually. It is a DNA case-new developments will now nab the family members of the murderer in CODIS which will help find him/her.  I am a Colorado resident and this case is very familiar to me.  The Boulder Police Dept. botched it in a huge way. Oh and the pineapple, well she was used to be around people.  A "nice" person she knew (?) goes in her room and entices her out with pineapple.  Not implausible, and very probable.

And as far as the behavior of the parents...I lost my daughter a few years ago and one thing I do know is grieving parents do NOT always act the way you expect them to.  Patsy and John are parents in extreme pain.  And as far as closing her eyes, well I did not murder my child but I close my eyes for long periods of time when I am talking about her death because it is so awful.  And the crap I hear from other people about MY behavior makes me crazy mad.

And another thing...many parents feel very guilty when their child dies because they are supposed to protect their children.  

[Guest]

Sorry to hear about your daughter, Jellybeans.

The show you're talking about is over at this thread. 

[Jellybeans]

48 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

Sorry to hear about your daughter, Jellybeans.

The show you're talking about is over at this thread. 

whoops. thanks.

[reggiejax]

I am looking forward to this show, Which is a bit strange as the JonBenet case, for me, rates on the lower end of my interest spectrum.

There are true crime cases I devour and learn as much as  I can about them (JFK, Zodiac, Manson), there are others that pique my interest level and I have a moderate amount of knowledge (OJ, Son of Sam), and then there are cases that I take note of, but I only really know what everyone else knows, the JonBenet case being the best example of that. 

I knew what was in the news, and like a lot of people, I pretty much presumed the parents were guilty as hell. But I admit, my belief in their guilt came from presumptions from how cases like this turn out, rather than a clear understanding of the facts and evidence. Nowadays, I kind of accept that the authorities have basically cleared the Ramseys. 

I have only ever read one book on the case, and it wasn't even a book specifically about the case. In fact, it was only a chapter in the Bill James book "Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence". And yes, the book is by that Bill James, the baseball stats guy. The book is essentially a layman's history of true crime in the US over the last 250 years. And JonBenet gets a chapter, but I have found that people interested in the case tend to get infuriated by James take on it. First and foremost, James is unapologetically on the side of the Ramseys being innocent. He even states that if people get just one thing from his book, it is that the Ramsey's are innocent. I will say he makes a pretty good case for that viewpoint, though I am only mostly convinced, not completely. The other part that is infuriating, and I agree with those infuriated, is his hypothesis of what he thinks happened. Suffice it to say he makes a lot of presumptions and takes a lot of leaps of logic. 

That aside, it is a good book, one I recommend to any true crime aficionado. 

I do look forward to really learning about the case from this show. Hopefully I will be able to get past the fact that one of the people involved looks a lot like Tony Hale, TV's Buster Bluth. 

[Epeolatrix]

That Bill James book is one of my favorite books on true crime, so I second the recommendation.

[jenrising]

Thirded! 

[heatherchandler]

On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 8:19 AM, AZChristian said:

There has long been a theory that JonBenet wet the bed (again) that night, and Patsy just "lost it" . . . As much as it pains me to say so, I also think that Patsy killed her and John helped cover it up.

 

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 3:21 PM, Talky Tina said:

I agree with @AZChristian,  I believe the theory that Jon Benet wet her bed again,  Patsy killed her and John covered it all up.  What I don't understand is the injuries to her vaginal area.   Was that done as part of the cover up? 

I read the Cyril Wecht book, Who Killed Jonbenet Ramsey, (it was a few years ago) but I believe that he looked at all of the evidence and concluded that the parents did it.  He may have been the one to come up with the bed-wetting/abuse and sexual assault cover-up theory.  Or I could be mixing his book up with another.

I do remember that it was a fascinating book, I recommend it.  I think I bought it used on Amazon for a dollar (plus a few dollars shipping).

 

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 9:40 PM, AZChristian said:

I'm watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Ramseys from a few years after the murder.  Something that seemed strange to me:  When John brought her up from the basement, he put her body on the floor in the living room.  It seems to me that if I had found my child's body, (1) I would not let it go for anything, or (2) I would put her on a couch or something - NOT on the floor.

Does anyone else find that strange?

They did so many weird things in the days after the murder.  I know there is no one way to act, but they were clearly covering something up, and not sure how to act.

 

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 0:23 PM, tobeannounced said:

I really don't have a firm opinion one way or the other about what happened, but with the advent of "touch DNA" tests, didn't the Boulder PD officially rule out any of the immediate family members since the DNA found on JB's body was from an unknown person and not one of the family?

From what I understand about touch-DNA, the DNA found on clothing or rope or anything else manufactured can come from the person who makes it or even packages it.

Touch-DNA is not a good way to include suspects, but rather a way to exclude. 

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 11:28 PM, Maharincess said:

I know nothing  about body language or that type of thing,  but the way Patsy speaks with her eyes closed for half the sentence and looong blinks tell me she's lying. 

I am not an expert on body language or facial expressions, but I absolutely get the feeling that she is hiding something, and very nervous.  Just from watching tapes of her being interviewed, I think her expressions and eyes give everything away.

[Yokosmom]

Quote

 

I'm watching the Barbara Walters interview with the Ramseys from a few years after the murder.  Something that seemed strange to me:  When John brought her up from the basement, he put her body on the floor in the living room.  It seems to me that if I had found my child's body, (1) I would not let it go for anything, or (2) I would put her on a couch or something - NOT on the floor.

Does anyone else find that strange?

 

I don't find it strange at all, but then, I'm not a parent, so maybe I'm not a good person to judge.  From what I vaguely remember, there were a number of people in that living room and I assume that they were sitting on the couch.  The girl was in full rigor at that point. Such a horrible scene.

Quote

The ransom note that pretty much was an identical match to the moms handwriting?

Except it wasn't.  I see this repeated all of the time.  6 experts looked at that note and none could definitely say that she wrote it or that her handwriting was even close.  However, none said that she definitely wasn't the writer either.... Is it possible to do such a masterful handwriting job when you are under duress and presumably in a highly emotional state?

Quote

 

From what I understand about touch-DNA, the DNA found on clothing or rope or anything else manufactured can come from the person who makes it or even packages it.

Touch-DNA is not a good way to include suspects, but rather a way to exclude. 

 

Yes, except that it was found on both pieces of her clothing, not just one--which kind of excludes the manufacturer.  However, it doesn't exclude members of the Boulder police department who may have handled both.  I mean, they said that they ran DNA against everyone in the dept. who had handled the clothes, but I'm not sure that anything they say at this point can be believed.  I may be being unfair at that comment, if only because many of the people involved with the original case must have left the department after so many years.

I know that I sound like I think that the parents didn't do it, but the truth is, I'm on the fence.  Trouble is, you can play devil's advocate with almost all of the evidence.  Like the pineapple--were the parents so distracted that they didn't notice that she managed to grab some pineapple that night, or are they lying?

Did some adult tell JonBenet that they were going to pay her a "secret" visit on the 26th, or was that just some random remark on her part?

Why didn't the Ramsey's react when the call deadline passed?  Did they know that one wasn't coming or were they just in shock?  And on and on...

And to reiterate, as so many have done, people respond to grief and trauma differently.  When my mother, to whom I was very close, died, I didn't cry.  I still haven't.  I think about her every day and grieve her deeply, but didn't show it much at the time.  I'd hate to be accused of a murder and have that held against me, because I didn't grieve outwardly the way people expect.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, Yokosmom said:

I don't find it strange at all, but then, I'm not a parent, so maybe I'm not a good person to judge.  From what I vaguely remember, there were a number of people in that living room and I assume that they were sitting on the couch.  The girl was in full rigor at that point. Such a horrible scene.

 

Many, if not all, the people in the home were parents.  If I were sitting on a couch and a friend carried his dead daughter into the room, I couldn't sit there on the couch and watch him put her on the floor.  IMO, a natural parental instinct would be to put her on a soft surface.  Unless he's the person who left her in a cold basement room on a concrete floor overnight.  In that case, the rug WOULD seem softer.

I do NOT want to believe they are responsible, but I can't come to any other conclusion.  There are (disputed) reports that after Patsy thought she'd disconnected the 911 call, Burke's voice is heard in the background, and then John barks at him, "We're not talking to you.  Go back to bed."  And yet, the official story is that Burke was either still asleep, or had at least stayed in his room.  

We may never know.  The Ramsays don't seem like murderers, but they sure have enough money to pay for the best advisors (defense lawyers) in the world.  

[ABay]

Conclusions based on perceptions and beliefs about what constitutes normal behavior are unconvincing to me. It's too close to mob mentality and witch hunts based on feelings instead of on facts. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be accused of a crime, I hope the court will find jurors who will base a verdict on evidence on not whether I cried an appropriate amount, based on their opinion of what that is.

I think there has always been a rush to judgment by some elements of the population, but with mass media and the face of every suspect--even those not officially charged--on the local news, the idea of innocent until proven guilty no longer exists. If you're accused, you're guilty in the court of public opinion. And that court is not interested in justice.

Edited September 9, 2016 by ABay

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 The ransom note that pretty much was an identical match to the moms handwriting?

I don't recall the note ever being referred to as "almost identical," just "not inconsistent with." Despite their weird and off-putting mannerisms--mostly Patsy--I do not think the parents did this. However, I used to believe that, and that note was definitely a huge part of why.

Quote

I know nothing  about body language or that type of thing,  but the way Patsy speaks with her eyes closed for half the sentence and looong blinks tell me she's lying. 

Patsy was pretty heavily sedated during many of the broadcast interview segments released. (Hi, Maha--how are you doing?)

Edited September 9, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[reggiejax]

Until recently, I had never heard of pineapple being related to this case. But as I prepare to watch this show, the more I read about the pineapple the more interesting I find it.

And when I say interesting, I don't mean interesting so much as it is an important piece of evidence, because at this point, I honestly don't think it is, but rather as a piece of evidence that can be, and has been, interpreted to support whatever side of the discussion one happens to be on.

The one indisputable fact is that JonBenet had eaten pineapple before her death, as it was found inside of her. After that, everything else seems to be highly debatable, and can be interpreted in many ways. And people tend to interpret it to fit their theory, rather than admitting there is really little the pineapple can conclusively tell us.

As a true crime buff, there is usually some item in just about every case that tends to serve this purpose. For example, in the Manson case, there is a pair of eyeglasses found at the Tate home that cannot be matched to any of the victims, and were never tied to any of the perpetrators. Though in this instance, I tend to think the closest antecedent is the bottle of Coke that Lee Harvey Oswald had in his possession shortly after the assassination. Oswald was encountered by his boss and a policeman in the 2nd floor lunchroom of the Book Depository. This was roughly 90 seconds after the assassination. The officer asked if Oswald worked there, his boss said he did, and they left him there to continue searching. With regards to the soft drink, the one thing for sure is that Lee Oswald had bought himself a Coke. The rest of the details are debatable, and suffice it to say this piece of evidence, however insignificant (and it is ultimately insignificant) has been used to fuel many a conspiracy theory, most exonerating Oswald.

But it is amazing how we tend to take whatever we can get to support what we believe, regardless of it's factual and evidentiary usefulness, or lack thereof.

[GaT]

4 hours ago, reggiejax said:

Until recently, I had never heard of pineapple being related to this case. But as I prepare to watch this show, the more I read about the pineapple the more interesting I find it.

And when I say interesting, I don't mean interesting so much as it is an important piece of evidence, because at this point, I honestly don't think it is, but rather as a piece of evidence that can be, and has been, interpreted to support whatever side of the discussion one happens to be on.

 

I think the pineapple is of great importance if for no other reason that it shows much the police screwed up this investigation. They let someone come in & clean up the house without ever checking for fingerprints or other clues. We will never know if that bowl of pineapple was important to solving the case because of this. There could have been fingerprints on the bowl showing that the parents lied, or there could have been a stranger's fingerprints, or the brother's fingerprints, or only JonBenet's fingerprints but it's a complete mystery now & that's why it's so important. 

[walnutqueen]

8 hours ago, ABay said:

Conclusions based on perceptions and beliefs about what constitutes normal behavior are unconvincing to me. It's too close to mob mentality and witch hunts based on feelings instead of on facts. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be accused of a crime, I hope the court will find jurors who will base a verdict on evidence on not whether I cried an appropriate amount, based on their opinion of what that is.

I think there has always been a rush to judgment by some elements of the population, but with mass media and the face of every suspect--even those not officially charged--on the local news, the idea of innocent until proven guilty no longer exists. If you're accused, you're guilty in the court of public opinion. And that court is not interested in justice.

Thank you!!!!

Not ONE piece of scientific evidence points to the family - not even the ransom note OR the pineapple.  The child's own pediatrician (and other MEs, I think) have ruled out sexual abuse.  Yet people are willing to overlook the missing duct tape roll, strangulation cord, stun gun, open grate & window, DNA and all else because they didn't like how the parents acted.  Mob mentality, tabloid mentality, and massive police ineptitude made this a national tragedy.

[Court]

I'm not sure any piece of evidence can be presented as surefire on either side. Simply because the scene was so compromised. Both sides ignore things.

I'm in the middle but I can see both sides easily. Or that the parents are covering for someone.  The missing stuff? The parents could have hidden it. Someone could have thrown it away. The police did an awful job and maybe it was overlooked. 

Sexual abuse wasn't ruled out. Her pedi said he hadn't seen signs. ME have said they can't say.

The open window and grate? Maybe one of the parents staged it to look as if there was an intruder. John had said he broke the window when locked out. I do think someone could have gotten in that way, easily.

I'm not going to judge how someone grieves. I don't think there is a right way. 

But the oddest thing to me is that they didn't search the entire house the second they realized she was missing. Even if you think she was kidnapped, I know I'd search the entire house. I realize that doesn't mean they're guilty, it just bugs me.

Any defense is going to say the DNA is unreliable because of everyone that was allowed to go into the house and clean up. Or use the DNA transfer to explain it away.  DNA is not a surefire way to prove who did it in this case considering how compromised the scene was.

[reggiejax]

2 hours ago, GaT said:

I think the pineapple is of great importance if for no other reason that it shows much the police screwed up this investigation. They let someone come in & clean up the house without ever checking for fingerprints or other clues. We will never know if that bowl of pineapple was important to solving the case because of this. There could have been fingerprints on the bowl showing that the parents lied, or there could have been a stranger's fingerprints, or the brother's fingerprints, or only JonBenet's fingerprints but it's a complete mystery now & that's why it's so important. 

Why do I think the bowl of pineapple is essentially useless? Because the general belief is that the pineapple was used to lure JonBenet and get her trust before she was murdered.

And that stretches reason no matter what theory one believes in.

If it was her parents, the pineapple simply would not have even been needed. Not to mention, it is generally believed that if her parents murdered her, it was in a fit of rage. So the bowl of pineapple, which indicates premeditation, just doesn't fly.

Also, while the stereotype of a pedophile is some weirdo luring kids with treats, that wouldn't be the case here if the murderer was a stranger.  For lack of a better term, the "soft approach" is usually utilized in a public or outdoor setting. It is done to lessen the chance of a scene being made. But here we have someone who went to the trouble of breaking into a residence. In that situation, it reverses, and the soft approach becomes riskier. Why take the time and effort when the chances are higher the child will scream. No, someone who breaks in is going to take her quickly and forcefully, subduing her and/or gagging her.

As for prints on the bowl, if those of a member of the Ramsey family were found, that is essentially worthless. Their prints on a bowl they owned and used have no value.

If it was an intruder, then yes, it had value. But I think I have outlined why I believe that just wasn't going to be the case.

Quite honestly, I don't believe the bowl of pineapple had anything to do with the murder, nor could it have broken the case.  

Having said that, I do agree that the police should have gathered it as evidence. There is no argument from me about the piss poor job the police did.

Edited September 9, 2016 by reggiejax