The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[Guest]

Here's the website. I posted it in another thread on September 11.

[SSAHotchner]

5 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I posted the link in one of the intruder-did-it shows that aired last week. (I don't feel like looking for it now.) Anyway, that same site also provided information that another firm (that did work for NASA, IIRC) confirmed that those Ramsey conversations did take place. So, your facts about that being "disproven" are a bit misleading. 

Not to mention that there were FBI guys involved with this program as well. 

[Fable]

I thought the deconstruction of the ransom letter was interesting, but the rest not so much.  The bit about the 911 call was unconvincing.  Then there was theory that JonBenet was brain dead before the strangulation.  Why then were there scratch marks around her neck, and if there is an explanation why wasn’t it addressed instead of conveniently glossed over? 

I have no real idea one way or another who killed JonBenet, but so far this version isn’t helping to clear things up any more than the other shows have.

[Guest]

Nah, the "fuck it" was directed at me.

Quote

 

 I believe the post you linked noted the same.

It did ... and did not. WRT to Aerospace Corporation who did the enhanced audio v. the NBC report, the relevant bit from that link: 

Quote

 

Aerospace Stands Behind its Work. However, in 2003, according to the National Enquirer (see below), in response to claims that two firms hired by NBC to analyze the tape had found no evidence of Burke's voice, "the renowned high-tech company that enhanced the tape for the Boulder police says its original findings that Burke's voice is on the tape is correct. We stand by our work," Linda Brill, spokesperson for The Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, Calif., told the Enquirer. The company maintains a division of a Department of Justice - funded institute that offers space-age expertise to police departments nationwide. "We are top shelf," said Brill. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Guest

[choclatechip45]

If the Ramsey's didn't do it they sure made themselves look really bad in the process. 

It's hard for me to believe a kidnapper is going to write a long ransom note with the same paper that was in the house, feed Jonbenet pineapple, and kill her.

I followed the Elizabeth Smart case and they took her and left. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by choclatechip45

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

By far this is the most salacious, and poorly fact-checked of all the specials.  It's also extremely biased against the Ramseys, which may be why so many found it the most interesting, and supposedly learned things never heard before (hint:  because they're not true).

I don't think they did it, and I thought it was the least salacious one. But I prefer when stuff is reported and dissected by people I respect in the criminology field.

[LittleCabbage]

1 hour ago, SSAHotchner said:

"Do the Ramseys seem like the kind of people who would leave food out when they go to bed?"

 

Well, based on the crime scene footage, it looks as thought they left quite a bit of food out on the counter on Christmas night. I noticed plates of cookies and deviled eggs and little canapes and goodness knows what else on the counter. I was so struck by it that I said to Mr. Cabbage, "It makes me squeamish when I see people leave food out like that." So the pineapple being left out has never seemed like a particularly significant detail. The fingerprints on the bowl... now that might be another story. Anyway, enough from me about Pineapplegate.  And apologies for not using the quote function correctly here.

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by LittleCabbage

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 But never mind.  I don't think my voice is welcome here, so I'll head over to another thread.

Don't go--your posts are clear and well thought out and not know-it-allish or pushy! 

Quote

I have no idea what the majority consensus is, or if there is one, but I idly asked three people who haven't followed the case and only have a dim recollection of the facts who they thought did it. They all said "the brother." Kind of surprised me.

I find that most of the people I know in my personal life who think it was Burke are people who are not that well-versed or especially interested in true crime stuff. Not that I'm saying that you can't be into it and also think Burke did it, of course, but I get the idea that non-crime-geeks view this kind of thing almost like a...Lifetime movie or something fictional with a "shocking twist" that everyone wants to figure out before the resolution is known. Not that that's entirely their fault, considering how it's always been presented by the media (and considering the style of shows that dominate the ID channel now). Basically, everyone I know who thinks it's Burke is someone pretty unfamiliar with the case; I think they like the drama of pinning it on a little kid? I don't know--and again, I am not saying that that's the reason that anyone here suspects Burke.

Edited September 19, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[AZChristian]

There are few FACTS that are not in dispute in this case. Anything else we discuss here is conjecture and opinion.

1. JonBenet is dead.
2. Patsy is dead for reasons not related to the case.
3. They are both buried in Georgia.

[Court]

2 hours ago, Maharincess said:

And how do you know it didn't happen?  You speak of things like you know 100% without a doubt, where do you get your sources? 

I think it's pretty clear to see how the evidence can point to both theories. At this point, unless the killer confesses, we won't ever know.

[formerlyfreedom]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, folks. It doesn't have to be the same as yours. "Be civil" is our site rule. Please do so.

[EVS]

This is OT, but I am actually awaiting news regarding the death of a family friend. His killer was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The sentencing was supposed to be today, but I haven't heard anything. The irony (and the reason I posted this here), is that he was a CSI tech and I would have loved to get his opinion on this special and on the whole JBR mystery. 

[Court]

I couldn't make out words (besides Jesus) on the call but I do hear a voice. I do think it is weird that she hung up on 911. I called when my middle daughter stopped breathing for a couple minutes and the operator wanted us on the phone until help arrived. She was my lifeline at the time. Someone else may react differently.

For me, the fact that she was killed in her own home is why I have difficulty believing the Ramsey's have no involvement. 

I said previously that I couldn't imagine a 9 year old had any involvement but I'm changing my mind. It makes sense that the parents would stage a scene to protect their child. I'm not convinced but I can see it. If it was an intruder, I don't believe it was a stranger. It was someone well known to the Ramsey's, IMO.

In regards to the handwriting, it's never been definitive. Even the A&E special said multiple experts couldn't exclude Patsy from being the writer but they also couldn't confirm it.

It's also so easy to make any of the evidence fit whatever side you take of the case. The police botched the scene but there is also the possibility they're right. Or they're wrong. 

Vaginosis does not exclude previous sexual abuse. It just muddies the waters and no one can say whether it existed or not.

I can see how an intruder got in the basement, easily. Did anyone try to get out with the suitcase? Was that possible?

Wasn't Patsy holding JonBenet after she was found? This part confuses me since many have said John placed her on the floor?

My DVR didn't record the last 15 minutes since football ran over, what did I miss?

[lorikauai]

38 minutes ago, LittleCabbage said:

Quote

 

"Do the Ramseys seem like the kind of people who would leave food out when they go to bed?"

 

Well, based on the crime scene footage, it looks as thought they left quite a bit of food out on the counter on Christmas night. I noticed plates of cookies and deviled eggs and little canapes and goodness knows what else on the counter. I was so struck by it that I said to Mr. Cabbage, "It makes me squeamish when I see people leave food out like that." So the pineapple being left out has never seemed like a particularly significant detail. The fingerprints on the bowl... now that might be another story. Anyway, enough from me about Pineapplegate.  And apologies for not using the quote function correctly here.

 

I agree that the pineapple is probably not significant. It was Christmas and they and were tired (maybe drinking?) and left food out. Patsy was apparently so tired that she fell asleep in her clothes so I don't find it odd that she forgot to put food away. I can imagine JonBenet waking up and coming downstairs and finding the pineapple. My 6 year old has done this. 

 

In any case, I highly doubt it's Burke. If he had struck her with a flashlight and killed her, why would the parents cover it up by staging a sexual assault, making a garrote, and writing a rambling ransom note? That makes no sense. Why not claim she fell down the stairs or just get rid of the body? That's what most people would do to cover up a murder. Sure, it's possible, but it's certainly not likely.

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Court said:

Wasn't Patsy holding JonBenet after she was found? This part confuses me since many have said John placed her on the floor?

 

I've read that Patsy was sitting on the floor, rocking back and forth with JonBenet's body and wailing. 

[Maharincess]

On 9/19/2016 at 4:06 PM, Court said:

. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Maharincess

[Court]

I have another question regarding the ransom note. Did the intruder write it before the murder or afterwards? What are the theories regarding that?

Edited September 20, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[Luciano]

The only other thing that seems to be agreed on is that the police screwed up.

They mentioned that JR went missing for over an hour. I think it was mentioned by Arndt in her report, so it wasn't new information. What is the implication here, that he did something with the body? Did she search for him during that time? Arndt was the only detective inside the house after the deadline passed and she was tasked with keeping track of all the civilians.  It was a huge house, so I can imagine her missing him while she's dealing with keeping an eye on Patsy and the group surrounding her. He could have gone somewhere to privately lose it after the deadline passed or whatever. I would imagine his staging of the body would have been done before the police was called, not while a detective and multiple people were milling around the first floor and cops were outside the house.

The other thing is that when Arndt finally gets him in her sight, she decides to tell him to go around to see if anything is amiss (thus moving him out of sight again). The FBI agent on the show said that she stated that they were going to do a top-to-bottom search, starting from the top and that Ramsey's immediate response was to grab White and head to the basement. Arndt, in her report, said that she told Ramsey and Fleet to conduct a top to bottom search to recheck everything with the purpose of keeping Ramsey's mind occupied. I don't think it's weird that Ramsey went to the basement. The third floor was basically his bedroom with Patsy and they had spent the night there and heard nothing. The second floor had JB's room but it was taped off as a crime scene so it would have been focused on by the actual police. The first floor was where everyone currently was. The basement had a broken window, was farthest from where everyone would be at night, and was a good starting point if another party (the cops) were searching from the top.

The fact that the detective encouraged two people to just walk around a potential crime scene without a police officer with them is mind-boggling to me. This wasn't a case of JR just randomly deciding to go searching room to room on his own and finding the body. He was told to basically do his own detective work and he did what another officer had an opportunity to do hours before (but failed to do) and opened the wine cellar door.

I actually do not have any strong leanings toward who did it, but this part of the documentary to me tried to pass over shoddy work on Arndt's behalf in favor of John Ramsey acting suspiciously and it didn't work.

[AZChristian]

The only intruder-based theory I've heard regarding the ransom note is that the intruder was in the house alone for several hours before the Ramseys arrived home.  It was during that time - when this was still supposed to be a kidnapping - that they would have had time to write the note.

What I've not heard is any explanation as to why they left the note there after things went awry and JonBenet was killed.  What was the use of the note at that point?

Edited September 20, 2016 by AZChristian

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

There are few FACTS that are not in dispute in this case. Anything else we discuss here is conjecture and opinion.

1. JonBenet is dead.
2. Patsy is dead for reasons not related to the case.
3. They are both buried in Georgia.

Can we add:  4.  Linda Arndt is an idiot?

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, JudyObscure said:

Can we add:  4.  Linda Arndt is an idiot?

Not the brightest bulb . . . but the excuse I've heard regarding the Boulder police is "this was the day after Christmas, and we were operating with a skeleton crew."  FOR PETE'S SAKE . . . Why is there no thought to call people back in from vacation for an emergency?  THIS was an emergency!  Only one officer in the Boulder Police Department had training on handling kidnappings, and he - of course - was on vacation.  Sadly, once the body was found the FBI no longer had jurisdiction, so the FBI guy left.  And he seemed to be one of the few "professionals" on scene with a grain of sense.

[SSAHotchner]

I'll have to look for that if they show the kitchen tonight. I'm not as grossed out about cookies being left out but anything wet or smelly....ick. Actually I'm surprised they didn't have a live-in servant. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[Court]

Before she was found, both friends, family, and police had already searched the house. I can see how someone unfamilar with that labyrinth of a huge house could miss that wine cellar. 

The FBI told Arndt to have JR search the house again as a way to calm him down. I don't think either of them expected him to find her. 

A few points to remember about Arndt. She had never worked a homicide before. Boulder averages maybe 1 homicide a year. She should have never been left alone at the house. Also, they believed it was a kidnapping so they concentrated the resources outside of the house. I hope they did call in the police on call and on vacation but if they were out of state, that's difficult to do. Boulder is a small community and the Ramsey's status there is likely why the police did some of the stuff that baffles us today. The police did an awful job but I don't believe she is soley to blame. 

The neighbor and friends were also told not to talk to the police. I understand asking them to not talk to the media, but the police part I have more difficulty with. What if one of the friends was the killer? What if they had knowledge or important information and didn't realize it? 

[Tippi]

I was surprised to see how cluttered that house was.  The basement (and the kitchen, for that matter) seemed very jumbled and unorganized to me and looked like it would be a very difficult crime scene to process.

[Court]

Just now, Tippi said:

I was surprised to see how cluttered that house was.  The basement (and the kitchen, for that matter) seemed very jumbled and unorganized to me and looked like it would be a very difficult crime scene to process.

Plus, the friends were cleaning up! 

[Tippi]

Yeah, the cleaning up of an active crime scene is stunning.  Honestly, what did they think they were doing? 

[Court]

5 minutes ago, Tippi said:

Yeah, the cleaning up of an active crime scene is stunning.  Honestly, what did they think they were doing? 

And why did no one stop them!??

[BitterApple]

4 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

That's because it didn't happen.

Why bother with facts?  What do truth, fact, logic, and forensics matter when people "just know" the Ramseys are guilty.  I'm a little nervous I may one day have my life in the hands of this type of juror.  Actually, I'm terrified.

Or those who are the exact opposite. I had a co-worker who once sat on a sexual assault trial. She was convinced the defendant was innocent because "he was so handsome, why would he need to rape anybody"?. Between incompetent morons like Linda Arndt and jurors who make decisions off emotion and not fact, I pray I'm never at the mercy of our justice system.

[Luciano]

1 minute ago, Court said:

Before she was found, both friends, family, and police had already searched the house. I can see how someone unfamilar with that labyrinth of a huge house could miss that wine cellar. 

The FBI told Arndt to have JR search the house again as a way to calm him down. I don't think either of them expected him to find her. 

But at least one police officer knew that the wine cellar was there. Officer French did not open the door because he was only looking for exit points. Going by that link with all the information that was posted in the other thread, White actually opened the door to the wine cellar but couldn't find the light switch.

I don't think they expected him to find her either. The issue I had is that the FBI agent implied, through his wording, that Ramsey knew where the body was and went to "discover" it - he made a beeline to the basement and finds the body with his friend, like perpetrators of staged murders cases tend to do. Except in this case, he and his friend were told to go look around by the detective and he started his search in what to me was a logical place (the basement). The FBI agent made a point that you want to keep everyone within sight and here you have two of the people in the house being sent to search on their own just because one of them kept pacing the floor. I know Arndt was put in a tough place with being the only detective inside the house, but that particular move was just very wrong to me.

[pamplemousse]

2 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I find that most of the people I know in my personal life who think it was Burke are people who are not that well-versed or especially interested in true crime stuff. Not that I'm saying that you can't be into it and also think Burke did it, of course, but I get the idea that non-crime-geeks view this kind of thing almost like a...Lifetime movie or something fictional with a "shocking twist" that everyone wants to figure out before the resolution is known. Not that that's entirely their fault, considering how it's always been presented by the media (and considering the style of shows that dominate the ID channel now). Basically, everyone I know who thinks it's Burke is someone pretty unfamiliar with the case; I think they like the drama of pinning it on a little kid? I don't know--and again, I am not saying that that's the reason that anyone here suspects Burke.

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite: that people who believe in the intruder theory are not well-versed in true crime stuff. This case is certainly a classic example of agree to disagree.

People might have tons of anecdotal "evidence" from their own lives and experiences that support or explain the Ramseys' behavior, but what I can't figure out is why so much of what the Ramseys did, particularly initially, were counter to assisting in solving who kidnapped and murdered their daughter. Why call over so many friends even though the ransom note warned them not to and even though it would certainly contaminate the crime scene? Why did Patsy and her friends start cleaning the crime scene? Why warn their friends not to talk to police from the beginning even though in the beginning the Ramseys were treated with a great deal of deference by the police and as though they were victims not suspects?  Did they not think any of their friends might have relevant information or might be able to help the police in some way? If anyone made them look suspicious, it was the Ramseys themselves who did the most in that regard, in my opinion.

Edited September 20, 2016 by pamplemousse

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 

The only intruder-based theory I've heard regarding the ransom note is that the intruder was in the house alone for several hours before the Ramseys arrived home.  It was during that time - when this was still supposed to be a kidnapping - that they would have had time to write the note.

What I've not heard is any explanation as to why they left the note there after things went awry and JonBenet was killed.  What was the use of the note at that point?

 

Well, we don't know what time the note was left there. If this started out as a kidnapping, they'd have to go upstairs to JonBenét's room. Maybe they'd already left the note (which they could have written while the Ramseys were out) on the stairs and didn't want to risk going back up from the basement to retrieve it? Also, no matter who did any of it, s/he was inexperienced at seemingly everything--maybe the "real killer(s)" forgot their finished note at home, haha!

[Court]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

Well, we don't know what time the note was left there. If this started out as a kidnapping, they'd have to go upstairs to JonBenét's room. Maybe they'd already left the note (which they could have written while the Ramseys were out) on the stairs and didn't want to risk going back up from the basement to retrieve it? Also, no matter who did any of it, s/he was inexperienced at seemingly everything--maybe the "real killer(s)" forgot their finished note at home, haha!

This last line cracks me up. Whoops, left my note and tools at home! Hmm, let me hang out here watching this movie while I write a note.  Oh, oops, dropped it down the stairs, I'll just leave it there!  Someone will find it! (I realize that I shouldn't find this funny. I'll admit it, I have a weird sense of humor.)

There could have been more than one intruder? Or do people pretty much agree that it was one intruder? 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Court

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

Between incompetent morons like Linda Arndt and jurors who make decisions off emotion and not fact, I pray I'm never at the mercy of our justice system.

I was the foreperson on a capital murder case. I voted to acquit (as did all the other jurors) a person we knew was guilty but the the one bit of evidence that could have put him away was tossed out by the judge. 

Please try to sleep well tonight knowing that the justice system isn't always corrupted by those expressing their emotions on a message board.

[Maharincess]

2 hours ago, Tippi said:

I was surprised to see how cluttered that house was.  The basement (and the kitchen, for that matter) seemed very jumbled and unorganized to me and looked like it would be a very difficult crime scene to process.

I've read in multiple places that despite the posh facade,   the house was filthy. The public rooms were cleaned by a house keeper but their living spaces were filthy dirty.   Patsy liked to put up a good front. 

[Pollock]

13 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

The thing that is so weird to me is, whether they did it or not, if Burke had been awake and asking questions during this crazed morning, why not say so? There's nothing incriminating in and of itself about that, and it seems that the idea of him being in bed the whole time is more of a sticking point to many people.

It's not to me. If I was afraid, if there was ruckus in the house and I heard my parents scream in panic, I would be very afraid and I'd want to stay where I feel safe: in my room (and under my bed! haha!). I don't believe he wasn't awake, just IF that's the truth that he stayed in his room, he stayed in, listening. 
It seems unlikely but not impossible. That's the all thing with this case: everything is unlikely. I don't want to pull a Sherlock because you can't. Nothing is truly impossible so you can't grasp ONE theory. All theories are improbable, from the Ramseys Did It to the Pedophile Ring to An Intruder Did It but not impossible. 

7 hours ago, Maharincess said:

The friends were called two minutes after the 911 call was placed. Who would have the presence of mind to to even think about their friends after finding their daughter missing?  My friends would be the last thing on my mind. 

 They called their friends and their reverend (the two couples of friends arriverd around 6 AM ; the reverend around 7AM). I don't know, I'm an atheist but seeking comfort in a group setting isn't that a thing with Christians? I'm really asking, there is no irony in my question!

The thing that bothers me most isn't as much calling of friends as the 911 phone call, meaning the timing of it. I don't know, but I have a ransom note which says "don't call anyone", I would at least hesitate to do so and discuss the matter (not that I could have a coherent discussion about it with my husband, more of "don't call them, don't call them, go get the fucking money and give me my daughter back" kind of discussion...).
Here, Patsy discovered the note around 5h45 and called the police 7 minutes later.
Again, I guess this one is a damn if you do, damn if you don't because hadn't they call the police quicky, I could have said that they waited too long to call the police, but this bothers me. But given the bad statistics for abducted children, whether you call the police or not, I guess it makes no difference at the end...

But now that I'm thinking about it while I'm writing the thing above, if you want to cover the murder of your child, would you call the police that soon after stating finding a ransom note? You could call your friends (or even better, your reverend) to testify on your behalf: you play the worried parents comedy for them, wait for a phone call you know will never come with them and THEN call the police. Wouldn't your case be better?
 

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

The only intruder-based theory I've heard regarding the ransom note is that the intruder was in the house alone for several hours before the Ramseys arrived home.  It was during that time - when this was still supposed to be a kidnapping - that they would have had time to write the note.

What I've not heard is any explanation as to why they left the note there after things went awry and JonBenet was killed.  What was the use of the note at that point?

Red herring? When you think of an abduction, you're less likely to search for trace of a murder, especially in the house, maybe? And that's valid for a cover-up and an intruder theory. Especially when you think that there was actual evidence of a practice note on the same pad. 
http://www.jameson245.com/bestnote.htm
Pages 1-12 were missing. 

      Pages 13-16 were filled with lists and notes and doodles 
      Pages 17-25 were missing - apparently not found in the house 
      Page 26 contained the words "Mr. and Mrs. I" and had some ink on it, apparently bleedthrough from 
      whatever had been written on page 25. 
      Pages 27, 28 and 29 have been positively identified as the pages the ransom note were written on 
      No one has said if page 30 had any "bleedthrough" on it or if any other pages were missing.

      When John was asked for handwriting samples from both himself and Patsy, he gave them the pads 
      from the hall.

There were no fingerprints found on the pad - just one print and that belonged to the CBI examiner.

 

2 hours ago, Tippi said:

Yeah, the cleaning up of an active crime scene is stunning.  Honestly, what did they think they were doing? 

The irony is : it was the Police's fault. They called the people who first compromised that room. 
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682461/December 26#8001000AM
Time Unstated
Advocates Brought Food. "Early that morning, police had called in a team of victims' advocates, trained in helping families through traumatic situations, who arrived with bagels and coffee." (Glick et al. 1998).
Time Unstated 
Advocates Cleaned Kitchen. "After using the kitchen, the advocates began tidying it up, a law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK. One friend helped clean the kitchen, wiping down the counters with a spray cleaner--and possibly wiping away important evidence." (Glick et al. 1998).

That helps understand what the cleaner was thinking. I know I clean when I'm stressed and I'm not alone. Stressful situation --> people making a mess in the kitchen --> I'll help my friend whose to do list that day doesn't include making her kitchen spotless.  


Regarding the documentary, well, the only thing I was surprised about in this first part was Henry Lee working this case for that bullshit show. I've known him from the Laci Peterson's case and he seemed like a good scientist in that one. Well, more exactly, I've seen him on The Staircase, the awesome documentary about the case but still... 
That enhanced tape was horseshit, really. You can hear really what you want. I did the test with my husband who knows nothing about JonBenét and except for the Help me Jesus part, he scratched his head. Those experts were just parroting what was reported online. Playing virgins about it was really taking the public for dumbasses. 
I was super disappointed in this first part: I was prepared if not for a Making a Murderer, The Jinx or Paradise Lost quality or even Killing Fields (which was kind of shity but still compelling enough), at least for some good reporting. The idea that it was originally 6 hours long excited me when I heard about this. But except for production value and the HD, that was bad. They just had their idea and made the evidences fit the theory. I detest when people wave the flag of fairness and unbias and use it to blind people. But because I like the benefit of the doubt, I'll say that cutting the program so much must have left on the floor a lot of the reasoning behind and that's why this first part is so one sided. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Pollock
English is hard!

[ExplainItAgain]

I can't believe they basically came out and said Burke did it. Those interviews with him were creepy.

The Kolar theory is very plausible.

I really want to see the missing two hours.

[pamplemousse]

38 minutes ago, Court said:

This last line cracks me up. Whoops, left my note and tools at home! Hmm, let me hang out here watching this movie while I write a note.  Oh, oops, dropped it down the stairs, I'll just leave it there!  Someone will find it! (I realize that I shouldn't fins this funny. I'll admit it, I have a weird sense of humor.)

There could have been more than one intruder? Or do people pretty much agree that it was one intruder? 

Apparently, the note was left on a back stairway that the family frequently used and some took this as another sign that whoever wrote the ransom note was either a family member or knew the family well enough to know that they used this stairway a lot rather than a main stairway.

Well, if we go by the touch DNA evidence that Mary Lacy thought was proof enough to exonerate the Ramseys, then it was like 5-6 different intruders. Or, a "foreign faction," if you will.

[Mittengirl]

Regarding the DNA on the underwear - do we know if JonBenet's undies were brand new?  And is anyone else grossed out at the thought of putting new underwear on without washing it first?  Or new clothes of any kind - except coats, jackets, etc.  

[Ohmo]

After the Dateline episode, I thought that Burke did it, either by accident or intentionally.  This presentation solidifies my thoughts that he is responsible for her death.  There was something seriously wrong with Burke Ramsey.  Smearing feces is not normal behavior, and his interview only weeks after JonBenet's death is practically chilling.  I know we talk all the time about people responding differently after a trauma, but he had no emotion whatsoever about the death of his sister.  The one thing that has changed about my opinion is that I now think he acted intentionally...not to intentionally kill her, but to intentionally injure her.  I don't think the incident with the golf club can be dismissed as a simple accident, either.

I think we were looking at a 9 year-old sociopath, who is now an adult.

[WhitneyWhit]

I'm not sure what to think when it comes to this case, but what I do know is Burke Ramsey was creepy as fuck as a kid. I did find it interesting that he had no fear over what had happened. I mean, I know kids can be resilient when it comes to traumatic events, but I think a kid his age would be scared of someone coming for him after his sister had been murdered in their home, jumping to conclusions a bit, it was almost as though he knew he had no reason to be scared.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

(I realize that I shouldn't fins this funny. I'll admit it, I have a weird sense of humor.)

I had the same thought while I was typing it!

[Court]

@Pollock the timing of the calls to friends bother me too. It seems too quick. 

If it had been me, we would have called the police but no one else right away. Only afterwards, would I have called my pastor and family. Maybe a close friend. But that's me. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Court

[TattleTeeny]

I think a lot of people would say screw it and call the cops; someone who writes a ransom note presumably wants money more than they want to kill your kid. I think...I myself have never written a ransom note, or at least not one for money in exchange for a person.

[Ohmo]

3 minutes ago, WhitneyWhit said:

I'm not sure what to think when it comes to this case, but what I do know is Burke Ramsey was creepy as fuck as a kid. I did find it interesting that he had no fear over what had happened. I mean, I know kids can be resilient when it comes to traumatic events, but I think a kid his age would be scared of someone coming for him after his sister had been murdered in their home, jumping to conclusions a bit, it was almost as though he knew he had no reason to be scared.

I also thought his reaction to the pineapple was telling in the interview that was held when he was 11.  I thought Clemente and Laura (I'm blanking on her last name) were extremely credible, and they pointed out that he was avoiding identifying what was in the bowl as pineapple.  It's a simple question, and he was an 11-year-old kid.  His hesitation was out of place and was a huge red flag for me.

[LittleCabbage]

I found the footage of the psychiatric interviews with eleven-year-old Burke bone-chilling. I cannot imagine how any therapist could come away from these sessions thinking that this was a normal, well-adjusted child. Either there is extensive written documentation of pathology that we will never see or these counselors were the biggest idiots in town.  If the feces-smearing is true, that is the behavior of a deeply disturbed individual.

Much as I hate to bring up the pineapple thing again...I let out a gasp when the 'roundtable' folks posited the theory that JonBenet might have snatched a piece of pineapple out of Burke's bowl and sparked a fight that way.  I have always wondered why the family was so cagey about that damned pineapple. The only explanation for it is if the pineapple played into the narrative directly leading to the child's death.  The scenario seemed plausible to me.  I know I get mildly homicidal when someone tries to steal a french fry from my plate, and I'm a grown-ass woman, and sane for the most part. 

Others may (and will) disagree, but for me the Burke theory is the only one that makes sense in light of all the different pieces of this puzzle.  I thought that long before seeing any of the recent re-examinations of the case.

[LittleCabbage]

And before I forget to mention it... who eats pineapple in MILK?! Gah! That's a crime in itself!

[Mittengirl]

I can't believe none of the experts made mention of Burke possibly having Aspbergers or some kind of social/emotional disorder.  They talked about the feces smearing and his odd affect, but no one makes any suggestions at to what might cause that.  Yet they are willing to label him a murderer.

[ExplainItAgain]

8 minutes ago, LittleCabbage said:

And before I forget to mention it... who eats pineapple in MILK?! Gah! That's a crime in itself!

It might have been cream or sweetened condensed milk. A friend of mine used to eat fruit this way - by adding some sugar and cream and smushing it around in a bowl. Great way to make fruit unhealthy, lol.

Edited September 20, 2016 by ExplainItAgain

[Ohmo]

1 minute ago, Mittengirl said:

 Yet they are willing to label him a murderer.

They didn't label him a murderer.  They specifically talked about how they could not know his intent.  What they did label him is responsible for what happened, be it accidental or intentional.

[Court]

Or perhaps Burke was smearing feces as a way of getting any attention from his parents. He was jealous of her and it does appear that's where his parents main focus was. 

Or he was sexually assaulted? 

I wouldn't be surprised if he does have some kind of disorder. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. But I really struggle with that. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Court