The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[BitterApple]

I think Burke's behavior both before and after the body was discovered is weird at best and frightening at worst. IIRC, not only didn't he ask what was going on while still at his house, but he also didn't press Fleet White for details while being driven to the White's home. If Mom's accounted for and Dad's accounted for, wouldn't the next logical question be, where's JonBenet? Even a school boy is savvy enough to know the cops weren't there on a social call. So the only alternative is Something Bad happened. The Ramseys were due to head out on vacation, yet Burke doesn't question either his parents or Fleet as to why their plans have changed? Pamplemousse, I feel you on not wanting to judge someone so young, but goddamn, the creepiness factor is off the charts with that kid.

[doodlebug]

If this is what happened, the why in the hell did they leave that pineapple out on the damn table?! A three-page note and a crazy staging but no flushing pineapple down a toilet? Oh, this Macbook is about to run out of (pineapple) juice...but I will be back in here tomorrow, that's for damn sure!

Maybe the parents didn't know what triggered the argument or didn't know she had eaten any. Perhaps it wasn't until the pineapple was found in her digestive tract on autopsy that they realized the pineapple was a problem. Same thing with the flashlight. If they didn't see her get hit and Burk didn't tell them what he'd hit her with, they might not have known the flashlight was potentially evidence.

[TattleTeeny]

I just wish something here would be out of the realm of anything!

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Maybe the parents didn't know what triggered the argument or didn't know she had eaten any. Perhaps it wasn't until the pineapple was found in her digestive tract on autopsy that they realized the pineapple was a problem. Same thing with the flashlight. If they didn't see her get hit and Burk didn't tell them what he'd hit her with, they might not have known the flashlight was potentially evidence.

Oh definitely; I don't expect that they knew anything about that part of an investigation. It's just hard to get my head around doing all that other stuff and not clearing out anything that could have been part of or in the vicinity of the incident. And I cannot imagine one person, let alone two, not asking what inflicted the damage to their child's head.

Edited September 26, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[vibeology]

4 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Oh definitely; I don't expect that they knew anything about that part of an investigation. It's just hard to get my head around doing all that other stuff and not clearing out anything that could have been part of or in the vicinity of the incident. And I cannot imaging one person, let alone two, not asking what inflicted the damage to their child's head.

I guess the only reason I can let that go is that they had a deadline. They needed to call 911 and report the "kidnapping" at a reasonably early enough time. They had a flight scheduled and it's reasonable that the family would get up x amount of time before the flight to get dressed, eat breakfast, finish packing or whatever else they needed to do. For a 7 am flight, an hour before is really the latest you can be getting up and getting ready. Patsy called 911 at 5:45 so pretty close to that. If everything else they had been doing took the entire time, it's very possible they just ran out of time to clean up "unimportant things" on the kitchen table.

[pamplemousse]

For me, one of the main things that would point away from Burke being the perpetrator (and I no longer think that it was accidental, if he did it) is that he has not re-offended in the last twenty years, at least not any offense that is known to law enforcement. Oftentimes children who commit murder will re-offend at some point as adults (ex: Charlie Brandt). I think if Burke did it (and I truly hope that he didn't, but it's what most fits the totality of the evidence, which is pretty much all circumstantial granted, available about the case), it was not because he is a psychopath imo, I think it was an isolated incident born of a perfect storm of circumstances very particular to the Ramsey family (and the tensions and dysfunction within that particular family) and spurred on by the anger, frustration, and extreme jealousy of sibling rivalry in a family where material wealth was abundant causing a sense of entitlement, but attention from parents was not and not divided equitably thereby thwarting that sense of entitlement. I feel like take away one or two circumstances from that perfect storm -- like, maybe if Beth hadn't died so prematurely and unexpectedly causing John to retreat within himself and throw himself even deeper into his work, or Jonbenet hadn't started wetting herself and refusing to wipe up after herself calling on the attention of any adults around to do it for her, or Jonbenet doing well in pageants and Patsy becoming more and more involved in the pageant scene, or any of a host of other things, the situation might've ended up differently. If Burke did it, I think it was due to a confluence of many different events and circumstances leading up to it, most of which probably had little or nothing to do with him but nonetheless influenced him greatly and negatively without him being able to have any control or say.

[ElDosEquis]

1 hour ago, Orangepop said:

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.

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!

Again...

People NEVER suspect or will believe that a child is capable of any kind of barbaric behavior.

The more absolutes that come to the surface, the more absurd the crime gets.

Because the brutality is something that we aren't used to and it's better left alone and NOT spoken about, it just might NOT have happened.

Some monsters are scarier when they are unknown, If that monster is/was a 9 year old kid?

In my eyes, is a whole lot more menacing when he becomes a 29 year old man with the feeling of invincibility.

[Jpxfactor]

I believe Burke did it and the parents covered it up.  They sailed and even as a young child you learn how to tie knots.  At that age he could very well of tied those.

[BitterApple]

13 minutes ago, Jpxfactor said:

I believe Burke did it and the parents covered it up.  They sailed and even as a young child you learn how to tie knots.  At that age he could very well of tied those.

Very true. I grew up in a coastal New England town and we belonged to a yacht club. I took sailing lessons from age six to twelve. We had regattas, we tied knots, rigged our own sails etc. Burke tying the knot isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Edited September 26, 2016 by BitterApple

[GaT]

11 hours ago, Queena said:

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. 

I can't believe in anybody doing all this. It makes no sense whether it was a Ramsey, or an intruder, the whole thing is just too complicated & bizarre. If this was a book or movie everybody would say the plot was too unbelievable. 

[Mittengirl]

For me, the issue is not if Burke knew how to tie that particular knot, but if he would even know what a garrote is.  I am leaning towards no.  I just don't think that is something a kid would know about.   Some people have mentioned him possibly learning about that it scouting, but I find that hard to believe considering he was only a Cub Scout.   I don't see them teaching third graders how to choke something to death.

[ElDosEquis]

All of us have run across that one kid ran about like a freaking banshee and when you noticed what he was doing and yelled at him to stop, he drops everything and  looks AT YOU, like you didn't see him do anything.

Like some fucked up Kiddie Jedi Mind trick? Just sayin......

Remember, IF burke killed her in an accidental fashion and P and J knew it, they'd ASSURE him it was an accident - wouldn't that be what parents would tell a small child in ANY case?

If you tell a story long enough, every detail will come true.

This was a family that hit a pothole that had the potential to reduce it by 50%. Add to that the 'shame' of knowing your children were gone because one was a 'murderer'? What would be the reflection on J and P in the community, his business, their social standing?

Some people value status and what people say about them.

What happened will probably never be known, but isn't that true with most murder mysteries?

[Mabinogia]

34 minutes ago, GaT said:

I can't believe in anybody doing all this. It makes no sense whether it was a Ramsey, or an intruder, the whole thing is just too complicated & bizarre. If this was a book or movie everybody would say the plot was too unbelievable. 

This case is the living embodiment of fact being stranger than fiction. If someone wrote this case as a work of fiction they would be laughed at and ridiculed. Nothing about this case makes a damned bit of sense. There is too much evidence of a cover up for it to have been an intruder, but there are too many little things that point to an outsider that makes it impossible to say for certain that it was in inside job.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had been treated as a murder right away and the crime scene had been treated as such and the Ramsey's didn't have friend over to complicate things and no one was allowed to touch the body, or trample around the house, or vanish for a long period of time. I wonder how much difference there would be in the evidence.

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

I can't believe in anybody doing all this. It makes no sense whether it was a Ramsey, or an intruder, the whole thing is just too complicated & bizarre. If this was a book or movie everybody would say the plot was too unbelievable. 

I know, right? Like if this was a Lifetime movie you'd be rolling your eyes and going, really? 

[SSAHotchner]

2 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

For me, the issue is not if Burke knew how to tie that particular knot, but if he would even know what a garrote is.  I am leaning towards no.  I just don't think that is something a kid would know about.   Some people have mentioned him possibly learning about that it scouting, but I find that hard to believe considering he was only a Cub Scout.   I don't see them teaching third graders how to choke something to death.

I agree with this, but I still think it's totally possible that he hit her in the head with the flashlight and even maybe choked her in some other way. I think the garrote was staged to make it look like a sex crime. An adult intruder would not have to hit a 6 year old child in the head. He would have been able to subdue her just by the difference in size and strength. An adult could have snapped her neck. The head injury to me says anger just as the smeared feces, especially on her brand new box of candy.

[Andromeda]

Good special. I've always suspected Burke, because the intruder theory makes no sense (especially that ransom note).

A few people didn't like that the friend who took their portraits talked to media and was iced out. The Ramsay's also told their friends not to talk to the police. What parent would do that if their child had been murdered by an intruder? Oh, yeah, none.

[Mabinogia]

5 hours ago, Andromeda said:

The Ramsay's also told their friends not to talk to the police. What parent would do that if their child had been murdered by an intruder? Oh, yeah, none.

I would be going door to door begging anyone who saw anything at all to run to the police, I'd drive them there myself, I don't care if it was a squirrel running through the yard, everyone tell the police whatever you can! I wouldn't care if all my dirty laundry was aired if it meant finding the person who killed my little girl and protecting my son who could well be the next target. Really, I wouldn't feel safe until the killer was found and tried and found guilty. But hey, to each his own. Possibly their reputation was more important than their daughter.

[formerlyfreedom]

Please take discussion NOT related to this episode to The Case: What We Know Now After Watching. That's for other specials, and discoveries revealed after the eps aired. Posts have been moved.

[Ilovecomputers]

Quote

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.

I don't think Burke did the garrote.  As I've posted elsewhere, the Ramseys had a pleasure boat and I'm sure John knows how to tie all sorts of knots from tying in his boat.  Can't picture Patsy getting her hair or nails mussed to do that.  IMO this speaks against an intruder.  If the motive was kidnapping and something went wrong and JonBenet was killed, why not just take the body anyway and wait for a ransom?  The Lindbergh baby was dead but a ransom note was still sent (too bad we can't discuss the theories that his daddy did it).  So if you believe an intruder did it, then why would anyone go to the trouble of a garrote?  What if those paint brushes hadn't been there?  Why not just use your bare hands, or as Dr. Spitz pointed out, why the elaborate garrote?  Just take the rope and strangle her.  If she was going to get kidnapped, I don't think anyone's explained how they were going to get her out of the house through the basement window.  Yes, I've seen Smit and the woman New Scotland Yard agent going into the basement from the window, but I want to see someone holding onto a little girl climb up on a wobbly suitcase and scramble out the basement window.

[Mabinogia]

The garrote is interesting because why would any adult need such a device to strange such a tiny little child? It would have been pretty easy to strangle her with your hands, or just a rope if the intruder didn't wear gloves (which if it was an intruder they must have because there were no fingerprints on the window or the note or her room or anywhere, right?), so why go through the trouble of making a garrote, there in the house, providing more time to get caught? It makes so freaking sense.

I'm not convinced that Burke didn't make it, unfortunately. Simply because no one else makes sense. Not that he really does except in a kid logic kind of way. It is weird as part of the cover up because it is unnecessary. If it was made as part of the cover up then it was made after she was dead. She was, therefore, dead from the bash on the head so why fake a strangling? Seriously, if this case were fiction everyone would bash it for being too unbelievable.

[doodlebug]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

The garrote is interesting because why would any adult need such a device to strange such a tiny little child? It would have been pretty easy to strangle her with your hands, or just a rope if the intruder didn't wear gloves (which if it was an intruder they must have because there were no fingerprints on the window or the note or her room or anywhere, right?), so why go through the trouble of making a garrote, there in the house, providing more time to get caught? It makes so freaking sense.

I'm not convinced that Burke didn't make it, unfortunately. Simply because no one else makes sense. Not that he really does except in a kid logic kind of way. It is weird as part of the cover up because it is unnecessary. If it was made as part of the cover up then it was made after she was dead. She was, therefore, dead from the bash on the head so why fake a strangling? Seriously, if this case were fiction everyone would bash it for being too unbelievable.

The only way it makes sense is the person who put the garrotte around her neck didn't know about the fatal head injury.  Jonbenet had evidence of having struggled against stangulation, fingernail marks on her neck.  As someone mentioned upthread, what if someone grabbed her by the neck of her shirt and pulled, causing her to use her hands to try to stop the strangulation?  And then, perhaps that same someone then bashes her on the head with a flashlight, causing her to collapse?  Remember, the skull fracture was not immediately apparent; there was no cut on her scalp, no bleeding.  Now, suppose somebody else comes along, sees that she is dead (or maybe just dying), doesn't know what happened and either doesn't ask or the person who did it cannot or will not tell?  All that is obvious is that she has marks around her neck indicating someone tried to strangle her?  Suppose the second person is trying to protect the person who struck the fatal blow by making the strangulation look more elaborate that it actually was because he/she thinks that that was the cause of death and wants it to look like it was a rather sophisticated assault, maybe to deflect attention from the real culprit who was perhaps a child?

The general consensus of the experts is that the garrotte was applied after she'd already suffered the fatal head injury.  I don't see why anyone would have done that unless they didn't know about the skull fracture.  Even if the garrotte was part of some pedophile's sexual sadism, why do it after she was unconscious?

[Mabinogia]

which all points to it not having been an intruder. I think the garrote was an attempt to make it look like some vicious intruder. The funny thing is, all the covering up, the garrote, the changed underwear, the note all make the family look even more suspect rather than less so because they overdid everything. Leave her without underwear, just toss a rope around her neck rather than making a fancy garrote, write a really short note (or no note, but I'm guessing they hoped the body wouldn't be found so they went with the note, but then, if they didn't want the body to be found, why the garrote and underwear, unless that's what John was doing in his missing hour once the police got there). These people clearly over thought the whole thing and made it a bloody mess and while they did get away with it legally, they did not in the eyes of a good portion of the public.

Of course it could have been an intruder, but to believe that we have to accept that this person kidnapped her, found some stationary and pens, wrote and rewrote a long, drawn out, rambling note, found some supplies to make a garrote to strangle a girl who was already unconscious, possibly changed her underwear (though she might have done that herself and not been smart enough to take underwear that fit) threw out the rest of the underwear pack, hid her in a room that no one outside the family knew existed, and climbed out the window. That's the ballsiest criminal ever because if I'd killed someone's kid while they were in the house I'd wipe down any prints I could and hightail it out of there as fast as possible.

[fib]

I dont watch a lot of true crime tv, but I can say that the investigators certainty with all their proposed ideas rankled and undermined their credibility for me.  Maybe its a result of the show being cut down from 6 to 4 hours, but I really struggled with the "science" they kept saying they had at their backs.  It seemed they tried one counter example for each scenario and then "proved their idea" because the one counterfactual didnt work.

The note stuff was pretty damning, except for the "business" misspelling, and the "all the i's are dotted" comments were just laughable. I have misspelling ticks.  I am incapable of putting the right number os double letters in the right places in some words, like brocolli, broccoli (sp?).  And that can happen pretty easily.

But the Burke stuff in particular I found difficult, for the following reasons: 

1) He hit his sister with a golf club in the face?  Yeah.  That's evidence that he's a kid.  It happens all the time, intentionally or unintentionally depending on the age. And mainly evidence that his parents dont watch him closely enough than that he could kill her. 

2) Kids CAN sleep through anything, especially on a day like Christmas when they stayed up late, had a lot of adrenaline and sugar, and then went to bed.

3) Some of Voices in the background of the phone call could easily have been noises from the tv. Which ok - maybe they weren't, but it sure seems like a balanced investigation could have brought this up.

4) They cut out friends who talked? Of course they did - there is no way they anticipated the shitstorm of coverage they got.  I would put out word too not to talk to the media, at least, in their situation.  The police? Yeah, that's odd, but could just as easily be an embellishment by the jilted friend. 

5) Yup, I'd invite my friends over in this scenario.  Might need someone to stay with Burke while we go out looking for JB.  Or someone to hug. And yes - I would tidy for my friends in this scenario.  It's on the police that they didnt stop them. 

6) Of course Burke is fucked up.  He lost half his family in an earlier tragedy.  He lost his sister in a media maelstrom. 

That said, my most likely scenario is that Patsy did it, and JR was involved in the coverup. (Maybe because Patsy made it seem like Burke did it at first, and then he was stuck with the coverup already rolling).  I think she probably snapped and hit her kid. And she was probably drunk from CHristmas or exhausted from Christmas and hit her harder than intended. 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

The general consensus of the experts is that the garrotte was applied after she'd already suffered the fatal head injury.  I don't see why anyone would have done that unless they didn't know about the skull fracture.  Even if the garrotte was part of some pedophile's sexual sadism, why do it after she was unconscious?

They may not have known the extent of the skull damage--even the coroner/M.E. (whatever title was used) didn't at first, as her scalp was intact. The garrote left some significant damage to the neck too. I used to be better-versed in pre-, peri-, and post-mortem injuries*, but have since lost some of that knowledge over the years (because, I guess, it's not all that germane to my day-to-day adult life...sigh) so maybe someone better versed can elaborate on whether that horrific neck indentation would occur if she was 100% dead already?

It kind of seems like they were throwing everything they could think of at the wall and seeing what stuck as far as what they believed a child murderer/sexual predator would do. Almost theatrical.

* When I was in college as an English major/visual arts minor back in the '90s, I audited a forensic anthropology class even though I had almost zero time in my life to do it (full-time course schedule, full-time job, and part-time job--UGH!). That's how much of a crime-geek I've always been. Eventually though, that information had to be pushed out of my brain, I guess, to make room for mortgages and office work! Boo!

[ghoulina]

22 hours ago, fib said:

1) He hit his sister with a golf club in the face?  Yeah.  That's evidence that he's a kid.  It happens all the time, intentionally or unintentionally depending on the age. And mainly evidence that his parents dont watch him closely enough than that he could kill her. 

I think the fact that he hit her with the golf club and she was fine, made him not realize the gravity of hurting someone like that. Who's to say hitting her with the flashlight wasn't an "accident" as well? They could have been fighting, and he took a swing at her, just like with the golf club, not realizing how risky that action was. 

 

22 hours ago, fib said:

3) Some of Voices in the background of the phone call could easily have been noises from the tv. Which ok - maybe they weren't, but it sure seems like a balanced investigation could have brought this up.

I see no reason to bring this up, unless there was a television in that room at the time. Was there a TV in the kitchen area? Was it on? From what we were told about the details of their morning, no one mentioned turning on the TV. They got up, got dressed, came down, found the ransom note, freaked out. When did anyone turn the TV on? 

It should be noted, in Kolar's book he says that several independent parties listened to that 911 call back in the day and came to the same conclusions about what was said. This was not a room full of people, like on the doc, who might influence each other with their perceptions. But there were investigators, experts, what have you, who listened to it on their own, with nothing to color their opinion, and all reached the same conclusions. 

[fib]

13 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I see no reason to bring this up, unless there was a television in that room at the time. Was there a TV in the kitchen area?  

I take your points in the third paragraph - you are clearly right on that stuff - I know nothing about them.  I just thought that the 'experts' in the documentary listened to very grainy garbled noises, and made a lot of assumptions, without appearing to consider other options.  That's all.  I don't think it was tv, necessarily, just that I wasn't convinced by the way they presented the sounds they had that these voices were John's and Burke's.  

Why do I posit that it could be tv? Well - when I've been out partying, I pass out with the tv on all the time.  Alternately, I crank up the radio when I need to stay awake (such as, say, to stage a crime scene) or get up early (say, to catch a flight). Just providing more info as to why I included this!

[ari333]

Those family photos creeped me out and why wasn't John in them? This is sad all the way around.

[ari333]

I was forming an opinion based on theclips of the parents in that interview and the clips of Burke being interviewed. They were chilling. Even if I ignored other things that could be deemed subjective, those interviews were just chilling to me 

[pigs-in-space]

Well, all of Jim and Richard's podcast episodes about the case have been removed - I'm guessing because of the lawsuit.  Unfortunately I can't find much media about the lawsuit beyond the basics on entertainment websites. 

[stinkogingko]

This is the only one of the recent programs I've watched. I'm not familiar with the two main leads but after this I think I'll check out the podcast. I'm very curious as to what got cut because some of what got left in--the attempts to speak with the Whites, or the ridiculous effort of going to Henry Lee's facility for the testing of non-evidence--could have easily been spared.

I found the discussion of the note to be helpful, as I think the note is the strongest evidence against an intruder. Too long, too obviously written by an amateur and an insider, and too likely to have been written in the house. I also found the 911 tape interesting, as I agreed with at least some of their interpretation. I thought it was called a stun gun because people are stunned into immobility, but it makes more sense now that sometimes suspects get tazed more than once. And I was again amazed at the amateurish police work and what now looks like interference by the DA. 

But I'm very disappointed that there wasn't more discussion of the DNA evidence--how much was found, where, and of what probative value. I've gotten more info from this board, although some of it's contradictory. I'd pay to see the remaining footage if there's more discussion of the DNA and the other autopsy findings. I suppose there's a chance they'll cover this in their podcast. 

On the whole I thought this was a good, non-sensationalized effort to review the record (except for getting that 10-year-old to bash the bewigged pig skull). It looks predetermined, but that may be editing. And Henry Lee tends to raise my hackles, because I think he's a publicity hound. I found the rest of the team generally credible. I don't think there's a theory out there that explains all the evidence without seeming emotionally or practically outrageous, but this convinced me that Burke-did-it is probably the best theory. And that we'll never really know.

[pigs-in-space]

Their podcast episodes about this case were removed (likely due to the pending lawsuit), but it is still well worth checking out.  I've gotten totally hooked on it after the show.

[Nire]

Didn't Patsy hide gifts in the room?  perhaps the underwear was in there too and grabbed in a rush.

I think they have a lot of evidence for Burke.  Before this special I didn't realize that he had so many issues.  Another random thought what if an intruder did it but Patsy thought itwas Burke so she tried to cover it up?  if you have a child who is disturbed to smearing feces and has previously hurt his sister then you find her dead perhaps you assume he finally lost it.  

[Ohmo]

Now the lawsuits have been filed, as was speculated here almost immediately.  It's Burke's right to file them, but I still believe he's the one responsible for his sister's death, be it intentional or accidental.  CBS had to know lawsuits were likely given the content of the broadcast, so it will be interesting to see where things go from here.

[doodlebug]

51 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Now the lawsuits have been filed, as was speculated here almost immediately.  It's Burke's right to file them, but I still believe he's the one responsible for his sister's death, be it intentional or accidental.  CBS had to know lawsuits were likely given the content of the broadcast, so it will be interesting to see where things go from here.

I almost wonder if CBS doesn't welcome the chance to depose both Burke and his father.  Discovery for the case will undoubtedly include requests for Burke's psychiatric records; there might be a smoking gun there although it seems like the case wouldn't have been filed if the Ramseys thought there was anything out there that would potentially incriminate them.  Even if Burke is beyond prosecution, his father isn't; and there is the possibility that this will lead to charges of abuse of a corpse, obstruction of justice or perjury.

If CBS manages to uncover new information through this, it is going to be a major  coup.

Edited December 31, 2016 by doodlebug

[Mittengirl]

I don't blame Burke for suing.  There was nothing in that show that convinced me that he killed his sister.  Could he have?  Sure.  But nothing convinced me that it was more likely him, than his mother.  I don't believe the intruder theory and strongly believe it was Patsy accidentally/unintentionally hurting JB, thinking she killed her and covering it up, with some help from John at some point.  I wouldn't be surprised if Burke knew of the coverup that morning.

Bottom line, for me, is that the show presented some damning evidence that Patsy was heavily involved early on and that someone in the family killed JB.  But, I thought they decided early on that Burke was guilty and then made the evidence fit their theory.  Nothing they presented ruled out Patsy, or John for that matter.  IMO.

It is interesting that basically no one suspects John.  Aside from the standard "Dad sexually abusing daughter" stereotype, there seems to have never been any real blame placed on him until the coverup occurs.  I don't know why I think this, but I feel like John would have taken JB to the hospital if he had been informed as soon as she got hurt initially.  It would have been easier to explain away an injury than a dead body.  Kids rough housing, child slipping in bath tub - easy excuses for a head injury.  And when coming from a rich, influential person?  Not going to raise suspicion.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Mittengirl

[Mabinogia]

30 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

It is interesting that basically no one suspects John.

That actually is interesting because, really, while I can make a case for both Patsy and Burke, and I do think it was someone in that house and not an intruder, I never once thought John had anything to do with it, other than after the fact/covering up. I think it might be because of what a bungled mess it all was, that I think a successful businessman who doesn't seem as emotional as his wife would have come up with a much better cover-up if he had been involved from the very beginning.

I can only imagine what went through his head when he woke up, half way through the worlds most convoluted cover-up and had to try to make this work. Ironically, it is the fact that the cover-up was so poorly done, and more so that the family has so many important people in their pocket, that helped whichever one it was get away with murder.

[Glade]

I hope Burke wins the lawsuit; its disgusting how people dragged his entire person-hood through the mud just for ratings and normalized the act of arrogantly describing him as a killer despite there being no evidence. 

[doodlebug]

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 4:59 PM, Mabinogia said:

That actually is interesting because, really, while I can make a case for both Patsy and Burke, and I do think it was someone in that house and not an intruder, I never once thought John had anything to do with it, other than after the fact/covering up. I think it might be because of what a bungled mess it all was, that I think a successful businessman who doesn't seem as emotional as his wife would have come up with a much better cover-up if he had been involved from the very beginning.

I can only imagine what went through his head when he woke up, half way through the worlds most convoluted cover-up and had to try to make this work. Ironically, it is the fact that the cover-up was so poorly done, and more so that the family has so many important people in their pocket, that helped whichever one it was get away with murder.

I think John does benefit from the screwed up mess that was the staging.  Patsy seemed to have been the flighty one (and perhaps not the brightest bulb in the chandelier).  Even without the handwriting analysis excluding him, that ransom note doesn't seem like the work of a corporate executive.  Even if Patsy hadn't worn the same clothes from the night before, John seems like the detail oriented one and would've probably been able to plot a more logical scenario that the one that played out.  I think he came into the process late in the timeline after some of the less intelligent moves had been made (the rambling ransom note, the garrote) and he either didn't have a chance to review it or couldn't change things).  The fact that Patsy was an hysterical trainwreck requiring sedation for weeks afterwards seems to indicate she was either not as emotionally strong and/or had more trouble keeping the secrets than John did. ( I realize the tragic loss of a child affects different people in different ways; but Patsy seems to have been far less functional than many parents would've been.)

Edited January 2, 2017 by doodlebug

[ghoulina]

17 hours ago, Glade said:

 

I hope Burke wins the lawsuit; its disgusting how people dragged his entire person-hood through the mud just for ratings and normalized the act of arrogantly describing him as a killer despite there being no evidence. 

 

I think it's disgusting that a 6 year old girl was murdered in her own home and no one has ever been brought to justice. Burke is an adult now. He was sheltered long enough. While there is not definitive forensic evidence that would 100% convict any of them, there is a lot that points in Burke's direction. There WAS a grand jury on the matter, and the GJ did recommend indicting the Ramseys. But not on murder charges. It appears, based on their recommendation, they thought the parents were likely guilty of covering the crime up. That leaves Burke, who was a minor at the time. Now he is not, and shouldn't be surprised if people feel more comfortable questioning his role. 

I will never believe there was an intruder in that house that night. Some, or all, of those present know what happened. No one has ever said anything. My thoughts are with Jon Benet, who had her promising, young life ripped from her by someone who was supposed to love her. That's what disgusts me.

Edited January 2, 2017 by ghoulina

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I think it's disgusting that a 6 year old girl was murdered in her own home and no one has ever been brought to justice. Burke is an adult now. He was sheltered long enough. While there is not definitive forensic evidence that would 100% convict any of them, there is a lot that points in Burke's direction. There WAS a grand jury on the matter, and the GJ did recommend indicting the Ramseys. But not on murder charges. It appears, based on their recommendation, they thought the parents were likely guilty of covering the crime up. That leaves Burke, who was a minor at the time. Now he is not, and shouldn't be surprised if people feel more comfortable questioning his role. 

I will never believe there was an intruder in that house that night. Some, or all, of those present know what happened. No one has ever said anything. My thoughts are with Jon Benet, who had her promising, young life ripped from her by someone who was supposed to love her. That's what disgusts me.

I agree, whatever testimony the grand jury heard; they apparently didn't feel there was enough evidence to charge John or Patsy with murder.  However, they did feel there was a cover-up orchestrated by the two of them.  Who else would have done it?  Who, other than Burke, would've gotten the parents to try to hide evidence?  I doubt there was anyone else in this world for whom John and Patsy would've done what they apparently did.  And the intruder theory makes no sense at all, both in terms of the murder itself and the obvious staging that took place afterwards.

I wonder if testimony from the grand jury hearings is discoverable in the civil suit?  If so, CBC is going to request it and the whole world is going to hear the evidence that was presented to convince them that the parents weren't murderers but were participants in covering up the crime.

[Mittengirl]

Isn't it possible that the Grand Jury did think that one of the parents, most likely Patsy, did kill Jon Benet but did not feel there was enough evidence presented to prove it?  I don't necessarily think that their choosing to indict only for child abuse, or whatever the specific charges were, means that they think that neither parent killed her.

[ghoulina]

That is true. I guess we'll never know. The GJ recommended certain charges, but the DA ultimately decided not to proceed with a trial. That is the real tragedy here. 

[FreetheGirlses]

On 1/2/2017 at 9:40 PM, Mittengirl said:

Isn't it possible that the Grand Jury did think that one of the parents, most likely Patsy, did kill Jon Benet but did not feel there was enough evidence presented to prove it?  I don't necessarily think that their choosing to indict only for child abuse, or whatever the specific charges were, means that they think that neither parent killed her.

Having spent a month on a GJ last year, yes, that is entirely possible. There were times that my gut may have told me, "Hey, I *think* this person may have done ________" when it came to a certain charge, but you are read the law and vote true bill or no true bill based on each charge individually. I took diligent notes and weighed the testimony/evidence, which is how I voted and discussed each charge. Many times people were indicted on specific charges, but not all, because there just wasn't enough evidence presented that lined up with the law.

[Joe Jitsu913]

On 12/31/2016 at 4:59 PM, Mabinogia said:

That actually is interesting because, really, while I can make a case for both Patsy and Burke, and I do think it was someone in that house and not an intruder, I never once thought John had anything to do with it, other than after the fact/covering up. I think it might be because of what a bungled mess it all was, that I think a successful businessman who doesn't seem as emotional as his wife would have come up with a much better cover-up if he had been involved from the very beginning.

I can only imagine what went through his head when he woke up, half way through the worlds most convoluted cover-up and had to try to make this work. Ironically, it is the fact that the cover-up was so poorly done, and more so that the family has so many important people in their pocket, that helped whichever one it was get away with murder.

It's funny because John has always seemingly gotten a pass from the media and law enforcement. However,  his handwriting greatly resembled the ransom note but for some reason he was excluded as a match. There is a handwriting sample out there of his and looks eerily similar to the note.  

 

As for justice for JonBenet,  the Ramseys,  their wealthy Atlanta and Michigan friends just want this to go away.  It's an inconvenience to them which is why there has been no justice.  Sweep it under the rug. Only the ones who dare to speak out (Judith Phillips or the Whites)  are considered the enemy and are to be shunned. 

IIRC, Patsy's medical records were withheld from investigators and in those records you would find her mental health records including information from her psychiatrist . The Ramseys wanted "an island of privacy" so law enforcement were not able to obtain this. Burke's medical records were eventually released but not without protest. I often wonder if Patsy was suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder based on certain statement she's made after JonBenet's murder. 

[Mabinogia]

I didn't know that about John's handwriting. Interesting.

That "island of privacy" is one of the things that makes them look most guilty. Who, other than someone who had something to do with it, wouldn't do anything they could to find out who murdered their sweet, innocent little daughter? You have to be a whole next level of selfish assholes not to want to stop a child killer from possibly going out, heady on getting away with it, and killing other people's kids. That's just cold.

That handwriting thing...blowing my mind. Because, really, never suspected him at all though I can't exactly say why. It just doesn't seem like he would have done it. I think, it's that he doesn't come across as involved enough in JB's life to have cared enough to kill her. I feel like her death was a crime of passion. Something she did pissed someone off enough to just loose it. We know Burke has lashed out at her before. I could see him, being a child, going too far this time, panicking and trying to cover it up, his parents wake up and help him cover it up because they believe he didn't really mean to do it and didn't want him to ruin his life over a "mistake". I can see Patsy, who comes across as slightly unstable, flipping out over a wet bed, stressed about the trip, maybe worn out from the party whatever, snaps and hits her harder than she meant to, panics, tries to cover it up because it was just a "mistake". I just can't see John doing the same. I think he left the bed wetting type stuff to Patsy.

And that letter just doesn't seem like something he would write, it seems kind of scatter brained. But he would know the same "insider" stuff Patsy would, like the bonus dollar amount etc., so it's possible. Weird, but possible.

[AZChristian]

Mark Klaas - father of child murder victim Polly Klaas - contacted the Ramseys to help them after JonBenet was killed.  His primary advice:  Make the police your best friends.  Innocent people do EVERYTHING they can to cooperate with law enforcement.

And we all know how well the Ramseys listened to the advice of someone who had lived through having a child murdered.  Of course, we all know that Mark Klaas was innocent. 

[Maharincess]

The Polly Klaas case still haunts me to this day.  It happened about 20 minutes from my house and I had a young daughter at the time. My family was decorating our Christmas tree when they broke into the news to say they found her body.  We never finished the tree.  It stayed half decorated until we took it down. It was our little way of flying the flag at half staff.  If hee friends  hadn't been in the room when she was taken I bet Mark would have been blamed. He did all of the right things, the exact opposite of what the Ramseys did. 

[jameson245]

On 9/22/2016 at 9:54 AM, Ohmo said:

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?

Yes, he can be.  The lawsuit has been filed and they are asking for $750 MILLION dollars for Burke.  I expect the whole thing will be settled before it gets too far - and Attorney Lin Wood gets a percentage  and likes to win big so any settlement will be sizable.  But if that doesn't happen, YES, everyone connected to the show will be deposed - - and that includes Burke and John.

If you look for it, the entire lawsuit is available online - - it goes into details about what CBS knew before they did the show.  Most of the money sought is punative, I believe, because they knew they were not presenting the truth.

I don't know why Lifetime is not being sued as well - - they were almost as bad.  Especially with the faked crime scene photos.  The real ones show a dry bed - Lifetime showed a bed that was urine crusted like it had been wet every night for a month and never changed.

Including a disclaimer as an entertainment program really doesn't excuse that kind of misbehavior.

[Josette]

Quote

The garrote is interesting because why would any adult need such a device to strange such a tiny little child?

Maybe, like Anthony Allen Shore, he didn't want to hurt his finger.  The truth is killers have their own logic.  Unless the killer is caught, we'll never really know.

[CrazyInAlabama]

If John was involved in the cover up to protect Burke, or some accident around the house (those spiral stairs looked dangerous to me), then it would have been Patsy who wrote the note.   John is way too smart to write that overwrought multipage garbage.    And I'm sure John knew Patsy was not going to survive her cancer, and would never do anything to keep her away from Burke, so whatever she did (my suspicion is the ransom note to get the police to look for her daughter quicker, and with a lot more people than just a wandering child) would never be admitted to protect her.

I was shocked at the foolish woman that John Ramsey married after Patsy died.    She grossed me out when she said she saw Patsy's picture on a tabloid, and knew the press and police were railroading an innocent woman.    I guess that was enough for him to think she was the perfect third wife. 

 

  Patsy was always flighty enough to think a multipage ransom note would get attention from the police, and blame everything on a kidnapper.     Or Patsy could have noticed Jon Benet was missing, and thought that the police would waste time before looking for her, so she wrote the note.     

 

Also, that house had several owners before the Ramsays, and had to have a ton of workers in it over the years.     I really think what Lou Smith (the retired detective who investigated later) said was right.   Someone either came into the house through the open doors, or came in with the hoards of guests that roamed freely for several nights before Christmas, and came to burglarize the place.   I bet he had scoped out the house several times, and could have been a worker of some kind, or friends with a staff member from any time over the years.      Then he either was trapped upstairs when the family came home, or was hiding out, and grabbing Jon Benet was a chance encounter, and he killed her to keep her quiet.     The marks next to the window, and the suitcase that was right by the window to help him get out the window convinced me.     My guess is that rich people like that have their sidewalks cleared very quickly, they were also having open houses so they would have cleared the sidewalks for that at least,  and there wouldn't have been any footprints, because the killer came and left on cleared sidewalks.      That grate over the window well isn't that hard to move, and would be a quick way out for someone who couldn't leave through the kitchen because Burke was roaming around.    

Did they actually exhume John's older daughter who died in an accident?   I hope that didn't happen.

I move to Colorado right after the murder happened, and everyone I knew who had ever dealt with the Boulder police, or any of the other government there said they were awful, and I think this case demonstrated it.     

Edited September 7, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama