The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[choclatechip45]

Here is a good article from 2014 it's an interview with Fleet and Priscilla White.http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

The most interesting part is that Priscilla said Patsy was changing her handwriting after the murders.

[toodles]

11 hours ago, Ohmo said:

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.

I thought the  same thing.  I said it out loud when I was watching this.  I was trying to decide if I wanted to post the word sociopath, because what do I know.  You said exactly what I was thinking.

Edited September 20, 2016 by toodles

[annlaw78]

52 minutes ago, Sarah D. Bunting said:

Same here. I think overall it's better at 4 hours than 6 but if they ever release the original cut, I'll be watching to get some more questions answered.

I'm disappointed with the hype about how this was a complete, thorough investigation using new technology and techniques.  In point of fact, you have experts reviewing reports of others, with no review of the actual evidence.  You don't have any of the real physical evidence tested.  I appreciate that Spitz and Lee are forensic Titans, but their investigation seems very limited.  The recreation of the Ramsey home was nifty, but the most important bit -- the window configuration with the chase -- looks different from Couric's interview with Schmit.  What, exactly, new was brought to bear?

[tobeannounced]

Re the feces ball (gross!), didn't the maid say she had found that in the past, not after the murder?

The grand jury indictment, what exactly did they indict the Ramseys for?  They had a screen that said something about Count V or something?  Seemed like maybe they were lesser charges but the "investigators" didn't want to say they weren't indicted for murder.  I was dosing off and on too so could have missed the explanation.

[zxy556575]

I've never been tasered but have seen it done probably 10 times on local TV news and true crime shows. The volunteers are always held up by two people since their knees buckle from the involuntary muscle contractions and they're unable to stand for a brief time. They all squawk in some way from the pain. Nobody is energized! I am not buying that at all.

4 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

I have a question for everyone who thinks an intruder did this crime why did the grand jury indict the parents?

Here's a 2014 Washington Post article that summarizes the result of Federal grand juries, which indict 99.9% of the time. Grand juries only hear the prosecution presenting their side of the story with no defense, no checks, and no judge.

[AZChristian]

Just now, tobeannounced said:

Re the feces ball (gross!), didn't the maid say she had found that in the past, not after the murder?

The grand jury indictment, what exactly did they indict the Ramseys for?  They had a screen that said something about Count V or something?  Seemed like maybe they were lesser charges but the "investigators" didn't want to say they weren't indicted for murder.  I was dosing off and on too so could have missed the explanation.

If I remember correctly, the inference drawn by the professionals on last night's show was that the Ramseys were indicted for covering up abuse of JonBenet as well as not cooperating with the investigation.  It was clear (according to the professionals) that neither of them were being indicted for covering up for the other (otherwise one of them would have been indicted for murder); they were both covering up identically for a third party.  There was only one other party in the house at the time of JB's death:  Burke.

[pasdetrois]

Random thoughts:

I was surprised at how messy some parts of the house were. I was very surprised that the Ramseys broke their own window and then didn't bother to repair it over a long period of time. Plus, the window frame appeared to be rotting. Very out of character for house-proud folks. I wonder if there was family dysfunction hidden behind the polished facade.

I agree that there isn't enough evidence to easily convict anyone, but the Ramseys' behavior screams "guilty" to me. When I watched their news statements in real-time, they seemed very rehearsed and also entitled.

ETA: how is CBS getting away with stating that Burke committed the act? Surely the legal department was all over this broadcast, but I was surprised at the overt statements by the investigation team.

Edited September 20, 2016 by pasdetrois

[TheFinalRose]

I don't understand how a slight 9 year old boy could have actually killed his sister with a flashlight. I got accidentally slammed in the face with a falling two-by-four and it didn't even break a bone. Plus, I thought JonBenet died of strangulation from the garotte. 

That garotte was a pretty complicated piece of evidence that has been conveniently left out of the Bozos' conclusions. 

 

Quote

Or you do want to set up the most comfortable environment for him so everything feels normal. Many parents still love their kid after they commit an heinous act. If he did it, I'm sure the parents believe it was an accident and never meant to kill her.

 

 

Eh, I think you want to set up an environment so that he doesn't accidentally incriminate himself more than anything. I mean, at that time, the eyes of the world were on them. And anyone who has kids, or whoever was a kid, knows that when adults are away they say all sorts of stuff to each other, to impress, to horrify, to get a rise out of them. So I think if you accuse the Ramseys of covering up for Burke, then you have to look at all their actions, especially after the crime is discovered, and I don't think they would be so cavalier with Burke if he was the pivot point of this whole scenario.

Edited September 20, 2016 by TheFinalRose

[choclatechip45]

The friend Burke was with was Doug Stine I believe. His family moved from Boulder to Atlanta when the Ramsey's move. His mother also impersonated a Boulder Police Chief.

[EVS]

Regarding the stun gun: I read Jaycee Dugard's memoir and she describes a very different feeling after having one used on her. She describes herself as being paralyzed and helpless and unable to understand why her body wasn't working.  She also wet herself. I'm not sure why the guy's reaction during the reenactment was so different.

 I think this is one of my issues with the special so far (I am almost halfway through with part 2). I felt like there were a lot of over generalizations. This was an example.  "If this is how our guy reacted, then this is how Jonbenet would have reacted, therefore, a stun gun was not used". 

I don't know if I'm making sense. I'm not saying a stun gun was or was not used. I just don't think a lot of the reenactments or experiments were necessarily that scientific or accurate. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by EVS

[ghoulina]

19 hours ago, lorikauai said:

Here's the way I interpreted the 911 call - Patsy calls in a panic, she puts down the phone when a sleepy Burke wakes up and having overheard about the ransom note, asks, "What did you find?" John and Patsy try to get him out of the situation and decide to call friends to help with Burke. The "Help me Jesus!" makes more sense with "What did we do?" (as in what did we do to deserve this?) or "What do we do?" (as in requesting guidance from God) rather than "What did you do?" In any case, they sound legitimately panicked to me. 

But they told police that he was asleep throughout the entire call. He was not supposedly woken until later. 

[ghoulina]

12 hours ago, Court said:

@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. 

According to Priscilla White, Patsy also instructed HER to call the FBI, along with telling her to come immediately, which I also found odd. 

 

2 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

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

I don't know anyone that does either. I've talked to various people recently, some who have read a lot about it (like me) and others who have only seen bits and pieces about the case. All believe some version of RDI. I was discussing the case on social media the other day and my mother surprised me by saying she was very interested and wanted to watch this show. She hadn't really read a lot about it, so she wasn't necessarily biased one way or another, but said she always had a feeling the brother did it. I told her that's what I'd been leaning towards for awhile myself. She said it was really the only way she could see all 3 of them staying silent, and that was what first started me down the BDI path in the first place. 

[BananaRama]

11 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

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!

The parents may not have known about the pineapple or they were so upset and distracted that they forgot about the pineapple.  They are not professional criminals and there was so many other things that they would have to worry about and a limited amount of time. It does seem odd that Burke wouldn't tell them about the pineapple. 

[OSM Mom]

40 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

I don't understand how a slight 9 year old boy could have actually killed his sister with a flashligh. 

Those 3 cell Maglights are heavy and a formidable weapon.  Burke could have hit her harder than he thought he did or intended to.  It doesn't take much with those flashlights.  

[glowlights]

16 hours ago, EVS said:

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. 

EVS, I'm very sorry for your loss.

[TheFinalRose]

Quote

Those 3 cell Maglights are heavy and a formidable weapon.  Burke could have hit her harder than he thought he did or intended to.  It doesn't take much with those flashlights.  

 

Then how do you reason away the garrotte? 

[Court]

I've posted in so many threads, I can't remember where it was said originally. 

But many say they can't imagine parents using the garrote or the paintbrush on their child. I think they would if they were trying to sell a pedophile did. They had already lost another child before JonBenet.

Burke absolutely knew about the pineapple and where it came from. The second he said "Oh", I knew he knew. I thought he had been coached in the interviews as well.

Or maybe one of them was sexually abusing her and snapped. Haven't we all seen those stories about killers? He was so nice, just the best, nothing creepy but in reality he was a psychopath.

The Ranseys publicly accused many people of committing the murder in the press and in the book.  Chris Wolf sued and lost because in order to win, he had to prove the Ramsey's did it. 

[EVS]

22 minutes ago, glowlights said:

EVS, I'm very sorry for your loss.

Thank you, glowlights. 

[ghoulina]

1 hour ago, tobeannounced said:

 

Re the feces ball (gross!), didn't the maid say she had found that in the past, not after the murder?

 

Yes, this was not the night of the murder, but a previous incident. The feces smeared chocolate box, however, was discovered in JB's room after the murder. 

 

1 hour ago, TheFinalRose said:

Eh, I think you want to set up an environment so that he doesn't accidentally incriminate himself more than anything. I mean, at that time, the eyes of the world were on them. And anyone who has kids, or whoever was a kid, knows that when adults are away they say all sorts of stuff to each other, to impress, to horrify, to get a rise out of them. So I think if you accuse the Ramseys of covering up for Burke, then you have to look at all their actions, especially after the crime is discovered, and I don't think they would be so cavalier with Burke if he was the pivot point of this whole scenario.

One could argue that setting up a very familiar and comfortable environment could help the boy not to speak. If he is distracted by his friend and playing Nintendo, he can pretend life is normal, as normal as it ever was. That seemed to be Burke's sentiment during his interview - lots of Nintendo and going on with life. 

 

1 hour ago, TheFinalRose said:

 

I don't understand how a slight 9 year old boy could have actually killed his sister with a flashlight. I got accidentally slammed in the face with a falling two-by-four and it didn't even break a bone. Plus, I thought JonBenet died of strangulation from the garotte. 

 

They showed that a child of a similar age and size could cause the blow she had to her head. Whether that was what actually killed her, I don't know. I do believe it's possible that it rendered her lifeless and they THOUGHT she was dead, only to have her come to during the staging. But I don't know. How old were you when you were hit by the 2X4? A child's bones are going to be a lot more fragile than an adult's. 

 

17 minutes ago, Court said:

The Ranseys publicly accused many people of committing the murder in the press and in the book

Didn't John try to throw shade Barbara Fernie's way, early on? I thought that was pretty cruel. 

[OSM Mom]

27 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

Then how do you reason away the garrotte? 

I don't.  But my point is that a slight child like Burke could absolutely kill someone with one of those flashlights.   Either intentionally or unintentionally.  The only thing in this case that I'm sure of is that JB was killed, the poor child died a horrible death, and we'll probably never know for a certainty who did it.  

[cpcathy]

I have to say, I was completely swayed by this show, just mesmerized. I had always assumed it was Patsy who did it, and I had thought it was accidental, and then blew up from there. But after they took each bit of evidence and dissected it, I couldn't help but agree. Burke does make more sense, sometimes being a weird kid is just that you're a weird kid, sometimes it's more. Those interviews with him were telling.

[Ohmo]

7 hours ago, ghoulina said:

Good questions. I think, possibly, they just ran out of time. They were brainstorming - how do we do this? Coming up with all these ideas, making these elaborate distractions from what really happened and then realized...."shit, we better call the police, we should be up by now". Or Patsy may have been upstairs at the time and not even realized what started it. I tend to believe that she found Burke and the lifeless Jon Benet and immediately sent him to his room with discussing anything. That might explain why Burke asked his father, "What DID you find?" on the 911 tape. No one had really discussed it with him yet. 

Yeah, I agree with that.  They were focused on the "big picture" of what Burke had done and ran out of time or didn't think the pineapple was that significant in that moment.

Another thing I can't get around is if it was an intruder, why is Jon not willing to help the investigation NOW?  I don't run in any type of political circles, but I could plausibly buy that the politics of the situation were an issue 20 years ago.  However, now there's a new DA, and most importantly, Patsy is dead.  If there was an intruder and everyone and their brother is talking about the case, why not urge the new DA to re-test everything with new technology and try and find this person or persons?

If Patsy did it (or as many believe at least participated in staging the crime scene), she has been dead for years.  Of the three Ramseys, I've never heard of Jon being considered as the actual killer, only of the staging of the crime scene.  If there was an actual intruder, why not help?  If Patsy did it and you helped her cover it up, why not say so at this point?  Jon has an army of lawyers, his wife is now dead, and he is the one (of the three) who can least be tied to the actual death of JonBenet.

I guess what I'm saying is that Jon still seems in protection mode at this point that does not extend to his daughter.  Why?  Why would you not want to help solve your daughter's murder if you know it was an intruder?  Your wife is now dead, and you have been tied to the cover-up, but not the actual crime.  Jon is behaving as though someone else still needs protection, and I don't think he's thinking of himself.  I think he's thinking of Burke because Jon knows that Burke is culpable.

Quote

It does seem odd that Burke wouldn't tell them about the pineapple. 

ETA: Yeah, but in a limited amount of time, they could have asked "What did you do?"  He could have responded with "We had a fight, and I hit her."  They might not have asked for more information at that moment and just shooed him off to his room.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Ohmo

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey Shines A New Light On Old Evidence

The most prestigious of the recent phalanx of case programming debuts at last, and it does not disappoint -- but should you watch the whole thing?

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, Part 2: Cornering A Suspect

Like the man said, the list of suspects...narrows. Sarah D. Bunting has a few questions.

[LGGirl]

I'm in the BDI camp after this show.  The fact that there the markings on her face and back appeared to be made by toy train track.   i couldn't see an adult poking/stabbing her with them. 

I personally believe that the kids did not go to bed straight away or at all.   Burke had pineapple and tea.  JB might have snatched some and that act may have gotten under his skin enough to get her back. If JB went to bed, someone would have noticed the feces in her bed and clean up the mess.  Burke could have put the feces there while her parents were staging the scene but I would bet he did it in the morning after opening presents. 

Can I see parents staging this to save their son?  Yes.  Did he molest her?  Probably. Did they know.  Most likely.   I would guess they wanted to save him because they felt responsible for his behavior and were in denial about his mental illness.  Since Burke was nine, he could not be charged anyway.  Who knows what the courts would have done.  Pretty sure they did not want the public to know and tarnish their image.  They did not want him institutionalize which was very possible.   I have seen parents sacrifice the healthy kids to protect their mentally ill child.  

Who knows how much abuse that poor girl experienced at the hand of her brother.   It could explain why she was spoiled at Christmas.   The parents felt guilty about what she was enduring at home.   

The DA knew what happened   He didn't want to prosecute because Burke was a kid and figured prosecuting the parents would serve no purpose.   It's sad all around .  

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

More to the point, what middle-aged dad does that? My dad would not have done that even if he'd had to chillax in the car until someone else came home, because glaziers cost money. "On anumber of occasions"? No way in hell. The manner of the break is also somewhat confusing to me; if you're going to break it, break the whole pane out so you don't cut yourself.

Or install some kind of number-pad lock-code thing if you can't keep track of your keys so well!

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, TattleTeeny said:

Or install some kind of number-pad lock-code thing if you can't keep track of your keys so well!

Or hide an extra key under a rock in the yard.  It was a huge yard - lots of rocks.  (Not sure if the number pad was available in the 90s.)  Or if they had all those friends who were ready to run to the Ramseys house at their beck and call, leave keys with a couple of them.

Edited September 20, 2016 by AZChristian
Thought of another option.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

(Not sure if the number pad was available in the 90s.)

Office and stores had them. I don't know about homes generally, but he could have paid for something, I'm sure. Though a guy who can't bother to fix a broken window may not have the wherewithal to arrange it!

[tobeannounced]

Did the investigators use a 20-year-old stun gun or a new one?  There might have been vast differences in them from then to now.  Not that I really care, but it just seems like they played fast and loose with a lot of this stuff and the investigation really was not very scientific at all.

Going down another rabbit hole, do any other parents here think it's odd that you would have young children's rooms be in such a position that you couldn't hear anything?  I'm not really one who thinks the family did it, but I find that very odd.  I remember when we moved to our new house and my bedroom was on the first floor and my kids' rooms were on the second.  I was really nervous with them being that far away from me and that I wouldn't be able to hear them if they called for me in the middle of the night, and our house is a lot smaller than the Ramseys'.  My kids were about the same ages as the Ramsey kids, and they definitely still needed mom and dad sometimes.  The poor Ramsey kids, if they were sick or had a nightmare or whatever, would have to go up to their parents' room to get help.

[Mittengirl]

I never heard them state that the feces on the chocolate (box?) was DNA tested.  And we only have one person's word that the other instances happpened.  And of course no way to know whose feces that was.  

I was clobbered with a tennis racket in the back of the head when I was 7 and needed 8 - 10 stitches.  I was under the impression head injuries bleed a lot; mine did.  I passed out once I was at the ER and saw the bloody towel that had been held against the wound.  Before that I was in pain but not woozy or anything.

 

i don't have nieces/nephews, but to those that do - would you give them underwear as a Christmas gift?  And why wouldn't Patsy/whomever put a pair of JB's own undies on her?

The stun gun part didn't work for me because the large guy was expecting the zap.  Tiny little JonBenet would not have been.

[tobeannounced]

4 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

I never heard them state that the feces on the chocolate (box?) was DNA tested.  And we only have one person's word that the other instances happpened.  And of course no way to know whose feces that was.  

I'm pretty sure feces has DNA in it.

Edited September 20, 2016 by tobeannounced

[AZChristian]

The blow to JB's head did not break the skin, although the skull was fractured.  Variables include what part of the skull is hit; some parts are thicker than others, as well as how much hair might have absorbed the blow.  In JB's case, the bleeding from the head blow was internal; her brain was swollen.  

[Cherrio]

I can't figure this case out and like many other posters here, feel that it will probably never be solved. Too many mistakes by all concerned. Too much game playing, bullshit and other crap at play by all concerned.

Colorado has a bad track record that goes beyond the Ramsey case too.  I mentioned this in another thread, but the worst being that Colorado let Ted Bundy escape not once but twice. The second time he went to Florida and killed 3 people, one being 12 years old and severely injured 3 others.   The jailers had been told several times by other prisoners that Bundy had been crawling around in the ceiling at night, but did nothing. It all could of been prevented. I can't imagine how the parents of the dead children feel about Colorado.

 I just jotted down a few things I either never heard about before or that bother me from this show.   

 Clemente mentioned that Bill Hagmeier from the FBI worked on the case, that he was his boss at one time. Hagmeier I know from the Bundy case. He was probably most responsible for getting Bundy to confess before he died.     From what I know about him, he is someone to be respected and it was said he was one of the people who walked away from the Ramsey case because of all the bullshit going on.

The problem though is we have no way of knowing who is lying now and was lying back when it happened. Thomas claimed that phone and credit card records were never investigated..   Since it has now been proven that ALL concerned have lied, then everything is forever tainted.   Thomas could very well be telling the truth, but we know that he was part of a lot of dirty tricks too.   This case is like a never ending ping pong ball going back and forth.

          1.  They claim there were no fingerprints on the flashlight.  Either it was dropped from the sky by Santa or someone wiped it down.  The defect does look like a very good match for that flashligh.

          2.  One piece of pineapple.  If Burke did have a troubled history, the scenario could very well be true.

          3. Speaking of Burke, I had never heard about his inappropriate behavior before.  It is very disturbing.   I would have no reason to doubt the housekeepers story. In fact I would deem it very credible because she probably would not lie, considering the wealth and power of the Ramsey's.    Especially the story of the grapefruit size ball. That is the act of a very disturbed little kid. That would take premeditation and time.    His recent interviews do him no favors.  While he could just be an oddball, he seems to still be that strange little kid from his earlier interviews.   The Dr. Phil interview imo is a total zero. He claims it was a no holds barred interview but that is a lie.    No questions about his behavior except a few seconds about the golf club. No questions about feces. No lie detector which Dr. Phil just lurves using.      The last thing about Burke which bothers me is that his father has said many times that he helped Burke put together a toy instead of making him go right to bed.  He said he did it because Burke would not budge from the toy. That gives me an impression of a parent who is either afraid of the outcome or to avoid the outcome of just ordering him to bed.    That suggests a scary and troubled kid.

 4.     I agree with the poster who mentioned the show omitting any mention of the fingernail evidence.   Troubling.

 5.      If the bedwetting had become a recent problem, not lifelong ...could it be due to Burke's violence and troubling behavior towards his sister?

 6.       While I am as far as you can get from a child expert, the new footage they showed of Burke's interview was disturbing. He was not acting or talking like a kid.  He seemed to be emotionless and from another planet.

[TattleTeeny]

OYYYYYYY VEEEEEEEEEEEY, you guyssssssss!

It is all too much--too much info, too much possibility (and in turn, too much impossibility!), too much weirdness, too much coverage, too much changing my mind back and forth, too much making lists like a nerd! I am just overwhelmed! 

OK, please carry on; I just had to get that out.

Edited September 20, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[AZChristian]

9 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

OYYYYYYY VEEEEEEEEEEEY, you guyssssssss!

It is all too much--too much info, too much possibility (and in turn, too much impossibility!), too much weirdness, too much coverage, too much changing my mind back and forth, (too much making lists like a nerd! I am just overwhelmed! 

OK, please carry on; I just had to get that out.

I'm sympathetic, TattleTeeny.  I'm trying to finish crocheting an afghan to give as a gift this coming Sunday . . . but I have a tab open on my browser that is an Amazon link to Jim Kolar's book.  Fighting hard not to click "Buy with one click"; if I do that, this afghan will NOT get finished.  I've already convinced myself that it doesn't need to be as long as the pattern suggests.  Sigh.

Edited September 20, 2016 by AZChristian
Proofreading is better when done before submitting a post.

[iMonrey]

Quote

This isn't just an honest disagreement between professionals,

The "honesty" of the disagreement can certainly be debated, but God knows both sides have "experts" that are certain they can "prove" the innocence or guilt of the Ramseys using the same evidence. It's really a matter of which side you want to believe more than anything else. If I've got one "expert" telling me one thing and another "expert" telling me the opposite, which one do I believe? 

Both sides make compelling cases.

[pamplemousse]

1 hour ago, Court said:

The Ranseys publicly accused many people of committing the murder in the press and in the book.  Chris Wolf sued and lost because in order to win, he had to prove the Ramsey's did it. 

They accused a lot of people and they made up weird lies like they said in their book that they believed a broken screen door could've been broken by the perpetrator to use as a point of entry/exit, when earlier during the investigation John Ramsey said that he had broken the door when he'd forgotten his keys and locked himself out and he just never got it fixed. 

Also, yes to whoever mentioned above about Patsy starting to disguise her handwriting after handwriting analysts found several points of similarity between her handwriting and the ransom letter. She stopped writing her lowercase "a" the double-story way and started writing it single-story (except, IIRC, sometimes she'd still slip) and she tried to disguise her unusual q. Furthermore, the ransom note had a phrase warning John Ramsey not to grow a brain which was something Patsy and her mother used to joke a lot about with him, telling him not to grow a brain.

I don't think there ever was a stun gun. That was posited by Lou Smit whose judgment in this case I don't trust (just like I don't trust Mary Lacy when she used to have private closed-door meetings with John Ramsey at her office even before her written exoneration and many of her coworkers believed she gave him privileged information) -- he very quickly decided that the Ramseys weren't guilty and ended up buddying up with them. I think the strange marks were from the toy train track, which would fit in with how everything used in the commission of this crime came from inside that house or can be traced back to one of the Ramseys purchasing it even if the Ramseys denied it (like the cord that was used to bind Jonbenet and the duct tape over her mouth was traced back to purchases Patsy Ramsey made at a hardware store on two separate visits -- the only items she bought at that hardware store during those shopping trips).

People are suspicious of the Ramseys because they acted as though they did not want their daughter's killer found, actively impeded the investigation from the beginning, and because they behaved in many ways that cast suspicion onto themselves more than anyone else did. Aside from the statistic that 70% of children are killed by immediate family members/parents (I think that statistic becomes even higher when the child is found dead of foul play in the family home), the Ramseys did more than anyone to make themselves look guilty IMO.

If the Ramseys (and I'm including Burke in that) didn't do it/cover it up, then there's someone out there who knows just about everything there can possibly be known about the Ramseys and hates them so much as to create a brilliant elaborate plan that makes the Ramseys looks guilty as hell. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by pamplemousse

[Guest]

From the recap: 

If you believe that Burke did it and that John and Patsy covered it up, and I do...I would have to say "nothing." Do we as citizens of the world want to know for sure what happened, so that we can feel some measure of control over a dangerous world? Sure. Nothing wrong with that. But I have to think that, by choosing to close ranks in this way, to "protect" Burke, the Ramseys in fact sentenced him and themselves, for life.

I think this is fair. For the better part of 20 years, the Ramseys have been under a pretty harsh spotlight -- and probably will remain under one for the rest of their lives. Had they just dealt with the crime and turned Burke in, the case would have gone away quickly (since Burke was too young to be charged) and probably would have been forgotten about a few years later. Everyone could have gone about rebuilding their lives out of the spotlight. But since the cover up is always worse than the crime, here we are. 

Also:

John Ramsey locked himself out, then broke the basement window to let himself in "on a number of occasions"? I'm sorry: who does that?

More to the point, what middle-aged dad does that? My dad would not have done that even if he'd had to chillax in the car until someone else came home, because glaziers cost money. "On a numberof occasions"? No way in hell.

Exactly. To think this was his "alternate entry" into his own home is ludicrous. But it does make me feel better knowing that even the rich aren't the tidiest of housekeepers. 

  

[annlaw78]

38 minutes ago, Cherrio said:

The last thing about Burke which bothers me is that his father has said many times that he helped Burke put together a toy instead of making him go right to bed.  He said he did it because Burke would not budge from the toy. That gives me an impression of a parent who is either afraid of the outcome or to avoid the outcome of just ordering him to bed.    That suggests a scary and troubled kid.

Or maybe a parent trying to end Christmas on a nice note, rather than a sour one?   

There are a lot of things that can be viewed as sinister or benign about this case.  I suppose that's why it has remained such a topic of interest for 20 years.

i just try to keep in mind how messy my house, and life, may look if rent open to public and law enforcement scrutiny without my expecting it.  

[Ohmo]

I can't find who posted this, but in terms of why CBS did this, I could see it being to spur investigation of Burke Ramsey.

Any member of the foreign faction (if there ever was one), was likely in their 30's or 40's at the time, making them 50 or 60 now.  The Santa Claus guy is the only one I heard of mentioned by name.  If he's still alive, he's no longer a threat.

Patsy's dead.  She's no longer a threat.

Jon is in his senior years.  If he was a threat before, he poses less of a threat now due to his age.  He also hasn't been linked to any other type of violent crime since JB's death.

Then we get to Burke.  Burke Ramsey is 29.  We're not talking about someone in his 50's, 60's, or 70's.  Presumably, he has a long life ahead of him, and the general consensus here is, at the very least, we all seem to agree that he was disturbed as a child.  By what, we don't know, but he did not demonstrate typical behavior for a child.

I wonder if CBS is trying to push for an investigation of Burke.  He is not a 9-year old any more.  Maybe he didn't cause the death of his sister, but I think there is some impetus now to stop treating him like a 9-year-old.  He could be perfectly innocent, and just an odd ball, but I wonder if the investigators wonder as I have: What if things are allowed to lie quietly with no further investigation of Burke, and (god forbid) he does something criminal 10-15 years from now?  I know, that (hopefully) will never happen.  If an investigation happens now, there's also no guarantee that it would stop Burke from doing something in the future.  However, 29 to death is a long time.  If Burke Ramsey still remains a suspect for being a threat to his sister at the age of 9, wouldn't it make sense to at least to attempt a present-day investigation of him to a) attempt to determine if he indeed was that threat and b) to prevent him from being a threat to anyone in the future?

Edited September 20, 2016 by Ohmo

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

 

ETA: Yeah, but in a limited amount of time, they could have asked "What did you do?"  He could have responded with "We had a fight, and I hit her."  They might not have asked for more information at that moment and just shooed him off to his room.

But Patsy and John would need to know every step to cover up Burke's tracks, so shooing him away to his room doesn't make sense. Especially since OJ /that trial/DNA trails had been in the news for a year and a half. The Ramseys would know even a drop of Jon Benet's blood on their son could leave a trail back to his bedroom.  And even if Burke lied to them, Patsy would've cleaned up the dining room table and kitchen out of instinct before calling the cops (as in "who knows what part of my baby landed here -- just  clean.")  The attention to detail paid elsewhere in the cover up doesn't fit with the pineapple being overlooked, or either parent accepting" I hit her" and not demanding a crime trail from him. They can't protect him, if they don't know what he did.

@Pollock I never thought anybody would make me laugh about this horrific crime, but your breakdown cracked me up.

Edited September 20, 2016 by film noire

[choclatechip45]

Does anyone here live in Boulder and seen the house?

I remember reading something a few years ago that the Ramsey house while it is a big house does not have a lot of property and the houses are all close together so someone would have seen something that night.

[pamplemousse]

I don't believe an argument happened because Jonbenet took some of the pineapple Burke was eating. I always thought that the kids got hungry, snuck downstairs and ate some pineapple, and then decided to go down to the basement to play with the toy trains (or Burke decided to and Jonbenet tagged along), they took the flashlight with them so that they could get to the basement without having to turn on a lot of lights and wake their parents. Then they got in an argument in the basement over toys or something else and Burke hit her on the head with the flashlight causing her to fall against the train track. It wasn't enough to knock her out and she threatened to tell on him so he grabbed cord laying nearby in the basement and put that around her neck (but did not make a garrote, that was done later by the parents) and she clawed at her neck to get the cord off and eventually lost consciousness or expired.

Not pleasant suspicions, but that's what I always thought -- this theory from the show about Jonbenet taking some pineapple from Burke's bowl and that's what started the whole chain of events, doesn't make sense to me.

Is there any evidence that she was definitely attacked in the kitchen?

[iMonrey]

Quote

I love how they immediately said that the DNA belonging to someone outside the family, on two separate articles of her clothing, were unimportant and could be dismissed. Yeah, right, just ignore any evidence that contradicts your theory.

The point of the DNA testing was to show that the presence of transfer DNA could not eliminate anyone as a suspect. It didn't "prove" anything, one way or another. We know that JonBenet was moved and handled after being discovered. There are any number of ways DNA could have gotten on her clothes. Even a new, unopened pair of underwear has foreign DNA on it. That's the whole point. The current DNA has exonerated the Ramseys on the basis of this transfer DNA, and these tests demonstrated the folly in that.

Quote

IMO, this "investigation" was embarrassingly shoddy and ignored any evidence that didn't conform to their pre-conceived theory that Burke did it. 

I agree that certain evidence was ignored and I was especially troubled by the absence of any mention of the marks found on her throat, which proponents of the intruder theory insist are her own fingernail marks and "prove" she was alive while she was being strangled.

That said, they did a damned impressive job addressing other evidence of the alleged intruder, like the entry through the basement window and the taser, and when you consider all the other evidence they did cover, such as the ransom note, the 911 call, the grand jury findings and the DNA evidence, taken altogether, it makes the intruder theory look very flimsy. 

Quote

So, a test demonstrating that new, out of the package, pants have DNA on them proves nothing in this case.

It proves that you can have unidentified DNA on your clothing and it doesn't mean a thing. It could come from anywhere. Unidentified DNA on JonBenet's clothing does not prove an intruder killer her.

Quote

If you're suspected of a crime, you absolutely should get a lawyer.

Yes. But what you should not do is go on CNN (against the advice of your lawyer, no less) and try to discredit the police.

Quote

That garotte was a pretty complicated piece of evidence that has been conveniently left out of the Bozos' conclusions.

Actually they made a valid point that the garrote was completely unnecessary - any adult could have strangled the child using the rope itself or their bare hands, which suggests staging.

I don't know that they got their hypotheses just right and I've tended to think more along the same lines as pamplemousse above. One of the things about the garrote, and the way the rope was tied, that people have pointed out over the years is that it reflects the boy-scout training Burke was familiar with at the time. I think it's quite possible he both fractured her skull and then strangled her because she was still breathing and he panicked, then pulled the body into the "wine cellar" and covered her with a blanket. I think it's possible the parents didn't find her 'til the next morning, realized at once what had happened, and ordered Burke to stay in his room while they wrote the note and called police to cover it up. I think most of what happened to her can be attributed to Burke rather than the "staging," which seemed so odd for a parent to do. 

[PBSLover]

I agree. I believe Burke did it as well.
1) So what the hell was he doing on Dr. Phil (I didn’t watch it)?
2) Who buys new underwear and puts it on directly from the package? Wasn’t it washed before wearing (that point was never discussed but maybe that is what the parents told the police)?

It was a great special, by the way.

Edited September 20, 2016 by PBSLover

[ghoulina]

1 hour ago, TattleTeeny said:

More to the point, what middle-aged dad does that? My dad would not have done that even if he'd had to chillax in the car until someone else came home, because glaziers cost money. "On anumber of occasions"? No way in hell. The manner of the break is also somewhat confusing to me; if you're going to break it, break the whole pane out so you don't cut yourself.

Yes, it was not fully broken! It looked like a death trap, trying to crawl through all of those jagged shards. 

 

1 hour ago, Mittengirl said:

i don't have nieces/nephews, but to those that do - would you give them underwear as a Christmas gift?  And why wouldn't Patsy/whomever put a pair of JB's own undies on her?

No, I wouldn't. That's weird. The underwear were size 12-14. The niece at the time was 11, so they definitely would be too big for Jon Benet, who was a petite 6-year-old.  However, Patsy claims she bought them at Bloomingdales with the intention to give them to the niece, but ended up just putting them in JB's underwear drawer, the entire bag. And, that JB must have taken them out and put them on. What's odd about that, is I don't believe the rest of that bag was ever found. Patsy tried saying that JB wore 8-10 panties. But the only panties found in her drawer by police were 4-6. 

Patsy claimed in an interview she did not put JB in fresh panties before bed. She says she changed JB out of her party clothes. She would have noticed if the child was wearing panties so large that they would likely pull down when you took a pair of pants off. I cannot believe JB was wearing those 12-14 Wednesday underwear all day. They had to have been put on her in the night. 

My thought is that, for some reason, her original panties needed to be disposed of and another pair grabbed quickly. I believe the underwear WERE intended for the niece (as weird as that is), as they were too big for JB. But they were grabbed in the spur of the moment and the rest of that pack was trashed. It was never found. I'm not sure why they thought that would make it look more believable, though, the whole thing is just weird. 

55 minutes ago, choclatechip45 said:

I remember reading something a few years ago that the Ramsey house while it is a big house does not have a lot of property and the houses are all close together so someone would have seen something that night.

One neighbor supposedly heard a scream. Around 2 am, I believe? If so, how could a neighbor hear it and not the parents? (Of course we now know that Burke sleeps so deeply that nothing wakes him). Also, I read that another neighbor said they saw a light on in a room that is never on in the middle of the night, and another room that always had a light on overnight did not. But I'm not sure which rooms. 

 

51 minutes ago, pamplemousse said:

Is there any evidence that she was definitely attacked in the kitchen?

No, I don't believe there is any evidence of WHERE exactly she was killed/attacked. The reason I give the pineapple theory a lot of credence is because of how cagey the Ramseys have always been about that damned pineapple. And Burke's "Oh" upon realizing where the interview was going when shown the pineapple was pretty telling as well. 

But your theory is also sound, and I would not be surprised if it had gone down like that instead. Sadly, I doubt we'll ever know. 

40 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Yes. But what you should not do is go on CNN (against the advice of your lawyer, no less) and try to discredit the police.

Didn't they go on CNN while still in Atlanta? The way I remember it is that the Whites were trying to convince them to go back to Boulder and help the police, and the next day they're giving an interview to a national news network. 

[GaT]

6 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

No, I wouldn't. That's weird. The underwear were size 12-14. The niece at the time was 11, so they definitely would be too big for Jon Benet, who was a petite 6-year-old.  However, Patsy claims she bought them at Bloomingdales with the intention to give them to the niece, but ended up just putting them in JB's underwear drawer, the entire bag. And, that JB must have taken them out and put them on. What's odd about that, is I don't believe the rest of that bag was ever found. Patsy tried saying that JB wore 8-10 panties. But the only panties found in her drawer by police were 4-6. 

Patsy claimed in an interview she did not put JB in fresh panties before bed. She says she changed JB out of her party clothes. She would have noticed if the child was wearing panties so large that they would likely pull down when you took a pair of pants off. I cannot believe JB was wearing those 12-14 Wednesday underwear all day. They had to have been put on her in the night. 

My thought is that, for some reason, her original panties needed to be disposed of and another pair grabbed quickly. I believe the underwear WERE intended for the niece (as weird as that is), as they were too big for JB. But they were grabbed in the spur of the moment and the rest of that pack was trashed. It was never found. I'm not sure why they thought that would make it look more believable, though, the whole thing is just weird. 

 

This is the first I've heard anything about the newness or not of the underwear & that they were too big for her. The whole thing sounds strange, 

[TheFinalRose]

I highly urge people to investigate the case way beyond what this biased bunch of Bozos presented in their grab for fifteen minutes of fame. There is definite, credible, forensic evidence on JonBenet of an intruder. The only problem is, the guy got away. Sucks, but it's true. 

There has been ample time to trip up the Ramseys, Burke included, or for the Ramseys or Burke to give themselves away. Hasn't happened. I wish we knew the truth too, because it's so weird, and sad, and on Christmas Day, on top of it all. But I've been waiting to see the smoking gun that proves it couldn't have been an intruder, and they don't have it. All they need is that one DNA match and poof! all the mystery could be over. I don't believe that because it hasn't happened yet, it can't happen. Or, that one confession that has that one little detail that only the killer knows, and that they've managed to seal from the public. So I don't accept that, because none of those matches have happened yet, that we have to nail Burke with this one right now.

[choclatechip45]

40 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

I highly urge people to investigate the case way beyond what this biased bunch of Bozos presented in their grab for fifteen minutes of fame. There is definite, credible, forensic evidence on JonBenet of an intruder. The only problem is, the guy got away. Sucks, but it's true. 

There has been ample time to trip up the Ramseys, Burke included, or for the Ramseys or Burke to give themselves away. Hasn't happened. I wish we knew the truth too, because it's so weird, and sad, and on Christmas Day, on top of it all. But I've been waiting to see the smoking gun that proves it couldn't have been an intruder, and they don't have it. All they need is that one DNA match and poof! all the mystery could be over. I don't believe that because it hasn't happened yet, it can't happen. Or, that one confession that has that one little detail that only the killer knows, and that they've managed to seal from the public. So I don't accept that, because none of those matches have happened yet, that we have to nail Burke with this one right now.

Burke has barley spoke to anyone publicly since  the grand jury.  The police asked to speak with him in 2010 and he said no. I do find it interesting that they spoke Fleet White's son during the grand jury and not the daughter. 

Considering his first public interview with Dr Phil he admits to being inthe basement and unlocking a door (to cover for the intruder theory) is highly suspicious.

Edited September 20, 2016 by choclatechip45

[Court]

Touch DNA is highly unreliable. In fact, it is more commonly used by the defense as a way to exlcude not the prosecutors to identify. As I've said before, the DNA in this case is even more unreliable since Lacey deviated from 13 to 4 when it was analyzed.The sample would have experienced decay as well. Police mishandled the entire scene and that includes her clothing.

There's no smoking gun on either side. 

 

http://campbelllawobserver.com/new-study-shows-that-touch-dna-may-implicate-the-innocent/

Edited September 20, 2016 by Court