The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[choclatechip45]

Plus Burke works at home. I use to work at home the people I would interact with was very limited which is why I found an office job.  From the Dr. Phil interview he clearly isn't all there socially. Do we really think he would get drunk at a college party and announce to the world he killed his sister?

Another thing that is suspicious is that Melinda Ramsey (John's daughter) fiancée told police John told him that he found the body at 11 am. He would have no motivation to tell police that.

Edited September 20, 2016 by choclatechip45

[SSAHotchner]

14 hours ago, GaT said:

This was my first thought, were her panties new? I haven't heard anything about how new the clothes she was wearing were, does anybody know? 

IMO this was the first viable explanation of the pineapple that anyone has come up with. It's reasonable, it's not some bizarre explanation that stretches the imagination, & it also explains why everyone denies giving her the pineapple, because nobody did, she just took a piece. As for the rest of the scenario, it's plausible, but they're just guessing.

In other stuff, I found their work on the window to be convincing. They were absolutely right about the spiderwebs & now I don't see how anybody could have come in & gotten out through that window. On the other hand, pretend testing all that fake evidence was just stupid & proved absolutely nothing except Henry Lee know how to get publicity for his forensic laboratory.

The neighbor is really getting on my nerves, she just keeps inserting herself into this case.

I hadn't heard about the grapefruit size ball of poop in her bed before, that's just disgusting.

And how about feces being smeared all over the box of candy she had just gotten as a Christmas present? That was mentioned. Surely Jon Benet didn't do that. There was some really intense jealousy and anger going on there with Burke. I don't think any of the general public suspected him all those years ago when the story first broke but then we didn't have this other disturbing information back then. While the idea that the pineapple was the start of an altercation is plausible, what if she discovered that her brother smeared poo all over her brand new box of candy? I would have wanted to smack my sibling if she'd done that to any of my possessions. 

I know that kids are abducted from their homes by strangers and stalkers, but the ransom note rules out the whole intruder thing for me. In fact, if anyone outside the family had been responsible for her death, the best thing would be not to leave a note. A dead kid in a home with no evidence would most likely place suspicion on the folks inside the home. And I'll never in a million years believe that an intruder wrote that note, based on the contents of the note. 

[ghoulina]

16 minutes ago, choclatechip45 said:

 

Another thing that is suspicious is that Melinda Ramsey (John's daughter) fiancée told police John told him that he found the body at 11 am. He would have no motivation to tell police that.

 

Oh weird, I never heard that. Wasn't the official find around 1pm? Interesting....

 

6 minutes ago, SSAHotchner said:

I know that kids are abducted from their homes by strangers and stalkers, but the ransom note rules out the whole intruder thing for me. In fact, if anyone outside the family had been responsible for her death, the best thing would be not to leave a note. A dead kid in a home with no evidence would most likely place suspicion on the folks inside the home. And I'll never in a million years believe that an intruder wrote that note, based on the contents of the note. 

Right. If it were a real kidnapping gone wrong, remove the note. You no longer have a reason to get the money, why point fingers at yourself? If it was just a killing by an intruder, never a kidnapping, I guess the note could have been a red herring. But, as you say, better to let it be and have the cops look at the parents first. Why point to it being an outsider AT ALL?

Edited September 20, 2016 by ghoulina

[choclatechip45]

2 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

Oh weird, I never heard that. Wasn't the official find around 1pm? Interesting....

 

Right. If it were a real kidnapping gone wrong, remove the note. You no longer have a reason to get the money, why point fingers at yourself? If it was just a killing by an intruder, never a kidnapping, I guess the note could have been a red herring. But, as you say, better to let it be and have the cops look at the parents first. Why point to it being an outsider AT ALL?

It's in Steve Thomas book and yes which is why it's super strange.

Edited September 20, 2016 by choclatechip45

[Ohmo]

18 minutes ago, SSAHotchner said:

And how about feces being smeared all over the box of candy she had just gotten as a Christmas present? That was mentioned. Surely Jon Benet didn't do that. There was some really intense jealousy and anger going on there with Burke. I don't think any of the general public suspected him all those years ago when the story first broke but then we didn't have this other disturbing information back then. While the idea that the pineapple was the start of an altercation is plausible, what if she discovered that her brother smeared poo all over her brand new box of candy? I would have wanted to smack my sibling if she'd done that to any of my possessions. 

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

[Stampiron]

Just for the purpose of perspective, it's worth mentioning that nobody is accusing the Ramseys of being master criminals. Staging that crime scene was an irrational, batshit crazy thing to do. Yeah it worked (sort of,) but it shouldn't have. All the evidence is right there, but through a confluence of fortuitous (for the Ramseys) circumstances and police mistakes the whole case got muddled.

So if elements of the staging seem odd, if we wonder why they did this and not that, keep in mind that they (she) really had no idea what they were doing. These are the actions of desperate, probably hysterical people (person) making it up as they (she) go(es) along. 

Sorry to get cute with the parentheticals there, but I do believe that it was all Patsy. Everything I've read about John Ramsey, everything we know about his behavior that morning says to me that if he were made aware that his son or wife had killed JonBenet, his response would be to call an ambulance and call a lawyer. Which is what most people would do. YMMV. 

[Maharincess]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

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.

This is crazy @AZChristian, I've said before that I agree with everything you've said regarding this case.  I don't need to post most of my thoughts because you do it before me.   I just bought the Kolar book and I'm working on an afghan for my granddaughter for Xmas.  I'm about halfway done and really need to buckle down to get it done but I'm itching to start the book.  

Are we twins who were separated at birth?   The only difference seems to be that my name would be CAAtheist, lol. 

[Guest]

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.

Actually, it's not true. At all. There is evidence to suggest Burke did it and I presume evidence to suggest it wasn't him. The only truth is that there's a dead kid and and someone got away with it. 

At this point, presuming it is Burke, he can't be tried either since he was 9 at the time of the crime. John Ramsey can't be tried because, from what I've read, the statute of limitations has expired on what he was charged with by the grand jury. So, at this point, it's an academic exercise in trying to solve this crime.   

[pamplemousse]

1 hour 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.

With all due respect, you're preaching to the wrong choir. Almost everybody posting here has investigated the case much farther beyond just watching this show, which is more than evident in the multitude of posts with information against the intruder theory and casting suspicion on the Ramseys & Burke. People did not pull all of the information out of thin air, it's out there, it happened, it's a matter of public record, and the totality of it points to the Ramseys and Burke being highly involved. There is not credible forensic evidence of there being an intruder. I don't know how many times it can be said and pointed out by many DNA experts and even lay people, because it should seem a pretty obvious fact: Not all DNA is created equal. And touch DNA cannot be used as the basis to inculpate or exculpate anyone (not even that weirdo John Mark Karr). And we're dealing with touch evidence matched only to 1/3 of the amount of markers that would be standard. 

There has not been ample time to trip up the Ramseys or for them to give themselves away. The Ramseys only ever once consented to a taped interview, which they highly rehearsed, and John Ramsey was interviewed by his buddy Lou Smit who softballed every question to him. Burke Ramsey was interviewed once when he was 11 and has never been in the media again until recently on Dr. Phil. They have hid behind lawyers and impeded the investigation into their daughter's death and refused to cooperate from pretty much the very beginning. What opportunity would there be to trip them up? Every question the police had for them had to be submitted in writing to their lawyers and then the Ramseys were able to, at their leisure, answer them (or, they could've even had a public relations person or their lawyers answer them).

You've been waiting to see the smoking gun that proves it couldn't have been an intruder. Where's the smoking gun that proves it was an intruder? The shoddy touch DNA "evidence"? The stun gun and "stuff Jonbenet in a suitcase" theory by the Ramseys' dear friend Lou Smit? What else? There's nothing.

[AZChristian]

19 minutes ago, Maharincess said:

This is crazy @AZChristian, I've said before that I agree with everything you've said regarding this case.  I don't need to post most of my thoughts because you do it before me.   I just bought the Kolar book and I'm working on an afghan for my granddaughter for Xmas.  I'm about halfway done and really need to buckle down to get it done but I'm itching to start the book.  

Are we twins who were separated at birth?   The only difference seems to be that my name would be CAAtheist, lol. 

You have totally cracked me up.  Instead of my brother from another mother, you're my sister from another mister!!!  PM me if you're in the San Diego area; Mr. AZC and I want to get over there within the next couple of weeks.  Starbucks on me!!!

[pamplemousse]

23 minutes ago, Stampiron said:

Just for the purpose of perspective, it's worth mentioning that nobody is accusing the Ramseys of being master criminals. Staging that crime scene was an irrational, batshit crazy thing to do. Yeah it worked (sort of,) but it shouldn't have. All the evidence is right there, but through a confluence of fortuitous (for the Ramseys) circumstances and police mistakes the whole case got muddled.

So if elements of the staging seem odd, if we wonder why they did this and not that, keep in mind that they (she) really had no idea what they were doing. These are the actions of desperate, probably hysterical people (person) making it up as they (she) go(es) along. 

Sorry to get cute with the parentheticals there, but I do believe that it was all Patsy. Everything I've read about John Ramsey, everything we know about his behavior that morning says to me that if he were made aware that his son or wife had killed JonBenet, his response would be to call an ambulance and call a lawyer. Which is what most people would do. YMMV. 

I think John and Patsy did the cover-up together, but separately. I think they wanted to get it straightened out as soon as possible and so there was some sort of division of labor with John taking care of some things and Patsy taking care of other things, and that's why some of the staging seems to show a cool, logical, calm-under-pressure head at work and other aspects of the staging show an illogical, frazzled, emotional head at work. Similar to how John and Patsy reacted differently in their taped interviews (granted, John was being interviewed by his friend and Patsy by a detective who wasn't a buddy of theirs): John was cool, placid, very calm and Patsy was irritated, hostile, snappish.

[zxy556575]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

 I think it's quite possible [Burke] 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.

Did I miss an examination of whether a boy of Burke's age and weight could carry/drag 45 pounds? Especially if it was down some stairs.

7 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Of the three Ramseys, I've never heard of Jon being considered as the actual killer, only of the staging of the crime scene.

At the time, John was one of the top suspects in the court of public opinion, even more so than Patsy, because of the (erroneous or not) news reports of possible ongoing sexual abuse.

Edited September 21, 2016 by lordonia

[toodles]

6 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

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.

I read this and it was really interesting.  The Whites went to Atlanta for the funeral and Patsy's parents's invited the Whites to a New Year brunch.  Who does that when your grandaughter has been brutally murdered the week before?  That is just beyond creepy and inappropriate.

[Arynm]

7 hours ago, TheFinalRose said:

The idea that, after all this time and investigation, Burke did it is ridiculous. I followed this case really closely on the internet in the few years after the crime, and there are many, many details that these two Bozos ignored. When the Ramseys flew to Atlanta to bury JonBenet, they asked Burke's best friend in Boulder to come with them, so that Burke would have companionship during the days ahead. The friend's parents agreed to that. 

If your child is a murderer, and you know it, and you are covering up for him, then I would think that you would be really worried that your kid is going to tell his friend what happened. You wouldn't be concerned with setting up a comfortable environment for your son, you'd be completely stressed out that he'd tell someone, and you'd keep him close. Also, you probably wouldn't be inviting what could be Burke's next victim along with you. 

I hope Burke sues these two Bozos and CBS. 

Didn't they also have Burke interviewed right after it happened? The parents themselves couldn't be bothered for a year and a half, but Burke was sent right in. If the parents really thought he did it, they would never let that happen.

I have a question that has been bothering me. Where did the picture come from with her body and the blanket in the basement. Isn't the story that John found her body (with the light off) and ripped of the duct tape and then brought her up and laid her on the floor. So how can there be a picture or her in situ?

[TheFinalRose]

Quote

which is more than evident in the multitude of posts with information against the intruder theory

The intruder theory has never been "disproved." Plus, she was asphyxiated. The Bozos based their entire BDI conclusion after finding someone who would give them a reason to throw away the original autopsy results. 

Plus, they were inaccurate. John Ramsey called his pilot, after JonBenet was found not to make a get away, but because their plan that day was to fly to Michigan as a family on their private plane on the 26th. He was probably in touch with the airport/pilot from the early morning. The Bozos should have known that and not made it seem as if it was suspicious.

Patsy Ramsey didn't get cancer after JonBenet's death. She had already survived Stage 4 ovarian cancer by flying back and forth to the National Institutes of Health for experimental treatment. Her cancer returned and killed her at 49. The Bozos should have gotten that fact right. 

Why didn't the Bozos include the fact that Patsy vomited in shock when she first saw JonBenet dead?  Because it doesn't fit in with their cover up.

Quote

There is not credible forensic evidence of there being an intruder.

There are fibers, there is DNA, there is a bootprint. There is enough evidence that they know that they could not convict the Ramseys. I would have had more respect for the Bozos theory, if they had included these common known facts about the case. 

[Fable]

I thought this show provided some very compelling evidence to suggest Burke was the person responsible in JonBenet’s death, but it really annoyed me that they ignored, barely touched on or dismissed anything that wasn’t part of their overall theory.  I’m not saying Burke did or did not do it, but they certainly didn’t leave much room for interpretation. 

Then at the end of the show there is the disclaimer which ends with “we urge you to draw your own conclusions.”  Well, if this had been the first exposure someone had to the case, what the hell other conclusion would they draw? 

[LittleCabbage]

Even if Burke did it-- and  I believe he did-- what could be done to him now, legally? Very little. Even if he had copped to the manslaughter of his sister at the age of 9, there would have little in the way of repercussions due to his tender age. Maybe he would have spent a few years in a children's psychiatric facility. Based on his conduct and demeanor in that old interview footage, that might not necessarily have been a bad thing for him. Just saying.

If this had been a 'regular' case of a little boy who accidentally killed his sister-- or even killed her on purpose-- we would not be talking about this today. It would be long forgotten except to those personally affected by the tragedy.  It's the ensuing cover-up-- that bizarre, melodramatic ransom note and the convoluted staging of the body-- that makes this case especially memorable and disturbing. It is chilling to think of parents going to such lengths to protect their surviving child. Did they really do him any favors? 

I do lean toward the death being accidental.  Watching the special last night brought back some not so pleasant memories of my own childhood, where my older brothers were often rough with me-- smothering me with a pillow, dunking my head in tub water when my parents weren't around. I could have easily died. Thankfully, they've grown up to be normal, functional adult men who have apologized for how I was treated and admitted that they were spurred by jealousy, with me being the youngest and the only girl. It isn't hard for me to imagine something of that dynamic between Burke and JonBenet as well. 

[pamplemousse]

4 hours ago, TheFinalRose said:

The intruder theory has never been "disproved." Plus, she was asphyxiated. The Bozos based their entire BDI conclusion after finding someone who would give them a reason to throw away the original autopsy results. 

Plus, they were inaccurate. John Ramsey called his pilot, after JonBenet was found not to make a get away, but because their plan that day was to fly to Michigan as a family on their private plane on the 26th. He was probably in touch with the airport/pilot from the early morning. The Bozos should have known that and not made it seem as if it was suspicious.

Patsy Ramsey didn't get cancer after JonBenet's death. She had already survived Stage 4 ovarian cancer by flying back and forth to the National Institutes of Health for experimental treatment. Her cancer returned and killed her at 49. The Bozos should have gotten that fact right. 

Why didn't the Bozos include the fact that Patsy vomited in shock when she first saw JonBenet dead?  Because it doesn't fit in with their cover up.

There are fibers, there is DNA, there is a bootprint. There is enough evidence that they know that they could not convict the Ramseys. I would have had more respect for the Bozos theory, if they had included these common known facts about the case. 

Nor has the intruder theory ever been "proven." Her being asphyxiated doesn't mean that an intruder did it.

John Ramsey was overheard that morning making plans to attend a business meeting he said he could not get out of. Police and friends had to talk him out of preparing to fly out for this strange business meeting (I say strange because the original plan was for the family to fly to their Michigan vacation home and now suddenly he has a business meeting he can't get out of).

Just because the investigators on this particular show didn't specifically say that her ovarian cancer returned and killed her, that's proof of what...exactly? That there was an intruder? That the Ramseys are innocent? So what if she vomited? That's not proof of anything, either way, of whether she had anything to do with it or not.

Fibers are not probative, as it has been said so many times by many experts the touch DNA in this case cannot prove someone is innocent or guilty, the bootprint is not credible forensic evidence -- there was construction work done on the house, the High-Tech bootprint could've come from anyone and doesn't prove an intruder killed Jonbenet. Who is "they" that knew they could not convict the Ramseys? Alex Hunter? A Grand Jury seemed to think there was enough to indict the Ramseys. Alex Hunter cared more about status and wealth and influence than finding out who killed a young girl, his office was notorious for not wanting to go to trial, he didn't want to piss off some very rich and influential people and their high-powered legal teams.

Edited September 21, 2016 by pamplemousse

[Court]

Neither theory has been disproved. You can murder someone and still grieve the loss.There could have been an intruder. Or the Ramsey's did it in some fashion. Both can be believed. Just because someone doesn't arrive to the same conclusions doesn't mean that they haven't investigated thoroughly. 

You can vomit when you realize what you or your child did to another child.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Court

[choclatechip45]

Does anyone else find it strange the Ramsey's were robbed in 2001? They didn't have any security alarms yet there daughter was murdered in their house!

 

Here is an article about it http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/21lrams.html

[JudyObscure]

32 minutes ago, toodles said:

I read this and it was really interesting.  The Whites went to Atlanta for the funeral and Patsy's parents's invited the Whites to a New Year brunch.  Who does that when your grandaughter has been brutally murdered the week before?  That is just beyond creepy and inappropriate.

I read Chocolatechip's link, too, and really liked getting a glimpse of the Ramseys from a friend's point of view.  I thought it was interesting that Fleet White said, "The Ramseys stapled themselves to us."  He seemed to think they were a little bit tacky and said that Priscilla talked Patsy out of wearing her mink and diamonds for the CNN interview.  I get  a picture of the Whites as very smart, authentic people who may not have chosen the Ramseys as close friends if it hadn't been for their children all being the same age.  The Ramseys with their showy house and lavishly decorated living room while barely decorated, dirty, messy bedrooms waited upstairs, out of sight.  Patsy getting up and putting on the same fur jacket she wore the night before, as morning wear.  Broken windows and troubled little boys not tended to.  It all adds up to  very odd people to me.

What do you all think of the way all the friends in Boulder closed ranks and refused to talk to the press, shunning anyone who didn't stick to the rules?  I can't believe that one family in Boulder actually allowed their little boy to go to Atlanta as a playmate for Burke while the murder was still so unsolved and the parents under that "umbrella of suspicion?"  Where did all that loyalty come from?  It's not like these were life long friends the Ramseys had grown up with.  Did it become sort of a cult in itself? 

[Cherrio]

45 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I have a question that has been bothering me. Where did the picture come from with her body and the blanket in the basement. Isn't the story that John found her body (with the light off) and ripped of the duct tape and then brought her up and laid her on the floor. So how can there be a picture or her in situ?

The body was not in the blanket in the photograph.

[ElleBee]

36 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

I would have had more respect for the Bozos theory, if they had included these common known facts about the case. 

Lots of interesting analysis on here from both sides, but what's with referring to them as "the Bozos"? You may not agree with them (and there was definitely some conclusion jumping in certain areas) but as far as I can tell, they were experienced and well-qualified to speak to the case. 

As for what was included, there are elements that may have been included initially and later snipped by editing, or snipped as part of parsing it from 6 hours to 4. I don't think we know enough about the production itself to say that the investigators deliberately omitted portions of the case. If anything, it would likely be producers, editors, etc.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Didn't they also have Burke interviewed right after it happened? The parents themselves couldn't be bothered for a year and a half, but Burke was sent right in. If the parents really thought he did it, they would never let that happen.

The Ramseys didn't have any choice with that first interview - child services stepped in as soon as Burke's sibling was murdered. They are required by law to interview any other children living in the same house as the one where a sibling was murdered.

Quote

The intruder theory has never been "disproved."

Leprechauns have never been "disproved." You can't disprove something that doesn't exist.

Quote

Plus, she was asphyxiated.

There is disagreement among all the "experts" as to whether she died of blunt force trauma or from strangulation. I've heard medical professionals contradict one another on this point. There does not seem to be a consensus. The original autopsy lists both causes. Probably because it cannot be determined, 100%, which happened first.

However, the "intruder" theory relies upon strangulation as the manner of death, because there's no logic behind an intruder hitting her over the head with a blunt object after he has already killed her. I think that's why so many professionals reason the blunt force trauma occurred first, because the other way around doesn't make much sense.

[Cherrio]

Even after the long post I wrote earlier, I still have no idea or firm opinion except to now think that the Ramsey family was not typical in any way. Heck, I even said to myself watching John on Dr. Phil ......who the hell wears shoes like that?  They looked like shoes from the rugged western version of The Music Man.

         Speaking of Dr. Phil, I wanted to add that I think the Ramsey's were paid ALOT of money to appear and its pretty well known these days they are far from rich. I think its been said Ramsey spent/lost most of his money.   And...Dr. Phil is well known to pay huge sums for ratings spectaculars. He paid those scumbags George and Cindy Anthony a huge amount of money.

 I don't like using medical/criminal labels, but Burke is and was so strange I wonder if he has that sociopath's ability to compartmentalize to the degree that he killed his sister, but its done and on to playing with his Nintendo.     I am not saying I am convinced of him killing her, but that part in the interview when he is 11 (?) there is a moment when he leans back and acts in this I am smarter and superior sort of way.   It was pretty creepy to me.  I know all children are different, but how many kids would react as he did in both interviews?  Like he was there to talk about some minor fight on a school playground.

    It is hard to do as an adult, but I sit here thinking about myself as a child and how I would react to having my sister murdered in the house?   I remember an incident from my childhood that makes me know I would be a total wreck. Scared to death.  Not acting like Burke.   

Whatever happened, whoever did it......put aside the money, this family was/is strange.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

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

He broke it to reach in and open the latch, not that he climbed through the shards; the window is four-paned one that swings inward like a small door.

[shoegal]

8 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

 

However, the "intruder" theory relies upon strangulation as the manner of death, because there's no logic behind an intruder hitting her over the head with a blunt object after he has already killed her. I think that's why so many professionals reason the blunt force trauma occurred first, because the other way around doesn't make much sense.

I think it could make sense. If JB was being strangled and was fighting back during the strangulation (clawing at the rope/string) I can see the perp (intruder or otherwise) deciding to try knocking her in the head, at least to get her to stop fighting. I think the blow could have come in the middle of the strangulation, and the strangulation being easier to finish once she was knocked out.

[choclatechip45]

Here is the City Council link were all the Whites spoke

 

[Cara]

4 hours 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.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about who did it. But I won't call them a bunch of bozos. And at least a couple of them have had well more that their 15 minutes already, having worked on some very high profile cases.

[TattleTeeny]

I can totally buy that or something similar, shoegal. The trouble is, now I can also buy this Burke theory. 

Twenty years ago, I was thoroughly convinced the Ramseys were behind this. I put a lot of stock in what the cops said (even though I thought Linda Arndt was a real dope), probably because that's all I really had to read on the case (that and Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, though I can't recall if that was impartially conveyed or what). There was not much from the other side until Patsy's book came out (I worked in a B&N then, and snapped up anything on the topic as soon as it showed up).

Then, as I learned more and more details about this case (particularly all the possible weirdos that were not in the family), and took up an interest in criminology, profiling, and forensic science--and, of course, heard and read more and more about specious investigations and wrongful convictions--I softened on the Ramseys and tried to be openminded. In fact, it seems so recently that I embraced the intruder possibility (it wasn't, but it feels that way when I remind myself that this all started in 1996!).

But even back in the late '90s, I thought the Burke theory was ridiculous, in spite of the fact that I was sure it was John and Patsy's doing. Even just last week, I thought it was ridiculous. But then this show happened. And now...ugh. I don't even know.

I don't mean to sound dramatic--or god forbid, to co-opt someone's tragedy--but holy fuck, man, this is really kind of messing with my head in a truly unique way; as someone who has spent time over the last two decades to keep up with even the tiniest of development, and someone who gets excited to see any stupid bit of coverage about it on TV or, better yet, a book, I feel weirdly melancholy...sort of like when the vacation ends and you have to go home! That said, cheers to all of you fellow true-crime geeks; without you all to "talk to," I'd have one at-best-exasperated and at-worst-pissed off boyfriend! (i'm gonna just go ahead and assume many of you can relate, haha!)

It's all too much, I tell you!

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[film noire]

3 hours ago, ghoulina said:

Right. If it were a real kidnapping gone wrong, remove the note. You no longer have a reason to get the money, why point fingers at yourself? 

Maybe because you're in the basement and going back for the note is too dangerous? 

[shoegal]

23 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

I can totally buy that or something similar, shoegal. The trouble is, now I can also buy this Burke theory. 
 

I could buy the Burke theory, too, with the head blow and the pineapple, and the cover up ransom note, etc by the parents. What I can't reconcile that with is the strangulation, any and all parts of it. I can't imagine Burke doing it, I can't imagine one of the parents staging it for the cover up and I certainly cannot get on board with the idea that one of the parents finished her off because the blow to the head didn't kill her.  I also can't dismiss the DNA in the panties and leggings, which I understand was mixed with a drop of JB's blood? 

The Burke/parent cover up theory makes the most sense if not for a few things that I just can't make fit in my mind....but I will admit I have not paid that much attention, I have been watching the recent coverage but it's not like I've spent twenty years reading about the case. I feel like at this point, there is so much out there it's hard to know what is true and what has become historical fiction, and what pieces matter (like the poop in the bed....did it really happen? maybe it was JB's? Was it months, weeks, years before?) ...

I agree, it's too much, it's too much!

Edited September 21, 2016 by shoegal

[Arynm]

I thought the pathologist said that her brain had swelled and they could say with relative certainty that it had happened 3 hours before she died?

See, this is why the case is so perplexing! There are so many different theories floating around it's hard to know what is the truth and what is just rumor that has been around so long it's now taken as fact.

I would like a special that shows all the facts and doesn't try to sway me one way or the other. It can be done.

[Court]

Thanks for posting that White article. It was fascinating. 

I find it weird that John Ramsey named not one, but two kids after himself.

[zxy556575]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

The Ramseys didn't have any choice with that first interview - child services stepped in as soon as Burke's sibling was murdered. They are required by law to interview any other children living in the same house as the one where a sibling was murdered.

Aren't minors required to have a parent or guardian with them during police questioning? Does CPS count as a guardian? If so, I doubt that person was looking out for Burke's legal interests the same way an attorney would've. Considering how adamant Patsy and John were about getting representation for themselves, it's odd they didn't do the same for Burke, especially if they had coached him to lie.

Damn you, competing science experts! Every Dateline and ID channel crime show invariably has people who will cheerfully contradict each other in court. (Particularly Dr. Lee, who seems to delight in going against as many other experts as possible.)

Edited September 21, 2016 by lordonia

[Court]

Just now, lordonia said:

Aren't minors required to have a parent or guardian with them during police questioning? Does CPS count as a guardian? If so, I doubt that person was looking out for Burke's legal interests the same way an attorney would've. Considering how adamant Patsy and John were about getting representation for themselves, it's odd they didn't do the same for Burke, especially if they had coached him to lie.

It wasn't a police interview, I think it was child services. That's why no parent or attorney wasn't present.

I'm not positive but that was explained in.lme of the shows. Maybe someone remembers better than I do.

[TattleTeeny]

8 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I thought the pathologist said that her brain had swelled and they could say with relative certainty that it had happened 3 hours before she died?

See, this is why the case is so perplexing! There are so many different theories floating around it's hard to know what is the truth and what is just rumor that has been around so long it's now taken as fact.

I would like a special that shows all the facts and doesn't try to sway me one way or the other. It can be done.

It would be a weeklong event--not even just an hour or two a night, but like a solid week nonstop! And I am fine with that!

[shoegal]

15 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I thought the pathologist said that her brain had swelled and they could say with relative certainty that it had happened 3 hours before she died?

See, this is why the case is so perplexing! There are so many different theories floating around it's hard to know what is the truth and what is just rumor that has been around so long it's now taken as fact.

I would like a special that shows all the facts and doesn't try to sway me one way or the other. It can be done.

Maybe, but I will admit I'm taking these expert findings with a HUGE grain of salt, especially since I found out that the 'revelation' of the secret conversation on the 911 call was basically word for word what the Boulder PD had posited. It was obvious they were just proving the Burke theory, not just presenting facts. There is a counter documentary, I watched on A&E where the expert says that JB had claw marks on her neck meaning she was fighting the strangulation, something that would have been impossible by the theory presented on this show that JB was basically brain dead from the earlier blow. Which one is true?? Will we ever know??

I find it so interesting that neither the blow nor the strangulation can be determined as the definitive cause of death. That to me seems odd, seems like it should be one or the other.

Edited September 21, 2016 by shoegal

[Arynm]

I watched every damn one of the specials over the past week or so. Every one had an agenda. Dr. Phil was in the anti-Burke did it camp. This one was in the Burke totally did it and is a stone cold pineapple eating murderer. I really don't want to have to delve into all the minutia of this case, but it looks like this was the last show for a while unless I forgot one.

[AZChristian]

24 minutes ago, Court said:

Thanks for posting that White article. It was fascinating. 

I find it weird that John Ramsey named not one, but two kids after himself.

Well, think about George Foreman.  ;-)  Among his kids are George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, George VI, and Georgetta.

I think "JonBenét" was 100% Patsy's pretentious creation; and be sure to use the French-sounding soft "J" at the front so you're pronouncing it correctly.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

Maybe because you're in the basement and going back for the note is too dangerous? 

If it's an intruder, he was presumably in the house for god knows how long, finding at least three different ways to kill a 45-lb. child, and spending 21 minutes writing the note itself, I think he might feel confident enough taking the additional two minutes to retrieve the thing once its contents were rendered worthless.

[TattleTeeny]

41 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I watched every damn one of the specials over the past week or so. Every one had an agenda. Dr. Phil was in the anti-Burke did it camp. This one was in the Burke totally did it and is a stone cold pineapple eating murderer. I really don't want to have to delve into all the minutia of this case, but it looks like this was the last show for a while unless I forgot one.

I believe Lifetime is throwing its suburban-lady hat into the ring as well...
http://www.people.com/article/jonbenet-ramsey-lifetime-movie-exclusive

The thing that's really making me nuts is that the experts, many of whom are renowned in their respective fields, are not agreeing with each other either! What's a layperson crime junkie to do?! I am about to become a stone-cold pineapple-eating murderer!

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[shoegal]

28 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

If it's an intruder, he was presumably in the house for god knows how long, finding at least three different ways to kill a 45-lb. child, and spending 21 minutes writing the note itself, I think he might feel confident enough taking the additional two minutes to retrieve the thing once its contents were rendered worthless.

Maybe the intruder forgot! Can you imagine, getting halfway down the road and then being like SHIT!! LOL

Sorry to laugh because I know we are talking about a murder, but I think in hindsight we always think people would behave methodically or logically and not make mistakes. Even a murderer can have a brain fart. 

[toodles]

1 hour ago, Arynm said:

I watched every damn one of the specials over the past week or so. Every one had an agenda. Dr. Phil was in the anti-Burke did it camp. This one was in the Burke totally did it and is a stone cold pineapple eating murderer. I really don't want to have to delve into all the minutia of this case, but it looks like this was the last show for a while unless I forgot one.

I saw an ad for another one on tlc this morning.  I know.  

I told myself no more.  But who am I kidding.

[TheFinalRose]

Quote

Lots of interesting analysis on here from both sides, but what's with referring to them as "the Bozos"? You may not agree with them (and there was definitely some conclusion jumping in certain areas) but as far as I can tell, they were experienced and well-qualified to speak to the case. 

 

My apologies if it offends you, but to me, they are Bozos. I cannot believe that they named Burke as the killer on national television. To me, that is wrong. This case is complicated, compromised, and crazy and I would expect any investigator worth their weight to tread carefully. Burke is a real person who was cleared by the authorities and this finger pointing will do real damage to him. The Burke did it theory has been on the cover of the National Enquirer since Day 1, and this is their big reveal? Burke?

The sad thing is, should a killer ever be found that is not Burke, John or Patsy, it won't take away what these two Bozos did to Burke over the past two nights. If they hadn't concluded it was Burke, I could have just brushed them off as overeager investigators. But I find it appalling that they, out of all the investigators who were there in the trenches trying to find the truth, these two felt they had enough to name Burke as the cause of JonBenet's death on national television. 

[absolutelyido]

2 hours ago, shoegal said:

I could buy the Burke theory, too, with the head blow and the pineapple, and the cover up ransom note, etc by the parents. What I can't reconcile that with is the strangulation, any and all parts of it. I can't imagine Burke doing it, I can't imagine one of the parents staging it for the cover up and I certainly cannot get on board with the idea that one of the parents finished her off because the blow to the head didn't kill her.  I also can't dismiss the DNA in the panties and leggings, which I understand was mixed with a drop of JB's blood? 

The Burke/parent cover up theory makes the most sense if not for a few things that I just can't make fit in my mind....but I will admit I have not paid that much attention, I have been watching the recent coverage but it's not like I've spent twenty years reading about the case. I feel like at this point, there is so much out there it's hard to know what is true and what has become historical fiction, and what pieces matter (like the poop in the bed....did it really happen? maybe it was JB's? Was it months, weeks, years before?) ...

I agree, it's too much, it's too much!

I have similar trouble with the strangling. According to the theory presented, JonBenet was put to bed, then Patsy served Burke pineapple and tea and left him downstairs while she went upstairs to prepare for their trip. This had to have been around 10 pm. JonBenet then came downstairs (unbeknownst to her parents) and a conflict with Burke lead him to hit her on the head with the flashlight. At some point, Patsy (or possibly John) would have likely come down to put Burke to bed and discovered what had happened. It doesn't seem to me that they would have left Burke downstairs all that long given that it was already pretty late for a 9 year old to be up. So, how long could it really have been before the parents would have found JonBenet knocked unconscious? It seems to me it couldn't have been more than maybe 20 minutes or so after Burke hit her. Soon enough that I would think the parents immediate action would have been to try and resuscitate JonBenet. If they couldn't revive her, I would think they would have pretty quickly called 911 for an EMT/ambulance to come. The scenario was presented as if they immediately launched into a cover-up to protect Burke including strangling an unconscious, but possibly still alive JonBenet. Wouldn't their first instinct have been to try and save the life of their supposedly more beloved child, even if chances of saving her life seemed remote? 

Edited September 21, 2016 by absolutelyido

[pamplemousse]

22 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

My apologies if it offends you, but to me, they are Bozos. I cannot believe that they named Burke as the killer on national television. To me, that is wrong. This case is complicated, compromised, and crazy and I would expect any investigator worth their weight to tread carefully. Burke is a real person who was cleared by the authorities and this finger pointing will do real damage to him. The Burke did it theory has been on the cover of the National Enquirer since Day 1, and this is their big reveal? Burke?

The sad thing is, should a killer ever be found that is not Burke, John or Patsy, it won't take away what these two Bozos did to Burke over the past two nights. If they hadn't concluded it was Burke, I could have just brushed them off as overeager investigators. But I find it appalling that they, out of all the investigators who were there in the trenches trying to find the truth, these two felt they had enough to name Burke as the cause of JonBenet's death on national television. 

This will probably do little to alleviate your heartbreak for Burke, but it seems that most people who have followed this case at all seem to believe Burke, his parents, or some combo of all three had something to do with her death, very few people believe in the intruder theory, so I doubt there's very many people who just happened to watch the show knowing nothing or little of the case previously and been convinced on this show alone that Burke murdered his sister. Burke did himself few favors either with his appearance on Dr. Phil, so I suppose you can count Dr. Phil as another "Bozo" who entrapped Burke into making himself look like a major creep.

[annlaw78]

24 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

The Burke did it theory has been on the cover of the National Enquirer since Day 1, and this is their big reveal? Burke?

I tend to share this feeling.  After all the hype, the show didn't really offer anything new except this same old sensationalized story, that "the creepy older brother" did it.  If that's the result, and if there wasn't anything really new to offer, then why this show?  That's hardly a new insight.  

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Maybe the intruder forgot! Can you imagine, getting halfway down the road and then being like SHIT!! LOL

Haha, earlier in this thread (or another one, I don't even know anymore...), I posited that the intruder had a note written and ready before setting off for the Ramseys' house, but forgot it at home and had to start all over with Patsy's pen and paper.

 

Quote

I tend to share this feeling.  After all the hype, the show didn't really offer anything new except this same old sensationalized story, that "the creepy older brother" did it.  If that's the result, and if there wasn't anything really new to offer, then why this show?  That's hardly a new insight.  

I've kept up with this case for years and I thought there was a good bit of "new" stuff disclosed. They didn't merely suggest he did it, but came up with a plausible (IMO) turn of events. I've never thought Burke did anything until this theory, and I did find the intruder scenario to be a good one, for the most part. Also, the fact that there was foreign DNA on JonBenét does not in and of itself exonerate the Ramseys (whom I'm not saying are guilty); it merely says that there was more to look at than just the Ramseys.

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Court]

33 minutes ago, TheFinalRose said:

My apologies if it offends you, but to me, they are Bozos. I cannot believe that they named Burke as the killer on national television. To me, that is wrong. This case is complicated, compromised, and crazy and I would expect any investigator worth their weight to tread carefully. Burke is a real person who was cleared by the authorities and this finger pointing will do real damage to him. The Burke did it theory has been on the cover of the National Enquirer since Day 1, and this is their big reveal? Burke?

The sad thing is, should a killer ever be found that is not Burke, John or Patsy, it won't take away what these two Bozos did to Burke over the past two nights. If they hadn't concluded it was Burke, I could have just brushed them off as overeager investigators. But I find it appalling that they, out of all the investigators who were there in the trenches trying to find the truth, these two felt they had enough to name Burke as the cause of JonBenet's death on national television. 

The Ramseys accused many real people of murder as well in their book and on TV.  

You don't have to agree or like their conclusion but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Or maybe it is wrong but we'll likely never know.