The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[formerlyfreedom]

Just a reminder - this is to discuss the second and final episode of The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsay. For theories, books, other shows, and further discussion of theories not talked about in the episode, please take the conversation to The Case: What We Already Know.

[Ohmo]

15 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

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.

I agree.  I thought Burke was responsible even before watching this show, and I still heard stuff that I hadn't before, most notably about the pineapple.

[pamplemousse]

8 minutes ago, Court said:

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.

Indeed. They accused many people who had already been cleared. They lied about things they knew to be untrue in order to support the theory of an intruder (they said that a broken screen door was broken by an intruder and could've been used as a point of entry/exit when earlier they said to police that John himself had broken it when he locked himself out). John Ramsey said on tape in a police interview that Fleet White's wife seemed like the type of person to own a stun gun and that she was very jealous of Patsy. The Ramseys not only did the most in making themselves look incredibly guilty and suspicious, they also slung plenty of mud at folks who were definitively eliminated as suspects.

[Maharincess]

6 hours ago, AZChristian said:

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!!!

I'm in San Francisco so if you're ever up this way, Starbucks is on me! 

[Maharincess]

I want to thank all of you.   I've enjoyed discussing this case with you all, you've all provided smart insightful comments and I've enjoyed reading them.  Even though we don't all agree on this case,   we've all been able to have civil debates and have been respectful of each others opinions.  It's hard to find a conversation about such horrible subject matter,  something that's so polarizing that is so respectful.    I thank you all for that. 

Like I said in another thread,  I really, REALLY wish they would investigate the Darlie Routier case. I would absolutely LOVE to discuss that one with you guys. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Maharincess

[BitterApple]

I haven't read the autopsy report, but did the medical examiner conclusively say that JB was sexually assaulted? If so, I don't know how that would fit into a scenario of a fight between siblings getting out of control. Let's say the BDI scenario is true, and John and Patsy staged the kidnapping. Violating their daughter as part of the ruse is incredibly depraved. They always struck me as a weird couple, but it's hard for me to picture them going that far to cover for the less favored child.

FWIW, my husband, who only knows of the case peripherally, watched the specials with me and thinks Burke did it as well. I still think it was a friend or employee of the family.

[Pollock]

1 hour ago, pamplemousse said:

Indeed. They accused many people who had already been cleared. They lied about things they knew to be untrue in order to support the theory of an intruder (they said that a broken screen door was broken by an intruder and could've been used as a point of entry/exit when earlier they said to police that John himself had broken it when he locked himself out). John Ramsey said on tape in a police interview that Fleet White's wife seemed like the type of person to own a stun gun and that she was very jealous of Patsy. The Ramseys not only did the most in making themselves look incredibly guilty and suspicious, they also slung plenty of mud at folks who were definitively eliminated as suspects.

And some of them sued, and rightfully so!, the Ramseys for libel, and the Ramseys sued also some slanderers (is that a word?) leading to further depositions. 
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682491/Legal Documents

Most notably, the Wolf vs Ramseys case from which a judge ruled, in a very long, documented, giving also new informations to the public especially regarding the fibers and DNA evidences collected, and interesting opinion, that more evidences pointed toward an intruder than the Ramseys. It was Patsy who was under scrutiny this time and not Burke but still, the parts regarding a cover up are valid for whomever you believe killed/covered the crime.
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm
The link to download the complete decision isn't avalaible anymore but the others cutting the transcript of it in parts are still up.
Those parts explains the judge's reasonning regarding the intruder theory vs Patsy did it then covered up 
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes61-70.htm Page 61 to 70
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm Page 71 to 80 (it's really not that long to read)
http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes81-93.htm

Some those evidences were conveniently not adressed in this cut of the documentary (I really want a "director's cut" of this, maybe there were adressed but didn't make it on the slashed one we saw?). Like :
- Further, the end portion of the paintbrush and the cord used to construct the garrote were never found in the house, or elsewhere, nor was the latter sourced to defendants. 34 (SMF 159; PSMF l59.) (SMF 162; PSMF 162.) The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also never been sourced to defendants. ( SMF 170; PSMF 170.) Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)

The above evidence arguably suggests that whoever tied up JonBenet used some items brought from outside the home to do so. In addition, other fiber evidence supports an inference that some of these items from outside the home were, at one time, in the second floor area near JonBenet's bedroom. That is; fibers consistent with those of the cord used to make the slip knots and garrote were found on JonBenet's bed. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)

OR

- Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF 181; PSMF 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet. 35 

OR

- Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155. ) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155; PSMF 154, 155. ) In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) The individual to whom it belongs has never been identified. (SMF 156; PSMF 156.) 

Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palmprint is not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of the murder, but they are clearly consistent with an argument that an intruder was in the basement area. The defendants also offer other undisputed evidence that they contend clearly establishes that another male was near JonBenet at the time she was murdered. Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.) Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF 179-180; PSMF 179-180.) As noted, some wood fragments from the paintbrush used to create the garotte were found in JonBenet's vagina. Thus, given the existence of undisputed evidence that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and the discovery of DNA evidence on her person from an unidentified male--as well as no DNA from any Ramsey--the defendants argue that the inference of an intruder becomes almost insurmountable. As to the above described evidence, plaintiff offers no explanation consistent with his theory of the crime. Finally, defendants note the existence of evidence that they contend establishes, almost to a certainty, that JonBenet was 36 

========================================

on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 185; PSMF 185.) Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.) 

[BitterApple]

I missed the second part and am trying to catch up, but am I getting this right, did Burke really put a ball of poop in his sister's bed? Like he'd been saving it over time? What the actual fuck? I know boys do gross things, but that is just twisted. 

After the family moved back to Atlanta, was Burke homeschooled? If BDI is true, it's crazy that he'd be able to keep his trap shut for 20 years and not give up any details to his friends, even if it was done accidentally.

Edited September 21, 2016 by BitterApple

[GaT]

32 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I missed the second part and am trying to catch up, but am I getting this right, did Burke really put a ball of poop in his sister's bed? Like he'd been saving it over time? What the actual fuck? I know boys do gross things, but that is just twisted. 

 

They didn't come out & say it was Burke, they just hinted. And there was also poop smeared on a box of candy JonBenet had received the day before.

[JudyObscure]

I'm not positive which show told me this, but one of them said the smear on her thigh was definitely not semen and the slight bruising could have been caused by her riding her new bike she got for Christmas, and there was no clear evidence of sexual assault.  My brain is sticking with that theory.

[Court]

The prior sexual assault has never been conclusive one way or the other.

[ghoulina]

11 hours ago, Court said:

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

Yes. I didn't know his middle name was Bennett. So essentially Jon Benet Patricia Ramsey was named after both her parents, which I also found a little weird. 

[Jel]

If John broke the window so he could reach in and undo the latch, couldn't an intruder have done the same thing, keeping the cob webs intact?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Jel

[EVS]

3 minutes ago, Jel said:

If John broke the window so he could reach in and undo the latch, couldn't an intruder have done the same thing, keeping the cob webs intact?

The intruder didn't need to break the window since John claims to have already done so. I think the theory is that the intruder reached through the broken window and opened the latch and window and then climbed through, thus disturbing the cobweb. I think the window was found open. 

My question is how did the intruder notice the broken window?  It was below ground level and not easily seen unless you searched the outside of the house which would have been risky for an intruder. That makes me think either RDI and staged the open window, or it was someone who worked in or around the house and knew about the window already.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

My question is how did the intruder notice the broken window?  It was below ground level and not easily seen unless you searched the outside of the house which would have been risky for an intruder. That makes me think either RDI and staged the open window, or it was someone who worked in or around the house and knew about the window already.

I suppose this could be attributed to, as you noted, someone who knew the family and their home or someone who knew the family and found a time to snoop around the outside of the home prior to the murder, or even someone on the holiday home tour.

[ghoulina]

Yea, if it WAS an intruder (which I don't believe), it would have had to have been someone who knew the house well. You cannot even really tell there's a window down below that grate, unless you're really up on it. Let alone to know it was broken. Not only that, but to know where to find certain things in the house, to be able to put pens and notepads back in their exact correct place, to know the Ramseys come down the backstairs in the morning (where the ransom note was left), to know of that wine cellar's existence, etc. 

[EVS]

2 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

Yea, if it WAS an intruder (which I don't believe), it would have had to have been someone who knew the house well. You cannot even really tell there's a window down below that grate, unless you're really up on it. Let alone to know it was broken. Not only that, but to know where to find certain things in the house, to be able to put pens and notepads back in their exact correct place, to know the Ramseys come down the backstairs in the morning (where the ransom note was left), to know of that wine cellar's existence, etc. 

Ghoulina, your post reminded me of something trivial but interesting to me.  Why do the Ramseys call that basement junk room the 'wine cellar'? There may be an explanation, but it just sounds pretentious to me. 

[AZChristian]

Just read something else that raises the hair on the back of my neck a bit.

On the OUTSIDE of the door to the "wine cellar" where JB's body was found, there's a block of wood on a nail on the door frame above the door.  When it's turned to the vertical position, it's "locked."  At least anyone on the INSIDE of the room can't get out.

Total conjecture here:  Why would you need to lock something/someone IN that room?  A misbehaving child?  Patsy said she used the room to hide Christmas gifts, so she had just been in that room a day or so earlier.  But would a wealthy person wanting to lock a room so kids couldn't get in there use such a primitive system?  Wouldn't she have the handyman install a real lock, or even a locking doorknob?  There were LOTS of things in that basement that a kid could climb on to open that door.  Like a suitcase.

Like I said, my radar just pinged on this.

3 minutes ago, EVS said:

. . . Why do the Ramseys call that basement junk room the 'wine cellar'? There may be an explanation, but it just sounds pretentious to me. 

Your last sentence answers your question.  Patsy was pretentious.  Her former friend, Priscilla White, had to advise her not to wear a fur coat and lots of diamonds for her TV interview right after JB was murdered.

[Josette]

Quote

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.

It may not have been necessary, but murdered children are often strangled with objects by adults.  The fact that a garrote was used does not mean it must be staged.    Also, I think it was mentioned elsewhere that such a device could be used also as a means of control.

[AZChristian]

And by using the garotte, no one can be accused of killing her with their bare hands.

[EVS]

4 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Just read something else that raises the hair on the back of my neck a bit.

On the OUTSIDE of the door to the "wine cellar" where JB's body was found, there's a block of wood on a nail on the door frame above the door.  When it's turned to the vertical position, it's "locked."  At least anyone on the INSIDE of the room can't get out.

Total conjecture here:  Why would you need to lock something/someone IN that room?  A misbehaving child?  Patsy said she used the room to hide Christmas gifts, so she had just been in that room a day or so earlier.  But would a wealthy person wanting to lock a room so kids couldn't get in there use such a primitive system?  Wouldn't she have the handyman install a real lock, or even a locking doorknob?  There were LOTS of things in that basement that a kid could climb on to open that door.  Like a suitcase.

Like I said, my radar just pinged on this.

Your last sentence answers your question.  Patsy was pretentious.  Her former friend, Priscilla White, had to advise her not to wear a fur coat and lots of diamonds for her TV interview right after JB was murdered.

That is bizarre and potentially disturbing. Guilty or not, they seem like kind of a strange family. I know Patsy was pretentious, but 'wine cellar' for that room seems quite a stretch. 

[zxy556575]

3 hours ago, Court said:

The prior sexual assault has never been conclusive one way or the other.

How unusual for this case.

[kat165]

I've heard - and I'm not sure where, on one of these recent shows or an article I've read recently - that John said that it was called the wine cellar as sort of a joke because it was really just a junk room.

[cpcathy]

So Patsy had to be advised not to wear a fur coat for the press conference/interview, but no one could advise her to wax her mustache?

[EVS]

21 minutes ago, kat165 said:

I've heard - and I'm not sure where, on one of these recent shows or an article I've read recently - that John said that it was called the wine cellar as sort of a joke because it was really just a junk room.

Thanks, Kat165. Good to know it was a joke. 

[Arynm]

1 hour ago, kat165 said:

I've heard - and I'm not sure where, on one of these recent shows or an article I've read recently - that John said that it was called the wine cellar as sort of a joke because it was really just a junk room.

I think it's a joke NOW. I totally believe Patsy called it a wine cellar because she was pretentious. He can rewrite all he wants now, she's dead.

[reggiejax]

The main criticism of this show have been the bias against the Ramseys.

I can live with the show being biased. There is no shortage of opinions, nor does there seem to be a shortage of those opinions getting their due on other programs. This show puts the blame on Burke Ramsey, another will claim it was an unknown intruder, and yet another will say it was Patsy Ramsey. And still another will try and blame the CIA, or in this case the SBTC.

Biased or not, I think they did as good a job presenting the "Burke did it, and the parents covered it up" theory as I have ever seen.

Am I convinced? Not really. Mainly because nothing they showed could be taken to court. Well, it could be taken to court, but they'd lose. In the end, the theory they put forth has a lot going for it. Save for the one thing truly needed: evidence that proves Burke in fact brained his sister with a flashlight.

Edited September 21, 2016 by reggiejax

[Abmis]

I wasn't impressed with the cobweb evidence.  We have some kind of super spiders in our barn that spin webs that very difficult to break.  I can push them aside and they bounce right back.  I have to puncture them with a pitchfork and pull them down to get rid of them.  I always joke that I wish my clothes were as indestructible as those webs.

[annlaw78]

19 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I think it's a joke NOW. I totally believe Patsy called it a wine cellar because she was pretentious. He can rewrite all he wants now, she's dead.

If Patsy wanted a wine cellar, she would have had a wine cellar.  They had plenty of money, and has recently completed a remodel of the home.  

I've always wondered how extensively they investigated a possible connection between someone familiar with the home/grounds/family from the remodeling project.

[choclatechip45]

9 minutes ago, annlaw78 said:

If Patsy wanted a wine cellar, she would have had a wine cellar.  They had plenty of money, and has recently completed a remodel of the home.  

I've always wondered how extensively they investigated a possible connection between someone familiar with the home/grounds/family from the remodeling project.

Part of the problem was that the Ramsey's sent the police on a goose chase because they couldn't remember who they gave keys too. Which I always thought was suspicious. I remember growing up my parents getting into a minor argument because my mom forgot she gave a key to our house to a neighbor.

[Mittengirl]

I can't remember, did they conclusively say if the blow to the head killed her, and the strangulation was after the fact, or was that what did kill her?   

[iMonrey]

Quote

 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.

Which raises the question: if this was an attempted kidnapping why did the kidnapper decide to kill her? Did he decide it would be easier to get her out of the house if she was dead? Then he just left her there when he realized he still couldn't get her out of the house? Then he just left the ransom note anyway knowing they'd find her body eventually? All this after breaking and and lying in wait for hours while they were away at a party? 

Also, your description of what happened doesn't rule out Burke as a suspect. It could have gone down that way instead of the way this show hypothesized. I mentioned earlier I've read the type of knot used on the garrote was something Burke had been practicing for Boy Scouts so it might have been something he'd already fashioned earlier in the basement. He could have strangled her first then hit her over the head when she wouldn't stop fighting.

Quote

Burke is a real person who was cleared by the authorities

I don't know which "authorities" you are referring to, but Burke has never been cleared by the Boulder police department. The DA has publicly exonerated John and Patsy but never specified Burke either.

[pamplemousse]

11 hours ago, GaT said:

They didn't come out & say it was Burke, they just hinted. And there was also poop smeared on a box of candy JonBenet had received the day before.

Not to belabor the point, but he also smeared feces on a wall of their home on at least one occasion.

For me to find the intruder theory even remotely compelling, it wouldn't be enough to merely be someone who attended the home tour (because no way was Patsy going to let them see the messy wine cellar) or someone who was snooping around and saw the broken window. It would have to be someone with very intimate knowledge of the Ramseys' habits and life from knowing that they used the back stairway (where the ransom note was left) more than the main one, to knowing the layout of their labyrinthine basement and where the wine cellar was, to knowing where they kept the notepads and pens and being neat enough to return them to those places, to knowing that Patsy purchased cord and duct tape at a hardware store a few months earlier and going out and buying identical cord and duct tape. The intruder would have to be someone from their inner circle and all those people were cleared/alibied out (not that the Ramseys let that deter them in their mud-slinging at close friends, housekeeper, and neighbors). If the intruder wasn't someone from their innermost circle, it must have been Casper the Not-So-Friendly Ghost that stalked them for a very long time without being noticed.

[SonofaBiscuit]

My knowledge of the JonBenet case before watching this was pretty much "a little girl was murdered and police think her family was responsible"  I decided to tune in after seeing clips of Burke on Dr. Phil.  Wow.  Extremely creepy.  

I can see why the police zeroed in on the family.  So many things don't make any sense.  A kidnapper who wanders about the house grabbing supplies to write multiple drafts of the world's longest ransom note, and then kindly places said supplies back in their rightful spots?  O...kay.  Seems like it would be easier to bring a note with you so you don't get caught sneaking around the house.  Also, this intruder took some items with him/her when he/she left (duct tape, rest of paintbrush handle?), but forgot about the kidnapping note even though he/she managed to remember to wipe down the flashlight and walk up from the basement to leave it on the counter?  Huh?  

Another thing that doesn't make any sense?  The kidnapping note says that if the family speaks to anyone about their situation, their daughter will be beheaded.  So they decide that the best course of action is to call 911 and invite friends over?  It's almost like they aren't taking the ransom note very seriously.

Another totally bizarre thing?  Lying about Burke being awake.  I haven't followed coverage of this case for years like many probably have, so I don't know, but I'm guessing that the family maintains to this day that Burke was fast asleep in his bed?  I'd love to know how they explain his voice on that 911 call.  Oh yeah, they probably don't, since they seem to have no interest in speaking to the police.  

...Speaking of Burke Ramsey.  Look, there is something clearly wrong with this guy.  From the inappropriate creepy smiling on Dr. Phil to his love of collecting his own feces to leave as "presents" for unsuspecting victims...this person is disturbed.   Yeah, I believe that he may have clobbered his sister over the head with a flashlight.  And I totally believe that it could have been over something as stupid as her stealing a piece of his pineapple.  The way that he looked at the photograph of the pineapple but refused to say what is was (even though you can clearly tell he realizes what it is when he says "Oh") leads me to believe that there's at least something significant about that pineapple.  I kinda worry for anyone who may piss this guy off.  What is he capable of?              

[choclatechip45]

12 minutes ago, SonofaBiscuit said:

My knowledge of the JonBenet case before watching this was pretty much "a little girl was murdered and police think her family was responsible"  I decided to tune in after seeing clips of Burke on Dr. Phil.  Wow.  Extremely creepy.  

I can see why the police zeroed in on the family.  So many things don't make any sense.  A kidnapper who wanders about the house grabbing supplies to write multiple drafts of the world's longest ransom note, and then kindly places said supplies back in their rightful spots?  O...kay.  Seems like it would be easier to bring a note with you so you don't get caught sneaking around the house.  Also, this intruder took some items with him/her when he/she left (duct tape, rest of paintbrush handle?), but forgot about the kidnapping note even though he/she managed to remember to wipe down the flashlight and walk up from the basement to leave it on the counter?  Huh?  

Another thing that doesn't make any sense?  The kidnapping note says that if the family speaks to anyone about their situation, their daughter will be beheaded.  So they decide that the best course of action is to call 911 and invite friends over?  It's almost like they aren't taking the ransom note very seriously.

Another totally bizarre thing?  Lying about Burke being awake.  I haven't followed coverage of this case for years like many probably have, so I don't know, but I'm guessing that the family maintains to this day that Burke was fast asleep in his bed?  I'd love to know how they explain his voice on that 911 call.  Oh yeah, they probably don't, since they seem to have no interest in speaking to the police.  

...Speaking of Burke Ramsey.  Look, there is something clearly wrong with this guy.  From the inappropriate creepy smiling on Dr. Phil to his love of collecting his own feces to leave as "presents" for unsuspecting victims...this person is disturbed.   Yeah, I believe that he may have clobbered his sister over the head with a flashlight.  And I totally believe that it could have been over something as stupid as her stealing a piece of his pineapple.  The way that he looked at the photograph of the pineapple but refused to say what is was (even though you can clearly tell he realizes what it is when he says "Oh") leads me to believe that there's at least something significant about that pineapple.  I kinda worry for anyone who may piss this guy off.  What is he capable of?              

Seriously imagine if he is in a relationship right now. 

[cpcathy]

I guess now Burke's lawyer is alleging he will sue the CBS show. My question is, Burke, if you've done nothing, why do you need a lawyer??

[meep.meep]

40 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I don't know which "authorities" you are referring to, but Burke has never been cleared by the Boulder police department. The DA has publicly exonerated John and Patsy but never specified Burke either.

This was something covered on the actual show....Burke was considered an "infant" by CO state law because of his age at the time the crime was committed, as as such could never be charged with the murder.  If he can't be charged, he can't be cleared either.

I just started watching this randomly.  Never followed the case because I found the whole pagent thing off putting.  The DA lying about the grand jury deciding to indict both Ramsays and someone wiping fingerprints off the flashlight batteries seem really really fishy to me.

[MaggieG]

Well, Burke successfully creeped me out during those videos. I had never seen them before, so seeing him act so....indifferent to his sister's murder was pretty scary. My brother and I are four years apart and yeah, we definitely fought as kids (as I'm sure lots of siblings do) but I would be absolutely destroyed if anything happened to him. But I also never smeared feces on any of his belongings :P

This case is fascinating because it's so all over the place. There is evidence that both supports and rules out an intruder. And there is evidence that supports Burke. I personally think it was him and the description of the chain of events that the Dr described is a pretty good theory. Also, the fact that the Ramsey's didn't cooperate with the police. Your child has been murdered, you would think they would do anything to help the police, not hinder the investigation. Did they ever vow to find the killer, a la OJ? We know that never went anywhere.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, pamplemousse said:

The intruder would have to be someone from their inner circle and all those people were cleared/alibied out (not that the Ramseys let that deter them in their mud-slinging at close friends, housekeeper, and neighbors). If the intruder wasn't someone from their innermost circle, it must have been Casper the Not-So-Friendly Ghost that stalked them for a very long time without being noticed.

That's something that has bothered me about the "intruder" theory.  The fact that it is even still called that now.  It's too generic.  I think of all of the crime shows I have watched, and there have been many, many cases where an identification has been wrong.  People have been incorrectly suspected, accused, or even wrongly convicted, but there has usually been something identifiable about them, either as a specific name or some other identifier: a handyman, a grifter, etc.  Yet, 20 years after the fact, all we have as a descriptor is "intruder."  I find that suspicious.  Intruders can definitely break into houses.  However, at some point, the intruder theory has to become more than just a factual possibility.  It has to evolve into some sort of identification, and that hasn't happened.  Most of what I've read on the "intruder" angle is to simply point to the fact that someone could have intruded into the house.  OK, but it is also equally possible that JonBenet was killed by a family member.  Burke is an actual person.  So are/were John and Patsy,  An actual person did this to JonBenet.  The Ramseys accused a lot of people, but nothing has stuck to even give the "intruder theory" a more descriptive name (i.e. the business associate theory or the workman theory)  To me, that's a red flag that there was no "intruder" at all if it can't be described any further after 20 years.

The number of people who won't talk about this case at all is also a flag for me.  Sure, there are some people who don't want to dredge up the past, and there are bruised egos and sore spots in the investigation of this case.  There is also incompetence, but again, police departments investigate cold cases and there often is incompetence involved.  Sometimes they can't be solved, but they are investigated.  If the intruder theory is a viable theory then what's the harm in investigating it now?  Yet, lots of people are still mum.  No way do I believe that this was just some random stranger who got away after killing JonBenet.  That wouldn't make everyone clam up as they have.  I think people don't want to get involved because they know in some way the Ramseys are involved.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Ohmo

[Ohmo]

14 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

This was something covered on the actual show....Burke was considered an "infant" by CO state law because of his age at the time the crime was committed, as as such could never be charged with the murder.  If he can't be charged, he can't be cleared either.

I thought the lawyer on this show said the age was 10, but Burke was 9, so it would have been tough.  This is just my sense, but I thought she was saying (without actually saying) that the prosecutor might have tried it because Burke was close to 10, but there was a high likelihood such a prosecution would not have been successful.

[pigs-in-space]

1 minute ago, MaggieG said:

Well, Burke successfully creeped me out during those videos. I had never seen them before, so seeing him act so....indifferent to his sister's murder was pretty scary. My brother and I are four years apart and yeah, we definitely fought as kids (as I'm sure lots of siblings do) but I would be absolutely destroyed if anything happened to him. But I also never smeared feces on any of his belongings :P

This case is fascinating because it's so all over the place. There is evidence that both supports and rules out an intruder. And there is evidence that supports Burke. I personally think it was him and the description of the chain of events that the Dr described is a pretty good theory. Also, the fact that the Ramsey's didn't cooperate with the police. Your child has been murdered, you would think they would do anything to help the police, not hinder the investigation. Did they ever vow to find the killer, a la OJ? We know that never went anywhere.

Does anyone know if there's a place where you can watch the entire interviews?  Because I have seen snippets of them on  multiple shows (all claiming they're the first to show it), and the ones shown on this one were definitely chilling, but then I saw parts of it on another show that weren't nearly so bad.  Did he start out acting indifferent, then open up later as the conversation progressed?  It's hard to judge not seeing the whole thing.

Also the feces stuff: ew.  I haven't heard an answer as to whether the feces on JonBenet's chocolates were definitely Burke's or not, although one can pretty much assume I guess.

I go back and forth on what I believe in this case re: who did it.  I can see both sides.  I don't really think that Burke is more likely to have done it than his parents, though.  They reasoned that the Ramseys were protecting Burke, but they could have just as easily been protecting themselves or one of them could have been lying to the other.  Even if it WAS Burke, his parents deserve a lot of blame for trying to cover it up and not calling for medical help immediately.  Hindsight is 20/20, but surely what he's gone through with all this suspicion has ended up being worse than if they had just said that he accidentally killed her and gotten him professional help.

Finally (whew, sorry this got long!), the first thing I ever remember hearing about Burke was from my dad - he was a waiter at a high-end resort, and he waited on the Ramseys post-murder.  His one comment was that the son was "off."  I can see what he meant (although I can also reason that having your sister murdered and being suspected of it might make anyone "off" to a stranger).

[choclatechip45]

17 minutes ago, cpcathy said:

I guess now Burke's lawyer is alleging he will sue the CBS show. My question is, Burke, if you've done nothing, why do you need a lawyer??

Lin Wood has worked for the Ramsey family since 1999. I can't stand him but he's good at his job which is why I'm surprised he let Burke on Dr. Phil. He has said for the last month he will sue and hasn't. He is a civil lawyer not a criminal one. I'll be surprised if the lawsuit sees a judge because Burke will have to give a deposition all the other lawsuits he won for Burke were when he was a minor and didn't need to give a deposition and answer for some of the evidence they brought up in the special. Also from the trailers they asked Burke the opportunity to speak and he declined. Plus I'm sure CBS has gone through this special with their lawyers before it hit the airwaves.

[pigs-in-space]

CBS also put up a disclaimer at the end that I'm sure they had their corporate lawyers thoroughly vet and approve.  And I guess you could say they technically didn't accuse Burke of a "crime" since they were clear to say that since Burke was 9 years 11 months it was not legally considered a crime.

Edited September 21, 2016 by pigs-in-space

[toodles]

Off topic a little, but I see TLC is running their own show on Thursday.  I saw the ad right after an ad for Toddler and Tiaras.  Good job on the ads, TLC.  I meant that in a really sarcastic tone of voice.

[LGGirl]

16 hours ago, absolutelyido said:

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? 

Another take would be Burke hit/strangled her and left her there.  Patsy and John didn't know what happened until after she was dead -- found her downstairs.   They knew Burke did it and covered it up.  That explains Burke saying "what did you find" over the 911 call. 

[ghoulina]

4 hours ago, EVS said:

Ghoulina, your post reminded me of something trivial but interesting to me.  Why do the Ramseys call that basement junk room the 'wine cellar'? There may be an explanation, but it just sounds pretentious to me. 

LOL, yea, I don't know. I don't believe there was any actual wine stored in there. Just some storage. Maybe they called it that because it was so dark and windowless. Maybe they had, at one time, intended to store win there? But as it was, it was just a nasty, moldy old room at the end of their maze of a basement. 

 

19 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

That's something that has bothered me about the "intruder" theory.  The fact that it is even still called that now.  It's too generic.  I think of all of the crime shows I have watched, and there have been many, many cases where an identification has been wrong.  People have been incorrectly suspected, accused, or even wrongly convicted, but there has usually been something identifiable about them, either as a specific name or some other identifier: a handyman, a grifter, etc.  Yet, 20 years after the fact, all we have as a descriptor is "intruder."  I find that suspicious.  Intruders can definitely break into houses.  However, at some point, the intruder theory has to become more than just a factual possibility.  It has to evolve into some sort of identification, and that hasn't happened.

You would think someone would have seen someone. There was a neighbor that heard a scream. Another neighbor supposedly saw lights on when they usually weren't and off where they usually weren't. People were up at that time. Did the scream lady look outside? I probably would have. It was the holidays, people would be coming and going. Lots of traffic on the streets. Lots of chances to see someone sneaking around. If the Ramseys typically went to the Whites Christmas evening and the neighbors saw a car out front, wouldn't they remember that? Some people think the intruder came over earlier, before they even got home. How was he dressed? In formal, Christmas attire? Or camouflage? You would just think if neighbors heard/saw weird things that night, a PERSON would be one of them. 

I said this in another thread, but this story vaguely reminds me of the Green Beret, Jeffery MacDonald, who was convicted of killing his wife and two daughters. This was back in 1970, I believe, and he claimed it was some Manson like hippies that did it. But he lived on a well populated military base and no one ever saw anything. MacDonald never confessed, but there was a lot more damning evidence against him, fortunately. But like this case (IMO) it is also believed that an argument led to an accident, and then the cover up. Of course he had to go and murder 2 more people to cover up what happened, so that's even worse, if you ask me. But there are some similarities. 

To tie it back to what you were saying, I really do think somewhere somebody would have seen something, however minor. And we've heard nothing at all. 

[choclatechip45]

8 minutes ago, pigs-in-space said:

CBS also put up a disclaimer at the end that I'm sure they had their corporate lawyers thoroughly vet and approve.  And I guess you could say they technically didn't accuse Burke of a "crime" since they were clear to say that since Burke was 9 years 11 months it was not legally considered a crime.

Yes I agree. I know Lin Wood has said Burke did the Dr Phil interview because of the CBS special I think it was a huge mistake. Even after the grand jury indictments I always gave Burke the benefit of the doubt. The Dr Phil interview was just one red flag after another. Plus he creeped me out.

[BitterApple]

16 hours ago, pamplemousse said:

 John Ramsey said on tape in a police interview that Fleet White's wife seemed like the type of person to own a stun gun and that she was very jealous of Patsy. 

I agree the Ramseys did themselves no favors. Mrs. White was so insanely jealous of Patsy that she snuck into her home and savagely murdered a six year-old child? Then staged an elaborate kidnapping hoax to cover her tracks? Is there anyone they DIDN'T throw under the bus?

[Maria Von Trapp]

On September 20, 2016 at 11:32 AM, tobeannounced said:

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.

I agree that it's strange the kids were so isolated from the parents in their respective bedrooms . 6 year olds often need their parents during the night, especially a child who is known to bed wet. In the police interviews both the parents admitted to taking antidepressants as well as regular daily doses of "adavan"  ( I'm not sure if they meant Ativan which is a tranquilizer similar to Valium). How would they hear the kids if they were both sedated ? 

I could see the children being able to get up during the night to play in the basement , as was mentioned in a previous post , and this resulting in Burke killing his sister. It also makes sense that the parents did not know about it until morning, because if they had been aware earlier I think they would have called 911 to try and save her . They must have seen that she had been dead for awhile and was beyond help, otherwise I don't see them participating in a coverup. There was something strange about the way the family seemed so perfect and put together on the surface, but so chaotic underneath, ie, had tours of people coming through the house at Christmas to see their beautiful place  ,  but the basement was a total disaster . There was food left out all over the kitchen counter, when they were supposed to be leaving at 7 in the morning. Both parents were taking psychiatric medications and the son seems to be seriously disturbed in all of his interviews. For those who don't think parents will cover up a child's crimes at the expense of another one of their children, take a look at the Duggar family ( 19 kids and counting) who covered up for years the fact that their eldest son was sneaking into his sisters bedroom at night and sexually molesting them , only admitting it and sending him to rehab after the story was leaked .           

[cpcathy]

I mean, doesn't it only take a split second to decide if you're going to cover up something like that? It would have to be instinct, like when you ding someone's car with your car door and then scram.

I was also wondering why Patsy and John needed separate attorneys, it would seem in case one decided to tell the truth and the other had not?