The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey

[choclatechip45]

7 minutes ago, cpcathy said:

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?

I don't think a judge would allow a lawyer represent both John and Patsy in a criminal trial. I think it's a conflict of interest. 

[annlaw78]

1 hour 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??

 

The idea that "innocent" people don't need an attorney is a farce.  There are innumerable  examples to prove that, and many wrongful convictions have been investigated by the very team behind this documentary.  I think there's a certain classism at play (not ascribing that to the OP), that when a person with the means to get an attorney does, it's b/c of guilt; but when a person without means does not have representation, it's a travesty of justice.  

[toodles]

48 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

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. 

 

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. 

I was just posting about the same thought in another thread.  Many similarities between the two cases.  The worst of which is innocent little girls died at the hands of someone they loved.

[GaT]

5 hours 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.

I don't think it was to lock someone in the room, the room was open to the outside (through the windows) so that was there to prevent anyone who got through the window into the basement from getting into the house. I have one of these on the inside of my garage door for the same reason. The door also has 2 locks, but the piece of wood is something for extra protection.

[ghoulina]

5 minutes ago, GaT said:

I don't think it was to lock someone in the room, the room was open to the outside (through the windows) so that was there to prevent anyone who got through the window into the basement from getting into the house. I have one of these on the inside of my garage door for the same reason. The door also has 2 locks, but the piece of wood is something for extra protection.

But the wine cellar had no windows. 

[Mabinogia]

This case is so fascinating because there is no real smoking gun. There is so much evidence that points to the family and so much evidence that points to an intruder. One thing I feel 100% certain of is that it was not a botched kidnapping. Absolutely nothing supports that. So, if it was an intruder, what was their motive? Was it to specifically kill her or was it a rape gone wrong? Why hid the body? Why would a random intruder bother taking the risk (anyone could have woken up in those 20 or so minutes, found them writing or worse, returning the paper and pen)? A stranger wouldn't have to worry about covering up the death.

OTOH, it makes sense that the Ramsey's would sloppily cover up a murder if they thought their son did it accidentally and they hadn't discovered the crime in time to save their daughter. They would be frantic, I doubt covering up a murder is an everyday occurrence for them so yes, they are going to make mistakes, forget things. I don't think these people are criminal masterminds but parents who found themselves in an unthinkable situation who made quite possibly the worst possible choice on how to handle it and once they set the cover up in motion and it took on a life of it's own, they had to just keep rolling with it.

I don't think it was Patsy because I think, in a fit of rage, she would have just smacked her daughter hard rather than go get a flashlight to bash her on the head with. My money is on Burke. It just makes the most sense, or rather, the other options just  don't make sense.

[GaT]

2 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

But the wine cellar had no windows. 

It was in the basement, which did have windows, or maybe they just didn't want the kids going in there. 

[AZChristian]

42 minutes ago, GaT said:

I don't think it was to lock someone in the room, the room was open to the outside (through the windows) so that was there to prevent anyone who got through the window into the basement from getting into the house. I have one of these on the inside of my garage door for the same reason. The door also has 2 locks, but the piece of wood is something for extra protection.

Just did some googling; no windows to the outside in that room, from what I can find.

[ghoulina]

Just now, AZChristian said:

Just did some googling; no windows to the outside in that room, from what I can find.

Yea, the basement itself had windows, but not specifically that room. I remember it being described as dark, windowless, and water stained/moldy. 

[AZChristian]

2 hours 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??

It's official.

[choclatechip45]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

It's official.

According to that link it says threatened nothing has been filed yet.

[AZChristian]

Lin Wood says, "I will file a lawsuit."  Surely you don't think a lawyer would LIE?????  ;-)

[film noire]

2 hours 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??

Given how often innocent people are convicted in the media, and then in the court system, getting a lawyer is not proof of anything but being aware of the world we live in.

[AZChristian]

I agree that getting a lawyer can often be a good move.  But if Lin Wood takes this to court, can you see any jury in the world looking at Burke (on the stand, under oath) grinning through descriptions of his dead sister in her casket and not recognizing that there is something OFF here?

[film noire]

7 hours ago, Josette said:

Also, I think it was mentioned elsewhere that such a device could be used also as a means of control.

Strangling is also a sick source of pleasure for some pedophiles  (like Ian Pheasey in England). 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

OTOH, it makes sense that the Ramsey's would sloppily cover up a murder if they thought their son did it accidentally and they hadn't discovered the crime in time to save their daughter. They would be frantic, I doubt covering up a murder is an everyday occurrence for them so yes, they are going to make mistakes, forget things. I don't think these people are criminal masterminds but parents who found themselves in an unthinkable situation who made quite possibly the worst possible choice on how to handle it and once they set the cover up in motion and it took on a life of it's own, they had to just keep rolling with it.

What I find myself wondering is, if Burke did it and if his parents went all out to conceal that, what exactly were they thinking was going to happen to Burke if he confessed? He was 9. It's not that I'm sitting here thinking he'd just be given a pat on the head, a lollipop, and a "boys will be boys" speech but he would not be sent to a maximum-security prison or executed; he'd be given help, maybe via him going away somewhere, I don't know (and I am not going to get into the flaws of a juvenile system or whatever; I'm just using a general...scenario or whatever). The theory is that the Ramseys were not going to allow themselves to "lose" another child but where and how did they think they were going to "lose" him? 

Further--and again based on the BDI/coverup idea--other than the CPS-mandated therapist sessions, did the Ramseys get help for him after this? Like serious real-deal psychological help? They had the means and they would have clearly had more than enough reason to do so. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[annlaw78]

42 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

 

I agree that getting a lawyer can often be a good move.  But if Lin Wood takes this to court, can you see any jury in the world looking at Burke (on the stand, under oath) grinning through descriptions of his dead sister in her casket and not recognizing that there is something OFF here?

 

A lawyer can easily explain that just because Burke's affect is "different," does not mean he's a killer.  His mother's long battle with cancer and her death, losing two sisters unexpectedly, the public scrutiny, etc. -- he had a lot of unusual traumas during his formative years.

Edited September 21, 2016 by annlaw78

[OSM Mom]

5 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

What I find myself wondering is, if Burke did it and if his parents went all out to conceal that, what exactly were they thinking was going to happen to Burke if he confessed? He was 9. 

Nothing would happen to him in that way, but maybe it was a saving face thing.  Oh the horror in their social circles of having one of their children murder the other.  Much better to have people think she was murdered by some random intruder.  That way you get maximum sympathy points.  If that is true, I doubt that they thought that it would blow back on them they way it did. 

[TattleTeeny]

Right...I don't doubt that that's part of it. But oh my god, priorities, people! 

[OSM Mom]

Right? They were a wierd family once you got past the surface.  

[TattleTeeny]

Heh. Too bad that instead of Ransom and Speed (as allegedly paraphrased in the ransom note), one of the popular movies of the time wasn't The Bad Seed. Or even Halloween.

[BananaRama]

For nearly 20 years I thought an intruder did it because of what I heard through the media (DNA evidence is found, the Grand Jury never filed charges, Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys).  Then in 2013, after the Grand Jury indictment was released, I started reading more about the case.  I then thought it was possible that Patsy was guilty.  When I explained my reasoning to a friend why I thought maybe Patsy did it, my friend said that she thought Burke did it.  I laughed in her face because that sounded ridiculous.  My conversation with my friend happened two years ago and this was the very first time anyone had said to me that they thought Burke did it.  Like nearly all of you (before this TV program) I just couldn't wrap my head around a 9-year-old killing his sister.   Imagine it is 1996, and the Boulder police and DA announce that they suspect that Burke did it.  The headline would be, "Police suspect six-year-old Little Miss Colorado was killed by nine-year-old brother."  They would be hated for even thinking such a horrible thought.  They would have to have impenetrable evidence.  There could not be even a miniscule of doubt.  Now that Burke is 29 years old and an adult, investigators can examine the possibility that Burke killed Jonbenet and not look like villains.  Burke didn't do himself any favors by being interviewed by Dr. Phil.  Gone is the image that we had of him since 1996 of him being a cute nine year old.  Now we see him as an awkward and nervous adult. 

[Mabinogia]

32 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

The theory is that the Ramseys were not going to allow themselves to "lose" another child but where and how did they think they were going to "lose" him? 

I'm thinking that, in the middle of the night, faced with a dead daughter (Patsy's favorite from all I can see) they weren't really thinking rationally. Once they were, it was too late, the wheels of the coverup had been set in motion and to admit to covering up the killing would get them in a lot of trouble. I feel like the cover up was started in the heat of the moment, not much rational thought being put into it, which is part of why some of it seems so screwy, and by the time they realized it might not have been a good idea, it was too late and they just kept going with it and hoping for the best.

I don't think they were evil masterminds, but terrified parents who didn't really think about what they were doing until it was too late. Sadly I think they did far more harm than good for Burke. Facing what happened and getting the help he needed probably would have been better for him in the long run.

[BananaRama]

5 hours ago, pamplemousse said:

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.

They also lived in an affluent fairly secluded neighborhood.  An intruder would have really had done his homework and spent a lot of time casing the house and family to commit this crime.  If stranger was casing a house and family in that neighborhood - they would have been noticed. 

[TattleTeeny]

Oh, I agree about heat of the moment and even good parental intentions (for huge lack of a better term, mind you!). But--and this always baffles me in stories of groupthink bad acts--no one suddenly said, "Wait...what?! HOLD UP, abort the mission--this is absolutely insane!" I know how naive that sounds but it's always the thought I have. So, so, so baffling.

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[reggiejax]

Quote

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.

I don't know about the legality of it all, but on the show they went to great lengths to say that they truly believed that Burke did not intend to kill his sister. That it was almost certainly an accident. Maybe not an accident, as the scenario shows he did strike his sister intentionally, but he never meant to kill her.

[Cranky One]

5 hours ago, SonofaBiscuit said:

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.

Good point. Didn't even think of this. I always thought that Patsy wrote the note and I like how they deconstructed it.

I remember when this first happened and always thought one of them did it. I believe it was Burke and I recall the investigators saying that Patsy already lost one child and couldn't bear (bare?) to lose another one, hence, the cover-up.

I also found it interesting that a lot of people didn't want to talk to the investigators 20 years later. Why is that? Because they have the same conclusion as a lot of us do? Regardless of what you think happened, I think we can all agree that it's a sad, senseless tragedy.

[BitterApple]

I agree that if Burke did it, covering up the crime only made it a thousand times worse. 

If an intruder did it, leaving behind the body and the ransom note makes absolutely no sense. Even if he couldn't get JonBenet out in the suitcase, all he had to do was lift her out the window and follow behind himself. IIRC, she was only around 50 lbs. That wouldn't be hard for a grown man to do. There's plenty of places in Colorado to dump a body, so why leave something behind that might be covered in your genetic material?

There's just so much conflicting logic in this case, I get a headache when I think about it too much.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

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.

I don't find the 911 part weird; I'm pretty sure that anyone in law enforcement would say that of course you call the cops. The rest is mind-blowingly nuts, even for someone not well-versed in preserving crime scenes. I mean, I suppose you'd call your spouse if he or she was out at the time, but who the hell practically throws a damn impromptu breakfast?!

[BananaRama]

49 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

What I find myself wondering is, if Burke did it and if his parents went all out to conceal that, what exactly were they thinking was going to happen to Burke if he confessed? He was 9. It's not that I'm sitting here thinking he'd just be given a pat on the head, a lollipop, and a "boys will be boys" speech but he would not be sent to a maximum-security prison or executed; he'd be given help, maybe via him going away somewhere, I don't know (and I am not going to get into the flaws of a juvenile system or whatever; I'm just using a general...scenario or whatever). The theory is that the Ramseys were not going to allow themselves to "lose" another child but where and how did they think they were going to "lose" him? 

Further--and again based on the BDI/coverup idea--other than the CPS-mandated therapist sessions, did the Ramseys get help for him after this? Like serious real-deal psychological help? They had the means and they would have clearly had more than enough reason to do so. 

I had wondered about this too.  Why would the Ramseys go to such great lengths to cover this up to save Burke?  Then I remembered that this family had experienced two recent tragedies - Patsy's stage 4 cancer and the death of John's other daughter.  Now JonBenet is dead and Burke killed her?  Patsy was a fighter and a survivor - she wasn't going to go down without a fight.  They knew that Burke wasn't going to be executed, but they didn't know what would happen to him.  They did know that if they confessed that he did it, then he would always be known as the nine-year-old who killed his little sister.  The Ramseys probably didn't think that this case would have been so huge.  They probably thought that the police would think an intruder did it, look for the killer and in a couple of weeks when they don't find the killer the case would be buried under a bunch of new cases and that would be the end of it.  

[TattleTeeny]

I still wonder about subsequent therapy though. Part of me (the devil's advocate part) is thinking that, if they didn't get him any (which, honestly, would be advisable whether he did it or not), maybe that also points to an intruder. That is, if John and Patsy weren't too proud/head-in-the-sand to do acknowledge that he'd done it.

Edited September 21, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[zxy556575]

If Patsy and John did find JonBenet dead at Burke's hand, why not stop and call an attorney at that point for advice? They can't be expected to know the CO statutes for accidental manslaughter or juvenile crimes.

These are two intelligent and educated people but almost none of their actions and statements as reported or witnessed, either before, after or to this day make sense to me.

It's a Freudian's dream family, isn't it? Both parents (allegedly) taking anti-depressants, a son with social and behavioral issues, the mother an attention-seeker overly concerned with outward appearances and status, the father emotionally shut down and going along to get along, and a very young daughter on the tacky pageant circuit.

Edited September 22, 2016 by lordonia

[zxy556575]

This article from Rolling Stone takes exception to the TV show's conclusions.

3 Big Ways 'The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey' Got It Wrong

Edited September 22, 2016 by lordonia

[Maharincess]

I remember reading in numerous places how, after the death of his daughter Beth (?) John was inconsolable, cried constantly and took to his bed for a while.  He seems completely emotionless when he speaks about Jon Benet.  I don't expect him to fall to his knees and weep on camera but there's no softening of the eyes when he speaks about her, no catch in his voice, nothing.   It seems to be the polar opposite of how people say he was after his older daughter's death. 

[califred]

The two investigators have a podcast called Real Crime Profiles and this week and last week has info about this show.

[BitterApple]

I'm not a psychologist (I just play one on tv), but here's my armchair analysis of this family:

Patsy: pretentious social climber. The type of woman to brag about her custom built Swedish furniture when in actuality the stuff came out of an Ikea catalogue. Living vicariously through her young, beautiful daughter. Loved her son, but didn't know how to relate to a male child that couldn't compete in beauty pageants. 

Regarding John, this was his second go-around with marriage. JB and Burke came along when he was older, so he may not have been as interested or attached as he was with his initial set of kids. I think he was the type who lived to work and was happy to let Patsy deal with all the domestic stuff; including the children. Honestly, not all that different from many men in his position. 

Burke was the Jan Brady to JonBenet's Marcia. Second fiddle, probably longed for a closer relationship to the father who was always busy. Resented the hell out of his younger sister for sucking up all of Mom's attention. Likely felt his family didn't understand him so he retreated to solitude and video games.

JonBenet, classic golden child, but that also comes with a price. It wouldn't surprise me if she subconsciously felt her mother's love was conditional based on her willingness to perform in those dreadful pageants. The pictures where JB looks truly happy is when she's just doing normal kid stuff. Probably would've had a ton of issues if she'd made it to adulthood.

Edited September 22, 2016 by BitterApple

[Mittengirl]

Is there a website somewhere with a timeline of the crime?

[Ohmo]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

It's official.

OK, now I'm using legal knowledge from The Good Wife, so if anyone with any actual legal knowledge cares to jump in here, feel free. :)  If the Ramseys sue CBS, can Burke be deposed since it's a civil matter?  I thought that in a civil case, people have to be deposed, or something like that.  We've heard about criminal investigations getting boosts or "help" from civil proceedings.  Would Burke at least be open to scrutiny on the record, even if he's never investigated or prosecuted beyond that?

38 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

JonBenet, classic golden child, but that also comes with a price. It wouldn't surprise me if she subconsciously felt her mother's love was conditional based on her willingness to perform in those dreadful pageants. The pictures where JB looks truly happy is when she's just doing normal kid stuff. Probably would've had a ton of issues if she'd made it to adulthood.

Didn't that friend say that JonBenet once told her daughter that the pageant awards and stuff really belonged to her mom?  Seems like JonBenet knew the real reason she was doing pageants.  Even though she was only 6, she had figured that out already.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Ohmo

[BitterApple]

Ohmo, I hadn't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me. 

[Guest]

Oh yeah! Bring that lawsuit on! Burke and John will be deposed and hopefully, Alex Hunter, too. 

Athough by the time the deposition get taken, Lin Wood, that sleazy puppetmaster, will have coached him well. Just like he did with John. 

[Stampiron]

The Ramsey's have filed at least 5 civil suits in the past - two on Burke's behalf - against various media companies and have been sued a couple of times themselves, so I wouldn't get my hopes up that this suit will reveal anything.

[TattleTeeny]

OK, that does it--who's coming over here to consult the Ouija board with me? We will get to the bottom of this today!

[SSAHotchner]

On 9/20/2016 at 8:40 PM, 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 haven't seen all the evidence, either, but I wondered if it was possible that besides just whacking her in the head if he had grabbed her around the throat and left marks so that Patsy maybe thought to fake the garrotte would make it seem like an adult intruder and not a child or other family member had strangled her. I still think based on this recent program that the head injury was fatal, not the strangulation. But again, I don't know for sure. And what I read about Burke's interview with Dr. Phil where he kept saying, "it must have been some pedophile that saw her in the pageants." I mean he said it over and over like he wouldn't even allow himself to think or say that any other person could have been responsible. His manner of speaking and bobbing and grinning really was uncomfortable to watch. It was like treating the whole awful incident as a joke. If anything, at this point I'd expect him to show a little anger or annoyance that he's had to live his life under scrutiny because of all the interest in the case and that even now that Jon Benet's been dead for 20 years, probably the first or only thing anyone wants to talk to him about is the case . His sister may be long gone, but he is tied to her for the rest of his life in the public's eye. Yet I don't feel sorry for him because of what came out in this program. The rage, striking her at other times, leaving and smearing feces in her room and on her possessions. That's more than typical sibling rivalry. That's a disturbed kid that needs help. 

[SSAHotchner]

3 hours ago, BananaRama said:

For nearly 20 years I thought an intruder did it because of what I heard through the media (DNA evidence is found, the Grand Jury never filed charges, Mary Lacy exonerated the Ramseys).  Then in 2013, after the Grand Jury indictment was released, I started reading more about the case.  I then thought it was possible that Patsy was guilty.  When I explained my reasoning to a friend why I thought maybe Patsy did it, my friend said that she thought Burke did it.  I laughed in her face because that sounded ridiculous.  My conversation with my friend happened two years ago and this was the very first time anyone had said to me that they thought Burke did it.  Like nearly all of you (before this TV program) I just couldn't wrap my head around a 9-year-old killing his sister.   Imagine it is 1996, and the Boulder police and DA announce that they suspect that Burke did it.  The headline would be, "Police suspect six-year-old Little Miss Colorado was killed by nine-year-old brother."  They would be hated for even thinking such a horrible thought.  They would have to have impenetrable evidence.  There could not be even a miniscule of doubt.  Now that Burke is 29 years old and an adult, investigators can examine the possibility that Burke killed Jonbenet and not look like villains.  Burke didn't do himself any favors by being interviewed by Dr. Phil.  Gone is the image that we had of him since 1996 of him being a cute nine year old.  Now we see him as an awkward and nervous adult. 

Yeah. None of us knew anything about these people back then except that they had money and the mom put the daughter in pageants. If even the tiniest inkling of the brother's behavior had gotten out, people might have suspected him. They kept him hidden away and out of discussions. You knew the goofy ransom note was written by an adult so you really suspected the parents. Didn't the police test the feces in her room to see if it was hers or someone else's? You see a brand new box of candy covered in poo and you don't think there's something fishy going on in the family? Oh, well, nobody can do anything about what was or wasn't done at the time. I am concerned that this kid seems not to have gotten psychological help over the years or at least none that did much good. It makes me more sad than mad. Not like when OJ Simpson got off. Whoops, don't get me started. 

[choclatechip45]

59 minutes ago, Stampiron said:

The Ramsey's have filed at least 5 civil suits in the past - two on Burke's behalf - against various media companies and have been sued a couple of times themselves, so I wouldn't get my hopes up that this suit will reveal anything.

Burke was a minor and didn't have to give a deposition. He is now an adult and can't hide behind his father. Ever notice the lawsuits stopped once he turned 18? I don't think that's a coincidence.

Edited September 22, 2016 by choclatechip45

[BitterApple]

52 minutes ago, SSAHotchner said:

 And what I read about Burke's interview with Dr. Phil where he kept saying, "it must have been some pedophile that saw her in the pageants." I mean he said it over and over like he wouldn't even allow himself to think or say that any other person could have been responsible. 

I didn't get to see the Dr. Phil interview either, but I find it interesting that was Burke's opinion on the killer, because I find the Pageant Pedo theory to be the most implausible of them all. A complete stranger wouldn't be familiar with the Ramsey's routines, he wouldn't have known they'd be at a Christmas Dinner leaving him ample time to hide out in the house, he'd have no way of knowing the amount of John's bonus to put in the ransom note or to leave the note on the back staircase as opposed to the front, etc. Not to mention there was no evidence of JB being stalked at her pageants. If IDI is true, then it had to have been someone close to the family. Damn, now I need to see if I can dig up the Dr. Phil clips. 

Love your avi, by the way!

Edited September 22, 2016 by BitterApple

[choclatechip45]

I was talking to my dad who watched this and he has not followed the Ramsey case at all. He said he always thought Patsy did it. After night one he thought they were setting up John as the killer, but after night two he thinks Burke did it and the grand jury indictments support that. He is a lawyer and said it will be hard for Burke to sue because they didn't come up with this theory without any evidence. They can point to the grand jury indictments as a basis for their opinion.

He said the clip that made the biggest impression on him was when John Ramsey said "he had a great relationship with JonBenet." My dad said thought that was a strange way for a father to describe his interactions with his 6 year old daughter.

[WhitneyWhit]

The only two people in this mess that I ever felt sympathy for were JonBenet and Burke, even if he did it, I would still have sympathy for him because he was obviously (probably still is) a troubled young man and received no help and that is his parents' fault.

I never had any sympathy for John and Patsy in regards to the scrutiny they were put under because I always felt it was a direct result of them being so fucking weird about everything, they were practically asking for suspicion to fall on them. I mean, right off the bat they receive a ransom note telling them if they talk to anyone, their daughter will die, so they turn around and call half of Boulder to come to their home, and it just got more bizarre from there. I'm not sure what I believe in this case, but I almost certain and intruder didn't do it.

I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere. There was nothing in this special that hasn't been discussed and said before about Burke and his family.

[Jel]

FBI profilers know that in cases like these, most of the time it's a family member. I think because they knew that they had a confirmation bias. 

Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple -- if Patsy was the person who unloaded the dishwasher, her fingerprints would be on the bowl. 

The spoon. The spoon was big and I think moms know that if you give a kid a big spoon it ends up in all kinds of awkwardness, mess, food, getting on face, on clothes, etc -- big spoon/small kid = not a mom thing to do, out of habit if nothing else.

The underwear. Say JB did wet the bed and needed new underwear -- opening a new package of way too big underwear = not a mom thing to do. Patsy would know what size undies her child wore. Doesn't seem plausible to me.

If John and Patsy staged the whole thing to make it look like an intruder, why be so forthcoming about John having broken the window himself -- why wouldn't he "conveniently" forget about that?

Your son accidentally kills your daughter and instead of calling 911, you immediately come up with a plan to stage a kidnapping? Then execute that plan on your beloved child's corpse? This, to me, is not reasonable.

And the DNA under JB's fingernails -- erm, DNA under fingernails seems like a pretty damning piece of evidence, and if it wasn't Ramsey DNA, then whose was it?  Somehow this was glossed over on the show -- confirmation bias. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Jel

[Drogo]

Folks, this is still an episode thread meant for posters to discuss part two of the special.  The last two pages have been general case talk and off-topic for this thread.

If you would like to discuss the case and your theories/suspects but not pertaining to this episode in particular, there's a thread for that.