The Killing Of JonBenet: The Truth Uncovered (A&E)

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

How much DNA was found? If the intruder was in the house for hours - walking around the house - wouldn't there be quite a bit? And if the intruder was smart enough to make certain to not leave a finger print or more than one hair -- but then leave his DNA on her underwear -- why would he make such a stupid mistake?

Not sure what you're asking--we leave DNA all over the place all the time (and the amounts are detailed in last night's show and online, etc., etc.). Even if the perpetrator (who I doubt was counting hairs, haha!) cleaned up, it's unlikely s/he'd get everything, especially from clothing unless s/he took it all away from the scene. As for finding it elsewhere in the house, maybe there is, maybe there's not--by letting everyone and his mom into the house, the cops made sure that it would be near impossible to figure that all out. Plus, gloves; it's possible someone would have them on up until the moment s/he was able to touch JonBenét.

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Yokosmom]

Quote

The stun gun doesn't prove they didn't do it. It just proves whoever did it wanted her silent.

See, I have the opposite reaction--I think that the (supposed) stun gun actually points away from the parents.  

Quote

How much DNA was found? If the intruder was in the house for hours - walking around the house - wouldn't there be quite a bit? And if the intruder was smart enough to make certain to not leave a finger print or more than one hair -- but then leave his DNA on her underwear -- why would he make such a stupid mistake?

Did the police extensively fingerprint the house? I'm really asking, because I don't know.  The fact that they let hundreds of people tromp through their house in an annual "Christmas Homes Display" would possibly make random fingerprinting rather moot.

If there was an intruder, I don't think that he was a criminal genius--I think that he got lucky.  And, if he did exist, he probably intended to take JB with him.  And, they found only a tiny amount of (non-touch) DNA on him (touch DNA was unheard of back then)--he may not have realized that he left any DNA there, especially since whatever caused the blow to the head plus the duct tape was missing.

Re Patsy Ramsey and the bonus--according to John Ramsey (yeah, I know) he never even told her the exact amount of the check.  In fact he claims that very few people knew the amount.

ETA--You beat me to it, TattleTeeny!

Edited September 6, 2016 by Yokosmom

[walnutqueen]

Not much other than her clothing was even tested for DNA, so it could have been anywhere & everywhere.  Plus, collection techniques back then weren't very sophisticated.

I am SOOO tired of the ridiculous canard that if someone dares to "lawyer up", they are automatically guilty of something.  I've had my fill of cops and their proclivities, and would NEVER, EVER talk to them without legal counsel present.  Seriously!

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Did the police extensively fingerprint the house? I'm really asking, because I don't know.  The fact that they let hundreds of people tromp through their house in an annual "Christmas Homes Display" would possibly make random fingerprinting rather moot.

I feel like I read that the crime-scene people were there for a while (though what constitutes "a while"?) so we could assume they at least tried to get everything (unless there's some hanky-panky with the cops telling them to be lax to support their theory, but that's just me speculating). The show did mention something about reopening and using more sophisticated methods...but that Christmas tour is a real science killer. 

[hoosiermom]

I have always felt the Ramsey's were innocent and the victims of the media and an incompetent police department. I compare it to a medical student doing major surgery with no experience.He has basic book knowledge but that's it. Again, no experience. My heart goes out to the Ramseys. I can't imagine the pain they went thru not only loosing a child but then being accused of doing it. IMOO!!

.

Edited September 6, 2016 by hoosiermom
Spelling error

[Court]

23 minutes ago, Yokosmom said:

See, I have the opposite reaction--I think that the (supposed) stun gun actually points away from the parents.  

Did the police extensively fingerprint the house? I'm really asking, because I don't know.  The fact that they let hundreds of people tromp through their house in an annual "Christmas Homes Display" would possibly make random fingerprinting rather moot.

If there was an intruder, I don't think that he was a criminal genius--I think that he got lucky.  And, if he did exist, he probably intended to take JB with him.  And, they found only a tiny amount of (non-touch) DNA on him (touch DNA was unheard of back then)--he may not have realized that he left any DNA there, especially since whatever caused the blow to the head plus the duct tape was missing.

Re Patsy Ramsey and the bonus--according to John Ramsey (yeah, I know) he never even told her the exact amount of the check.  In fact he claims that very few people knew the amount.

ETA--You beat me to it, TattleTeeny!

I can easily see either way. It just irritated me that the narrator was this definitively proved the parents had nothing to do with it. Um, no. 

It was more frustration in how the show presented it.

[BitterApple]

19 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

 

I am SOOO tired of the ridiculous canard that if someone dares to "lawyer up", they are automatically guilty of something.  I've had my fill of cops and their proclivities, and would NEVER, EVER talk to them without legal counsel present.  Seriously!

I wouldn't either. Especially if the cops in question have obvious tunnel vision and aren't handling your case objectively. 

[Maharincess]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I just can't figure out if it was an intruder. To break into the house, find their way around, grab things to be used to duck tape, go get the girl duck tape and kill her either in her room or the room she was found, then write out a really long ransom note. Wouldn't that take a long time to do all of that? And while there were still people in the house?

I agree, I have to say I've always come down on the Ramseys did it side of this case.  I remember duct tape being a big thing in the Casey Anthony case. Did they ever say if the duct tape on Jon Benet came from the Ramsey home?  I can't remember. 

[TattleTeeny]

I think they couldn't find it (along with the paintbrush pieces), Maharincess. Which could be construed as odd, considering the legal pad was there.

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[BitterApple]

If the Ramseys did do it, what would be the motive? Again, not disagreeing with anyone's opinion, just spitballing here.

[TattleTeeny]

My ex-BF once spitballed that Patsy sold JonBenét to the devil in exchange for cancer remission. At the time, it was as rational an idea as anything else, I suppose...

It just really sucks that the police were not so much trying to solve a crime as they were trying to close a case. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[walnutqueen]

1 minute ago, BitterApple said:

I wouldn't either. Especially if the cops in question have obvious tunnel vision and aren't handling your case objectively. 

Three things I know about cops:

1)  They lie

2) They lie

3) They lie

Plus, they are allowed to lie to you for any reason, and you can be prosecuted for lying to them.  I've seen enough police "interviews" to see how quickly things can turn south for an innocent person.  No thanks.  I have a purse ulu, car console hatchet and recliner machete for personal protection; why wouldn't I protect myself from the intentional abrogation of my civil rights by an "officer of the law" hellbent on closing a case with the least amount of effort possible?

This is in no way an indictment of all police - there are decent and well intentioned ones out there.  But there is a certain mindset that quickly sinks in to the rank & file when it's the boys-in-blue party line.  Which obviously happened in this case.

[tobeannounced]

Speaking of FBI profiling upthread, does anyone know if the FBI did a profile on who the killer might be?  Many times they are uncannily close.

[Mountainair]

8 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

If the Ramseys did do it, what would be the motive? Again, not disagreeing with anyone's opinion, just spitballing here.

I don't think there was a motive as in they had something to gain. I think it was child abuse to the nth degree. A fit of rage and she was accidentally killed and they tried to cover it up by staging a kidnapping. What caused the rage who knows-doesn't really matter. JonBenet was getting on her parents nerves and they pushed her and she was knocked unconscious? Spitballing here... It was Christmas night after an early morning, long day, early plane ride the next day , mom and dad wanted to go to bed, JonBenet woke up after being carried to her room, wanted a snack, didn't want to go back to bed and mom and dad were frustrated. I believe it probably was something innocent -a shove in the right direction-and shit spiraled out of control from there. Though John saying he stayed up late to help Burke assemble a Christmas present indicates they were ok staying up in general but maybe he just said that to disprove the truth in my theory. It's so messed up!

[Sarah D. Bunting]

@tobeannounced, they may have -- but John Douglas, a founder of the profiling program, was asked by the Ramseys' lawyers to consult on the case. He writes about it in The Cases That Haunt Us. His take on the case seems reasonable to me and he has a hard time believing the parents were responsible.

I'm watching the end of this now, as it turns out. Interesting that they have footage of the other* documentary's experts stating that it's not possible to get into that window well; that seems kind of...rude, for lack of a better term? But also doesn't reflect rull well on Clemente.

*For y'all who noted that there's "another" special on the case..."great" news? There are actually...three? 

- Dateline's running a 2hr special on it this coming Friday

- ID Channel gets in the game next Monday 9/12 (and also Dr. Phil's 3-part ambulance-chase...er, "look" at the case starts that day)

- and the one everyone means, the CBS miniseries starting 9/18.

 

Buntsy's looking at a long couple weeks here, is m'point. I don't plan to cover the Dateline but I'm in for the others.

[TattleTeeny]

That wily Dr. Phil finally found a way to lure me to his show. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny
OOPS! You already mentioned Dr. Phil!

[Mountainair]

3 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

That wily Dr. Phil finally found a way to lure me to his show. 

Yea, no. I won't watch the Dr. Phil one but I'll catch the others.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

I'm putting the worthwhile-minutes count at 14 total across three shows. Anyone want the over?

[Maharincess]

Why are all of the Jon Benet shows airing right now?  It seems strange to me as its not the anniversary or anything.  Is there any particular reason for them?

[Sarah D. Bunting]

If I had to guess: 1) it's before "real" TV starts back up again in earnest, or at least that's why the first one got scheduled for now, and then 2) all the others tried to beat each other to air. And 3) the actual anniversary is at Christmas, and while Making A Murderer did fine for itself over the winter holiday, I can see execs not wanting to go there with this one.

[TattleTeeny]

A friend suggested that it's maybe due to the popularity of the O.J. doc and the miniseries--wait, is the JonBenét miniseries from the same producers of the O.J. one (named "American Crime," I think, followed by a colon, then the topic)?

[azshadowwalker]

2 hours ago, Mountainair said:

How do you explain the fingernail marks on her kneck (the theory is that she was alive when she was strangled and tried to save her own life by clawing at the noose around her neck). If she was stunned would she be conscious enough to do that? 

The cops claim that she had already been hit in the head and knocked unconscious. How do they explain the fingernail marks on her neck? They don't. They just lie and double down on the lies. 

At the time, I believed the Ramseys did it. But I now realize how influenced I was by a lynch mob media and police department working in concert. They were peddling bullshit, and I bought it. Now, I just think that the Ramseys are fortunate that they had the money for a lawyer. A couple without their resources would have been railroaded. For their sakes and that of the other children, I am glad they were able to fight back. 

[walnutqueen]

34 minutes ago, Sarah D. Bunting said:

Buntsy's looking at a long couple weeks here, is m'point. I don't plan to cover the Dateline but I'm in for the others.

You ought be up for sainthood, right alongside Mother Teresa, goddammit!  ;-)

[jenrising]

1 hour ago, BananaRama said:

How much DNA was found? If the intruder was in the house for hours - walking around the house - wouldn't there be quite a bit? And if the intruder was smart enough to make certain to not leave a finger print or more than one hair -- but then leave his DNA on her underwear -- why would he make such a stupid mistake?

The police let half of Boulder's residents into the house that day, who trampled all over the place and did a lot of cleaning. Hell, I've never even been to Colorado and there was probably some of my DNA in that house. 

The DNA that was tested and didn't match the family (or anyone else in the system at the time) was scraped from her clothes, and not visible to the eye. Like everything else there seems to be confusion about which items, but a match in multiple locations would be pretty strong evidence, but ultimately useless without a match to someone. 

[Talky Tina]

48 minutes ago, walnutqueen said:

Three things I know about cops:

1)  They lie

2) They lie

3) They lie

Plus, they are allowed to lie to you for any reason, and you can be prosecuted for lying to them.  I've seen enough police "interviews" to see how quickly things can turn south for an innocent person.  No thanks.  I have a purse ulu, car console hatchet and recliner machete for personal protection; why wouldn't I protect myself from the intentional abrogation of my civil rights by an "officer of the law" hellbent on closing a case with the least amount of effort possible?

This is in no way an indictment of all police - there are decent and well intentioned ones out there.  But there is a certain mindset that quickly sinks in to the rank & file when it's the boys-in-blue party line.  Which obviously happened in this case.

That is painting with a wide brush.   Speaking as someone who's father, grandfather, two uncles and younger brother (my brother was killed in the line of duty) are all police officers, I find this offensive.  It's the same as racial stereotypes, the same as saying all overweight people are fat and lazy etc etc.    People like to talk all kinds of shit about police officers but if you have someone trying to climb in your window in the middle of the night, they sure are happy that they're there.   

I just don't understand how someone can say something like this in a serious way. Not all police officers are the same and I know for a fact that the vast majority are good, hard working, decent people who care about upholding the law. 

[Mountainair]

50 minutes ago, azshadowwalker said:

The cops claim that she had already been hit in the head and knocked unconscious. How do they explain the fingernail marks on her neck? They don't. They just lie and double down on the lies. 

At the time, I believed the Ramseys did it. But I now realize how influenced I was by a lynch mob media and police department working in concert. They were peddling bullshit, and I bought it. Now, I just think that the Ramseys are fortunate that they had the money for a lawyer. A couple without their resources would have been railroaded. For their sakes and that of the other children, I am glad they were able to fight back. 

And that's the thing. The cops claim they did because, "look at their behavior!" The DA's office claimed they couldn't have done it because, "look at their behavior,". A lot of what I heard last night in defense of the Ramsey's (and I'll admit there was some good factual anecdotes) was that neither parent had a history of violence, well regarded people in society, etc. If the cops can't prove guilt based off of bad behavior than the DA's shouldn't be able to prove innocence based on lack of bad behavior.

[WendyCR72]

I don't wish to restrict conversation and discussion here, but the topic of the police is a hot button that I'd just assume not get into with any depth as this can go south rather quickly.

Let's just say there are good and bad people in every profession, leave it there, and focus upon the actual Ramsey case here, please.

[walnutqueen]

18 minutes ago, Talky Tina said:

That is painting with a wide brush.   Speaking as someone who's father, grandfather, two uncles and younger brother (my brother was killed in the line of duty) are all police officers, I find this offensive.  It's the same as racial stereotypes, the same as saying all overweight people are fat and lazy etc etc.    People like to talk all kinds of shit about police officers but if you have someone trying to climb in your window in the middle of the night, they sure are happy that they're there.   

I just don't understand how someone can say something like this in a serious way. Not all police officers are the same and I know for a fact that the vast majority are good, hard working, decent people who care about upholding the law. 

Sorry to offend you personally; that certainly wasn't my intent.  But I've followed police procedurals for most of my life, encountered them in various capacities, and did spend 25 years working VERY closely with them, so I do feel feel entitled to my opinions.

Also, aren't you are painting with a similar broad brush?  Just sayin'.

[WendyCR72]

I believe I just asked this be tabled. Heed the note. Anymore such discussion, and I'll proceed with warnings. Please don't let things go there.

[TattleTeeny]

All I know is that I am in for a penny, in for a pound--is that the saying? Whatever, I'ma watch all this nonsense over here (and probably get all fired up all over again)!

[Guest]

I'm watching the end of this now, as it turns out.

Should have got out while you could! 

Still Team Parents Did It. John Ramsey only makes himself available to friendly news outlets for his interviews. I'm sure all the questions were vetted and approved beforehand. In not one interview I've seen with him did the interviewer ever ask him any pointed questions - they were all puff pieces meant to paint Patsy and him in the best possible light. After all this time, could the man even summon a tear for his murdered daughter? Never saw him cry once. Yeah, yeah, there's no right or wrong ways for people to grieve, but this man's daughter was viciously murdered. One might think he'd spend all his resources for the rest of his life on finding out who did it. Not so much to exonerate himself or his family, but to get justice for his dead daughter. Instead, he packs up and moves away and goes into self preservation mode. I'm also hard-pressed to believe he's all that broke. He certainly had enough money in 2004 and 2008 to run for public office. (He lost.) 

WRT to this "documentary" -- it was just...bad. They couldn't even get the initial caps right in the title card! I should have known right then to turn it off.  

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

WRT to this "documentary" -- it was just...bad. They couldn't even get the initial caps right in the title card! I should have known right then to turn it off.  

Thank you! I noticed a ton of shit like this throughout.

[Court]

I may have dreamed this but I feel like way back when the Ramsey's would only agree to pieces that were favorable to them. Maybe even paid for them?

Even if you believe the parents are 100% innocent and have zero involvement, you have to see there are suspicious things that do point to them being involved in some capacity. The exact goes for the other view. There's so much conflicting evidence and this police department did an awful job. 

In regards to the neighbor hearing the scream, did they test to see if it could be heard from her bedroom?

What I haven't seen discussed here is the theory about Burke. I have difficulty believing a 9 year old could do that. 

The part that I do think has merit is that the parent(s) covered for someone or even maybe each other. 

Ultimately, this shouldn't even be called a documentary. It was clearly approached with a bias and one viewpoint. 

[TattleTeeny]

I didn't even think of it like a doc, actually--more like a showcase of info snippets. And, yes, I have always seen the odd stuff that makes me dubious about the Ramseys. However, in the intervening years since I thought they did it, I changed my mind as I learned more about crime and investigation, and as more and more less-biased info was available to me. I no longer think of stuff pointing to them as culprits, but as pointing to them as oddballs.

I always thought the Burke theory was flat-out ridiculous. 

[Guest]

Last night I googled the production company behind this show. Seems it wasn't their first time at this particular rodeo -- they put out several other pro-Ramsey docs over the years. British outfit. Of course I can't remember what their name is today. I wonder why they're so overly invested? 

ETA: I re-googled -- it's called Mills Productions. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Guest

[Court]

Just now, Giant Misfit said:

Last night I googled the production company behind this show. Seems it wasn't their first time at this particular rodeo -- they put out several other pro-Ramsey docs over the years. British outfit. Of course I can't remember what their name is today. I wonder why they're so overly invested? 

Money

[walnutqueen]

37 minutes ago, Court said:

In regards to the neighbor hearing the scream, did they test to see if it could be heard from her bedroom?

Could it have come from the basement, via the open window, after the poor wee child semi-recovered from her taser assault and before the duct-taping and garroting?

[tobeannounced]

4 hours ago, Sarah D. Bunting said:

@tobeannounced, they may have -- but John Douglas, a founder of the profiling program, was asked by the Ramseys' lawyers to consult on the case. He writes about it in The Cases That Haunt Us. His take on the case seems reasonable to me and he has a hard time believing the parents were responsible.

Well, I had to go run and buy the book on Kindle as soon as I read this.  I have successfully avoided pressing responsibilities for the last few hours while I devoured the section on the Ramsey case.  I wasn't really sure which side I was on before seeing The Killing of JonBenet and reading this book, but I am firmly in the innocent camp now.  My biggest sticking point was the ransom note, but the way he explained that the note had to have been written before JB's death and not after pretty much rules out all "cover-up" theories for me.

Edited September 7, 2016 by tobeannounced

[TattleTeeny]

All of his books are so good!

[Court]

Ok so to the intruder theory, have there been other killings similar to this? It seems as if it was random, the person would kill again. If not random, the person knew the family well. 

I can be on both sides here but see issues with both. 

[TattleTeeny]

My admittedly non-cop guts tell me it wasn't random.

[zxy556575]

5 hours ago, Mountainair said:

I don't think there was a motive as in they had something to gain. I think it was child abuse to the nth degree.

The evidence and "facts" are all over the damned place, but whatever gut instinct I have still tells me John did it, as part of sexual abuse (ongoing or a new incident) that got out of hand. I have no idea about Patsy -- either she didn't know anything or she found out after JonBenet was dead and helped John cover it up. She was too weird in general for me to get a read on.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

@tobe, glad you got something out of it. It's one of my favorites. (And it's why I have zero patience with the pineapple as "evidence," irrational though that is.)

(You can always come on over to the-blotter.com to talk non-TV true-crime properties. We're up all night. :) )

[paigow]

I may have dreamed this but I feel like way back when the Ramsey's would only agree to pieces that were favorable to them. Maybe even paid for them?

Even if you believe the parents are 100% innocent and have zero involvement, you have to see there are suspicious things that do point to them being involved in some capacity. The exact goes for the other view. There's so much conflicting evidence and this police department did an awful job. 

In regards to the neighbor hearing the scream, did they test to see if it could be heard from her bedroom?

What I haven't seen discussed here is the theory about Burke. I have difficulty believing a 9 year old could do that. 

The part that I do think has merit is that the parent(s) covered for someone or even maybe each other. 

Ultimately, this shouldn't even be called a documentary. It was clearly approached with a bias and one viewpoint. 

re: scream testing, this immediately came to mind....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIgyr1_Z_qA

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

(You can always come on over to the-blotter.com to talk non-TV true-crime properties. We're up all night. :) )

Ohhh? (< Said like Keith Morrison.) Here I come!

Edited September 7, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Tara Ariano]

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

How Long Should You Wait For The Killing Of JonBenét: The Truth Uncovered To Uncover Said Truth?

Or is it, like most accounts of this tragedy, just a rehash of facts we already have?

[Arynm]

I feel like eventually, the DNA in many of these  unsolved cases will be able to pinpoint the killers. It might be making a picture of the killer by figuring out the characteristics using the DNA or having a family member put their DNA in a database where it can be discovered that way. It might be too far in the future for justice, but I have hope we will know one day.

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, Arynm said:

I feel like eventually, the DNA in many of these  unsolved cases will be able to pinpoint the killers. It might be making a picture of the killer by figuring out the characteristics using the DNA or having a family member put their DNA in a database where it can be discovered that way. It might be too far in the future for justice, but I have hope we will know one day.

I hope so too, especially in the wake of the recent developments in the Jacob Wetterling case. 

The downside I see with Jon Benet is that the crime scene and evidence was so badly mishandled by the cops that I don't think the D.A. could get a conviction even if a suspect was ever tried. 

Edited September 8, 2016 by BitterApple

[WendyCR72]

This case was doomed the moment - as stated - everyone and their brother trampled all over the crime scene, IMO. And I recall reading the same thing happening in the OJ case. Sad either way.

[TattleTeeny]

And yet another upcoming show I hadn't yet set the DVR for is this September 18 & 19 on CBS at 8:30 & 9:00 respectively--is this the one being called a miniseries? So, including the one this thread is about, my DVR's up to...five different shows, I think? WTF is going on?! I am overwhelmed and confused, I tell you!

Edited September 8, 2016 by TattleTeeny