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

[stormy]

I wish the Ramsey's would have pursued this nonstop on their own.  With the DNA technology today, the killer might be found.  But maybe John Ramsey hasn't the will to do it alone.

I don't think they had anything to do with the murder, it was too violent for seemingly rational parents to commit such a heinous crime.  That goes for Burke too.  He was 9 (?) at the time. I don't see how he could of come up with the noose or had the strength, as John pointed out, to murder her in that way.

Edited September 13, 2016 by stormy

[ghoulina]

I don't know that I'd call the Ramseys "rational parents". Patsty was dying a 6-year-old's hair. John Ramey was scheduling a flight to ATL just a half hour after finding his daughter dead. And I firmly believe that SOMEONE in that house was sexually abusing JB prior to the murder. Autopsy findings had her hymen barely being present. I think the lead doctor on the case concluded "prior sexual abuse with a recent injury". I just don't see them as this normal, loving, down to earth family. 

I'm in the BDI camp, but I don't think he did ALL of it. I think it started with him, perhaps he was molesting JB and tried to silence her. Maybe there was an accident of some sort. His parent(s) stepped in to help cover it up. I think there were a lot of hands involved with explains why the entire scene was so random and disjointed. The child was garroted, but then covered tenderly with a blanket. Some "evidence" was completely free of prints, other things were left out in broad daylight and covered in prints. None of it seems to fit together, and I feel that's because people were rushing around trying to stage the scene, without necessarily consulting each other. 

There's a lot of talk about the police bungling things, and that is without a doubt true. Too many people traipsing in and out. They took little to no care to preserve the scene. But I have to wonder about the Ramseys, themselves. Calling their friends over right away. I know they're not professionals, but there is common sense. You'd think that if your child had been ostensibly kidnapped, you'd want to keep the house free and clear of visitors so all possible evidence would be collected. Plus, isn't there always the fear that the kidnapper is watching the house and wouldn't like to see so many people coming and going? I just don't get the impression that they ever acted like they were dealing with a kidnapping. 

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around an intruder, because too many of the items used (from the ransom paper to the garrote) came from inside the house. I just don't think an intruder would be that risky, not only to HOPE the Ramseys had what he needed, but to take that much time in the home (whether people were home at the time or not). It's just way too risky. 

[RedheadZombie]

I believe the moleststion claim has been debunked multiple times. 

[ghoulina]

Debunked by whom? From everything I've read, several medical experts concluded that there was vaginal trauma prior to that night. There was also the chronic bed wedding and 27 visits to her pediatrician within 3 years, with multiple cases of vaginosis. 

[iMonrey]

One thing's for certain, you have one side trotting out experts who can "prove" the Ramseys are innocent, and you have another side trotting out other experts who can "prove" the Ramseys are guilty. Who to believe? I found the A&E special very lopsided in favor of the Ramseys' innocence and would have found it more convincing if not for the Dateline special.

The only real "new revelation" I've heard so far is that the grand jury convened to investigate the evidence did, in fact, find probable cause to indict the Ramseys. I remember at the time they were in session for like nine months or something, and since no charges were ever filed once they disbanded, the assumption was they found no evidence to charge the Ramseys. Flash forward to 2013 and a reporter actually had to sue to get the documents released, only to learn they did in fact recommend indicting the Ramseys. I'd call that a bombshell.

I don't profess to "know" anything but I tend to give more credence to the Boulder detectives and the FBI agent who actually worked the case than outside "investigators" and criminologists going over evidence many years later. I think the DNA evidence, which the Ramsey's innocence relies so heavily upon, is sketchy once you start looking at it in detail (it's "touch" evidence, for one thing, and apparently these "sophisticated" technologies used to identify it were botched.) 

Unfortunately, I also think a lot of the sexual abuse and violence evidence does not in fact exclude John or Patsy as suspects, as this documentary seemed so sure of.

[RedheadZombie]

1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

Debunked by whom? From everything I've read, several medical experts concluded that there was vaginal trauma prior to that night. There was also the chronic bed wedding and 27 visits to her pediatrician within 3 years, with multiple cases of vaginosis. 

I've read so much on this case the last twenty years, I can't cite sources off the top of my head (much to my regret).  So let me walk back my statement - The molestation is extremely questionable as explained by specialists I consider most impartial.  I've noticed that those most married to the incest theory are those invested in the belief that the Ramseys are guilty.  I say this as someone who thought they were guilty for years.  One of the books that helped change my belief is, The Cases that Haunt Us, by John E. Douglas.  Douglas is one of the originating FBI profilers.  He gets into how parents often appear guilty, and have polygraphs appear deceptive, because they feel they failed at the ultimate parental responsibility - protecting their child from harm - rather than guilt from the murder.

Another problem is evidence of molestation (versus rape) can be very ambiguous, as well as passionately disagreed upon by experts.  Some doctors believe chronic bed wetting or vaginosis is all it takes to label molestation, but neither of these things is uncommon in little girls.  In fact, it's common and chronic with some girls, and it's not prudent to jump to molestation as a cause.  I also believe those pediatrician visits you mention regarding vaginosis are incorrect, but repeated for years.   Not to muddy the waters with numbers that I'm not backing up by a link, but it's been said that in those many pediatrician visits,  only three to four were regarding vaginosis.   And there's also a lot of disagreement on whether JB's sexual assault (by an object - possibly paint brush) was the only assault indicated by evidence, or if there were scarring indicating chronic abuse (which still doesn't indict the Ramseys as children are often molested by extended family or friends).   Another problem is most little girls undergoing gynecological exams of the hymen, are either being examined because of molestation suspicion, or because they've been raped and murdered.  So JB's hymen was stretched, not broken, which could have been done by normal exuberant recklessness (my little cousin managed to jump up while playing with a baton and impale herself, and a patient I had slipped while stepping into the tub and injured herself on the shower door track), self-exploration (many causes of vaginosis are caused by children exploring their genitals with crayons, etc.), or even playing "doctor" with another child.

I would like to address some other points, but I've been posting in several threads on this topic and I'm trying not to be overly repetitive, plus I'm losing track of what I've said where.   But my main thoughts, stripped down to bullet points:

• Intruder could have easily entered the house through the window JR broke several days before (which he immediately told the police), or on a Christmas house tour.  This would have given an intruder hours if not days to plan, learn the layout, etc.  An intruder hiding in a crawl space and coming out at night to prey on the occupants has happened to someone I know, and also to a female on a newsmagazine story I watched.  I'm sure there are other examples (which is horrifying).
• I believe the ransom note was bizarre because this was never a kidnapping for ransom.  It was a red herring and it accomplished its goal - people focused on the ransom and waiting for a phone call, rather than searching for a probable murdered child.
• The Ramseys were brilliant enough to remove all of the male family DNA from her body, clothing, under her fingernails, and on all the objects found to bind/torture her, yet unknown male DNA was found on several different pieces of JB's clothing, which couldn't be from manufacturing, packaging, or sale, because these items were bought separately and packaged/manufactures in different factories.  But after cleverly disposing of all the torture/binding materials as well as their own DNA and contaminating her with unknown male DNA, JR then turns over the very pad of paper that was used to write the ransom note, and left practice ransom notes laying around to be found by police.  And also pointed right to themselves by citing John's Christmas bonus in the note. 
• Two different set of marks which match up to taser points were found on JB's body.  Why would her family need to do that, and how would Burke get one and know to operate it.
• FBI has said that there was no "Burke's voice" on the 911 call.
• A suitcase in the room with the broken window had trace evidence inside of what JB was found wearing at her death.  A theory posited is she was tased in her bedroom, brought to the basement, bound and gagged, and stuffed in the suitcase to remove her from the home.  With the window wells configuration, although a male can easily climb in and out, it was impossible while also attempting to remove the suitcase.  So his torture/murder was completed in the cellar because sexually sadistic murder was the motive from the beginning.
• The intruder entered the broken window because it was the easiest entry point, and left through that window to avoid triggering the alarm of an open door.
• JB died from the garrote - she clawed her neck to attempt to remove it.  By all appearances, JB was the favored child.  I do not buy that Burke injured JB, and her loving parents finished her off with a garrote to cover for the less favorite child, who's also an apparent sexually sadistic psychopath.

I will admit that I pretty much dismiss any and all things that come strictly from the Boulder police department.  When a cop in the house that day says she knew JR was guilty immediately when she looked him in the eyes, and then counted the people in the room to determine if she had enough bullets in her gun to shoot her way out, all credibility is gone.  I also dismiss all the helpful people who say they live in Boulder, state the entire city knows the Ramseys did it, and have connections within the Boulder police department who've filled them in on the case, but this poster can't divulge facts.  As if a population of 100,000 has proof of the Ramseys guilt, yet not one of them has ever come forward to spill.  This is a conspiracy of an unheard of level.

@Ghoulina, it sure looks like I'm coming at you and preaching, which is not my intention.  I wanted to answer your question, but got caught up in elaborating on my thoughts of the case.  Only the top two paragraphs are in response to your post.

[ghoulina]

3 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

I also believe those pediatrician visits you mention regarding vaginosis are incorrect, but repeated for years.   Not to muddy the waters with numbers that I'm not backing up by a link, but it's been said that in those many pediatrician visits,  only three to four were regarding vaginosis. 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post. I didn't mean that all 27 visits were for vaginosis. But that she had had several cases of vaginosis included in that. I do think that 27 visits in 3 years, regardless of the reason, is a lot. I also read somewhere that PR placed 3 calls within an hour to the pediatrician about a week before Christmas. And when questioned about it, she claimed she couldn't remember why. 

I've read a lot over the years too and forgot more than I remember, so no worries there. But I thought the molestation conclusions originated with the coroner and was backed up by another doctor who read his findings. They did say there is no way to tell how many times and for how long it had been going on. But there was something that made them believe it had happened prior to that night. Something about the hymen being damaged and then regrowing a bit? I'm probably getting that wrong. 

As to the rest of your post, I totally didn't think you were coming at me! I firmly respect all opinions and am always open to learning things I didn't know. I have a tendency to get carried away with this topic. There's so much to it and many different factors to consider. 

Re the 911 call, I hadn't heard that from the FBI, but I also recall reading that the transcripts show PR saying something like, "We're not talking to you". That sounds, to me, like her speaking to BR and the "we" is PR/JR. 

I just feel like there are so many inconsistencies. Was Burke up before the 911 call or woken later? Did they carry sleeping JB into the house or (as BR said) did she walk in on her own? It seems to me like they were hiding something. 

[RedheadZombie]

9 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post. I didn't mean that all 27 visits were for vaginosis. But that she had had several cases of vaginosis included in that. I do think that 27 visits in 3 years, regardless of the reason, is a lot. I also read somewhere that PR placed 3 calls within an hour to the pediatrician about a week before Christmas. And when questioned about it, she claimed she couldn't remember why. 

I've read a lot over the years too and forgot more than I remember, so no worries there. But I thought the molestation conclusions originated with the coroner and was backed up by another doctor who read his findings. They did say there is no way to tell how many times and for how long it had been going on. But there was something that made them believe it had happened prior to that night. Something about the hymen being damaged and then regrowing a bit? I'm probably getting that wrong. 

As to the rest of your post, I totally didn't think you were coming at me! I firmly respect all opinions and am always open to learning things I didn't know. I have a tendency to get carried away with this topic. There's so much to it and many different factors to consider. 

Re the 911 call, I hadn't heard that from the FBI, but I also recall reading that the transcripts show PR saying something like, "We're not talking to you". That sounds, to me, like her speaking to BR and the "we" is PR/JR. 

I just feel like there are so many inconsistencies. Was Burke up before the 911 call or woken later? Did they carry sleeping JB into the house or (as BR said) did she walk in on her own? It seems to me like they were hiding something. 

It's increasingly hard to parse through all the contradicting "evidence" out there, in part because fallacies have been repeated so many times that they're repeated as facts (similar to Amanda Knox).  But some things seem to effortlessly fit together.  For instance, Burke's description of Patsy breathlessly bursting in his room, exclaiming "oh gosh, oh gosh",  is exactly how she was on the 911 call - frantic, manic, unfocused.  Why even go through the farce of entering Burke's room while covering up the crime?  On another thread someone suggested Patsy was looking for the duct tape to use on Jon Benet, but that just strikes me as ludicrous.

Also, some things look guilty if you think they're guilty, but seem more innocent if you believe they're innocent.  Like JR "pointing the finger" at his friends.  Well if JR knows his family didn't kill JB, he sure knows someone else did, and he wants them to be caught.  The police were asking him to tell them anything, no matter how small, and he was.  The "fleeing" from Boulder is bizarre at first glance.  But I *think* the Ramseys simply wanted to return to their home in Atlanta.  They seemed to think of it as their true home, as they chose to bury JB here, followed by Patsy.  So if your child has just been killed, you will need to vacate your home for CSI, there's a turf war between the locals and FBI, and you don't know who the killer is and fear your other child is possibly in danger, going "home" makes perfect sense to me.  Most of us don't have the resources and multiple homes to do this type of thing, but for people who can easily arrange private planes to jet back and forth across the US, going to another state is just a couple of hours journey.   And I imagine they were getting bad juju vibes from the locals.  I mean a cop who's clutching her gun to kill her way out of your house surely looked like a bug-eyed lunatic.  Then there were those who thought it more natural for a father to find his child bound and gagged, and simply back quietly out of the room and summon CSI.  Any parent, even the worst kind of parent, is going to instinctively rip that tape off her mouth and embrace her.  It doesn't make sense, but even after the child is dead, parents often worry that they're cold and need comforting.  I found this some of the most compelling evidence of their innocence.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

my little cousin managed to jump up while playing with a baton and impale herself,

I could have happily lived the rest of my life without knowing that this was a thing that could happen.

[BitterApple]

How closely were the Ramseys' friends and associates looked at by police? I know the detective on the Dateline special said they cleared everyone, but I wonder if they only did cursory checks figuring the evidence would eventually confirm the parents as the killers anyways.

The note being written in the house is what's throwing me off. I don't think a random stranger would dick around inside a 5,000 sq. ft. home looking for pens and paper because he forgot to bring a ransom note. He'd have no way of knowing when the family would return or whether the housekeeper would be around in their absence etc. If we're going with the Intruder theory, it had to have been someone who was familiar with the layout and the family's routines. It's just way too much of a risk otherwise.

[ghoulina]

I agree. While I don't think it was an intruder, if it was - it HAD to have been someone close to the family. Someone very close. Someone who knew when they'd be coming and going, and was familiar with the layout of their house. If you look at images of the floor pan, it's like a damned rabbit burrow. There is no sense to that house, it's all mazes and rooms off of other rooms. The wine cellar, I believe, would be very hard to just randomly stumble on in the dark, if you didn't know where you were going. 

And yes, the ransom note was done on sight and insanely long. Not something you'd risk unless you were certain you wouldn't be caught. (Side note - I also find it interesting that JB is mentioned 14 times in the note, but never by name, To me, that smacks of someone trying to distance themselves emotionally from the child.)

[iMonrey]

The problem with this particular special is that it was entirely biased and one-sided. They never interviewed anyone in the Boulder PD who actually investigated the case. They never spoke with anyone who didn't support the intruder theory. They glossed over or omitted any evidence that worked against the Ramseys. Worse, they presented theories as though they were concrete facts and depicted various pieces of evidence as "proof" of the Ramsey's innocence. No. Certainly there is evidence that suggests an intruder, but nothing proves anything one way or another. There are just as many "experts" who have the opposite opinions about the same pieces of evidence. In the end it all comes down to which side you believe. 

[WicketyWack]

This second installment was hard for me to watch. More so than the first, I felt horribly sorry for Burke. I don't think he did it and I don't think he knows who did it. I could practically feel chronic anxiety coming off him in waves through the screen. If he and his family are truly innocent (and after nearly 20 years of being obsessed with this case, I have arrived at the conclusion that they are) ... what happened to all 3 of them after losing JonBenet is beyond traumatic. Burke struck me as someone who has lived with intense public pressure, scrutiny and scorn that none of us could possibly relate to. I think it has affected him in ways we can't even imagine. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by WicketyWack
Whoops guys: posted in the wrong JonBenet thread. Meh, i guess it's all the same?

[Jellybeans]

I feel terrible for Burke as well.  He not only lost his sister under horrible circumstances, he lost his parents as he used to know them.

[Guest]

There's a theory that the intruder tased her to silence her temporarily, took her to the basement, bound her and then placed her in the suitcase. The way the window well is shaped, it was impossible for him to lift himself and the suitcase out.

Right, but the suitcase was still an afterthought since it was already in the house, not something the intruder would have brought with him as part of a plan. And why would the intruder bring a body (living or dead) to a basement and attempt to flee that way? That makes no sense. Sure, he could have tried to get out that way - but with an unconscious/dead 65-lb child he has to foist up and attempt to pass through a small window? Doesn't make any sense to me. I just don't see any kind of criminal not going to the scene of a crime and not bringing his own weapons or tools, save for the (alleged) stun gun. 

so someone could have slipped away and hidden.

True. But wouldn't that person have left fingerprints somewhere? On the toilet he flushed? On the doorknobs he turned? On the plates he put food on? Why take the chance someone would find him loitering around the house? I know it's not unheard of, it's just taking too many leaps of logic to think this was actually the case here. 

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, Jellybeans said:

I feel terrible for Burke as well.  He not only lost his sister under horrible circumstances, he lost his parents as he used to know them.

Yeah, he's definitely had a rough road. Not only did JonBenet overshadow him in life, but she overshadowed him in death as well. It's amazing that he's doing as well as he is and didn't completely go off the rails.

[GaT]

6 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

True. But wouldn't that person have left fingerprints somewhere? On the toilet he flushed? On the doorknobs he turned? 

In the third part of JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery they talked about a guy that the Ramsey family knew that everyone called Santa Bill because he had a white beard & hair like Santa & used to portray him. He was well known to JonBenet & when they were talking about him, all I could think about were the white gloves that Santa Claus is always shown wearing, he wouldn't leave fingerprints anywhere. Since it was also Christmas eve, JonBenet would have thought that he should be there & probably wouldn't have been at all alarmed by him.

[Guest]

True. But Santa Bill looked like he could barely fasten his velcro sneakers without losing his breath. I can't imagine him shimmying in and out of that basement window -- particularly if he was attempting to carry out a suitcase filled with a dead body. 

The guy was a creepster, for sure. But I don't see him loitering around the house in wait -- particularly on Christmas Eve when he was probably busy imitating Santa Claus for someone else. At the very least, his wife would have surely noticed his absence I suspect? 

[ghoulina]

I agree. Santa Bill was creepy and a good possibility, but would he know their house that well? I am RDI (lean towards BDI), but IF I agree it was an intruder, it HAS to have been someone who knew that house well. I would look in the direction of the housekeeper before a guy that only comes around at Christmas. 

[GaT]

2 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I agree. Santa Bill was creepy and a good possibility, but would he know their house that well?

He was at the house for a party on the 23rd, he could have wandered around & found everything then. If anyone saw him wandering through the house he could have just said he was looking for the bathroom. He could have also gotten the paper to write the note then. And the fact that his own daughter was kidnapped 22 years earlier to the day & his wife wrote a play about a girl who gets molested & murdered in her basement definitely seems suspicious to me. I know they cleared him by DNA, but damn.

[zxy556575]

Did JonBenet really weigh 65 pounds? That's high for a six-year old female.

This site claims to quote from the autopsy report: "The unembalmed, well developed nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds."

[Guest]

Oh, oops! Thanks -- didn't mean to add 20 pounds on her. But I still don't see anyone attempting to foist even 45-lbs of literal dead weight (stuffed into a suitcase) through an overhead window. Particularly if they needed the suitcase to help foist themselves out the window in the process.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Guest

[ghoulina]

10 hours ago, GaT said:

He was at the house for a party on the 23rd, he could have wandered around & found everything then. If anyone saw him wandering through the house he could have just said he was looking for the bathroom. He could have also gotten the paper to write the note then. And the fact that his own daughter was kidnapped 22 years earlier to the day & his wife wrote a play about a girl who gets molested & murdered in her basement definitely seems suspicious to me. I know they cleared him by DNA, but damn.

You're right, and I actually saw on one of the shows I was watching last night (there are so many saved on my DVR, I'm losing track!) that Jon Benet actually gave him a tour, including the basement. Clearing someone by DNA means nothing to me in this case, because of how heavily trafficked the house was, how many things were bungled, etc. If I did concede that it was an intruder, he actually looks like the most likely suspect. 

 

There's still so much about the Ramseys that bug, though. I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies  close to you" interview and I never noticed before, but John is clearly mouthing those words to Patsy. So it was obviously rehearsed. Their behavior was just odd. I get want to protect yourself when LE is clearly targeting you, but they seemed to not want to help in the case at all. The neighbor lady that was on one of the documentaries stated that friends were also told not to talk to the cops, and SHE was personally shunned because she did. 

[Whimsy]

2 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies  close to you" interview and I never noticed before, but John is clearly mouthing those words to Patsy.

I heard him say something like "it's ok" to Patsy as she was saying this.  I don't think he was mouthing the words, just comforting her.

I honestly am so confused by this case.  I am much more in the RDI (or BDI) camp, though.  I don't give one iota of credence to that DNA.  The cops bungled so much of the scene and evidence that I think that it was someone else's DNA through contamination.  I don't have anything to substantiate my suspicion, but I just find it hard to trust anything with the way this case was handled from the start.  Did they say WHAT the DNA on her underwear was?  Did they specifically say semen?  Because if it's something else, I stand by my contamination theory.  If it's semen, obviously that's gross, and I will reconsider.

I also have such a hard time, as a parent of two daughters, thinking of any parent trying to cover up whatever happened the way they did (if they did it).  But, unfortunately, I've seen so many horrific things done to children at their parent's hands over the years that I can't dismiss it as a possibility.  If they were covering for Burke and thinking that it was either lose two children or just lose one and try to help the 2nd, I would not be surprised if they picked the latter choice.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies  close to you" interview

i just can't with that interview. That fake ass, dry-eyed "crying" would have received a D+ in a free community college acting class. 

[Jellybeans]

2 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

i just can't with that interview. That fake ass, dry-eyed "crying" would have received a D+ in a free community college acting class. 

Did you know that many grieving parents cry without tears?  I even laughed inappropriately during my daughter's wake.  Thank God it wasn't televised.  I am still traumatized, and when I hear people talking about how someone is acting about their own child's death I am .... well, shocked.

This is not directed to you- it is something I have seen come up often about Patsy's behavior and interview demeanor.

[Pollock]

2 hours ago, GenL said:

Did they say WHAT the DNA on her underwear was?  Did they specifically say semen?  Because if it's something else, I stand by my contamination theory.  If it's semen, obviously that's gross, and I will reconsider.

They collected "touch DNA" aka skin cells mostly.
No semen was found.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence

No Semen on Body, Panties or Clothing. Vaginal, oral and anal swabs were obtained from JBR's body, but "according to examinations conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey (Byfield 1997:4).

No Seminal Fluid. "No seminal fluid has been discovered either" (Nagel 1997)

No Semen on Thighs. "Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie).

[stormy]

In California an unsolved double murder case from 1973 was reported solved this week with DNA testing that wasn't around back then.

The 27 year old kidnapping and murder of Jacob Wetterling was recently solved with DNA testing again that was unavailable in 1989.

I still think this case can be solved if the right investigators have the passion to make sure justice is served.

Edited September 16, 2016 by stormy

[glowlights]

On 9/10/2016 at 7:10 PM, WicketyWack said:

Yes, the thing about the pineapple is that it would have created a timeline: according to police, the parents said JonBenet didn't eat pineapple after they came back from the party --> pineapple was found in her small intestine --> i.e.the parents are lying.

Here's a screen grab from the #NeverBeforeSeenDocuments that show the pineapple doesn't create as accurate a timeline as all that: 

But the thing is, the crab meat that was served at the party earlier in the evening was found lower in her intestines, meaning the pineapple had been ingested later that night. And now I will have to go find the source for that! Argh.

On 9/13/2016 at 8:49 AM, ghoulina said:

I don't know that I'd call the Ramseys "rational parents". Patsty was dying a 6-year-old's hair. John Ramey was scheduling a flight to ATL just a half hour after finding his daughter dead. And I firmly believe that SOMEONE in that house was sexually abusing JB prior to the murder. Autopsy findings had her hymen barely being present. I think the lead doctor on the case concluded "prior sexual abuse with a recent injury". I just don't see them as this normal, loving, down to earth family. 

The more I read about them, the weirder and less rational they come across. True, we all would look a bit weird if put under scrutiny (er, maybe I should speak for myself on that?) but there is just so much in this story. Patsy and John were play-acting some nouveau riche fantasy of private planes, fancy homes, over-the-top Christmas decor, etc. A high emphasis on appearances. Meanwhile Patsy is dolling her daughter up like a saloon madame and putting her in trashy pageants, the home is in disrepair, both children have behavioral problems (chronic bed wetting with JonBenet, Burke has "issues"), etc. The children's safety is of little concern. JonBenet has been doing public appearances where she is attracting attention but the parents can't be bothered to use the alarm system. John breaks in through the basement window and then just leaves it that way for anyone else to enter instead of calling a handyman like any SANE parent/homeowner. Patsy is using plastic bags for luggage. Talk about the Beverly Hillbillies!

5 hours ago, ghoulina said:

There's still so much about the Ramseys that bug, though. I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies  close to you" interview and I never noticed before, but John is clearly mouthing those words to Patsy. So it was obviously rehearsed. Their behavior was just odd. I get want to protect yourself when LE is clearly targeting you, but they seemed to not want to help in the case at all. The neighbor lady that was on one of the documentaries stated that friends were also told not to talk to the cops, and SHE was personally shunned because she did. 

Yes! I noticed the same thing and had to rewind the DVR to watch it twice. She stumbles on the line and John feeds it to her. She appeared to be highly sedated so it's natural she would slur or have trouble getting her words out, but there's John prompting her with the exact line. Was John a control freak? Patsy said she was packing for the trip with plastic bags because John didn't like their hard-sided luggage. Um, excuse me but if John didn't like their luggage why didn't he get his ass to a fuckin' Samsonite store and buy something else, or deal with the "wrong" luggage like a big boy. Instead his wife is reduced to using plastic bags. That sort of pings for me.

1 hour ago, Jellybeans said:

Did you know that many grieving parents cry without tears?  I even laughed inappropriately during my daughter's wake.  Thank God it wasn't televised.  I am still traumatized, and when I hear people talking about how someone is acting about their own child's death I am .... well, shocked.This is not directed to you- it is something I have seen come up often about Patsy's behavior and interview demeanor.

I am so sorry for your loss. :(

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jellybeans said:

Did you know that many grieving parents cry without tears?  I even laughed inappropriately during my daughter's wake.  Thank God it wasn't televised.  I am still traumatized, and when I hear people talking about how someone is acting about their own child's death I am .... well, shocked.

I'm sorry for your loss. I was thinking of other mothers like Susan Smith who also "cried" during a press conference over her abducted children. It later turned out she drowned them in her own car. I got the same phony playing-for-the-cameras-grief vibe from Patsy Ramsey.

[Court]

I'm no fan of Patsy but she was also heavily sedated during those interviews. They hired a media relations firm pretty quickly so I'm sure they practiced the lines beforehand. 

The DNA only used 4 markers instead of 13 which is the standard. A&E left this out. 

That makes it more difficult to identify or exclude someone. It's also not that reliable.

[ghoulina]

6 hours ago, GenL said:

I heard him say something like "it's ok" to Patsy as she was saying this.  I don't think he was mouthing the words, just comforting her.

MMV, but I rewound several times and I saw him mouth "keep your babies close". It was very clear, to me. Once I noticed it, it became so obvious I was surprised I never saw it before. I guess I was always focusing on her. 

[andromeda331]

13 hours ago, GenL said:

I heard him say something like "it's ok" to Patsy as she was saying this.  I don't think he was mouthing the words, just comforting her.

I honestly am so confused by this case.  I am much more in the RDI (or BDI) camp, though.  I don't give one iota of credence to that DNA.  The cops bungled so much of the scene and evidence that I think that it was someone else's DNA through contamination.  I don't have anything to substantiate my suspicion, but I just find it hard to trust anything with the way this case was handled from the start.  Did they say WHAT the DNA on her underwear was?  Did they specifically say semen?  Because if it's something else, I stand by my contamination theory.  If it's semen, obviously that's gross, and I will reconsider.

I also have such a hard time, as a parent of two daughters, thinking of any parent trying to cover up whatever happened the way they did (if they did it).  But, unfortunately, I've seen so many horrific things done to children at their parent's hands over the years that I can't dismiss it as a possibility.  If they were covering for Burke and thinking that it was either lose two children or just lose one and try to help the 2nd, I would not be surprised if they picked the latter choice.

This is pretty much where I am. The Boulder police didn't secure the crime scene.  That was their biggest mistake. Because they didn't do that it doesn't matter what evidence they have. They could have great DNA from the murderer whether it was an intruder, family friend or family member. Because they didn't secure the house and search it properly it doesn't matter. The family can easily explain their fingerprints and DNA because they lived their, family friend they visited during the holidays and intruder they came on that Christmas house visit. They also didn't rule out creepy Santa. Even if they think its the parents, you still check other people who may have come in contact with JonBenet if only so that later when when asked about it they can say they checked him out leaving the jury to wonder why didn't at least one detective or officer follow up on Santa? Both of those make it really hard to believe the Boulder police.  The evidence they do have doesn't rule out anyone completely.

But I don't believe the Ramseys either. Yes, everyone grieves differently when they lose a child. But nothing they did really rules them out either. Why didn't John remember that little room sooner? Didn't they search the house? Even if you have a random note don't you still search the entire house? How is it no one looked in that room until he remembered it?  Why didn't John fix the window after he broke in? What about the alarm off? Why was the ransom note and other stuff from things in the house? If the intruder or who ever did all that to their daughter in the house? Why didn't someone hear something? Why did they stop talking to the police? Everyone knows the first suspects are going to be the parents' so why not cooperate and get the questions and cleared so they can focus on other people? Why weren't they all over the police department to find out what happened to their daughter? If your daughter's been murdered and you don't trust the detective assigned to the case why not try get the FBI involved and/or hirer a private detective? Or both? The Ramseys have all of this money, but as others' have pointed out they don't spend any of it to find out who murdered their daughter, in their house?  They don't use their wealth and connections or whatever to get someone involved in their daughter's case? We've seen people with less money do more to find out what happened to their child. Fliers, rewards, phone numbers to call, harassing the police department, doing interviews, etc. But John and Patsy Ramsey do nothing. Then move to Altanta where they still don't do anything proactive to find out what happened to their daughter.

Edited September 17, 2016 by andromeda331

[Pollock]

9 hours ago, stormy said:

In California an unsolved double murder case from 1973 was reported solved this week with DNA testing that wasn't around back then.

The 27 year old kidnapping and murder of Jacob Wetterling was recently solved with DNA testing again that was unavailable in 1989.

I still think this case can be solved if the right investigators have the passion to make sure justice is served.

I really hope so. Because there was also some DNA of an unknown male found and not only the touch DNA on her leggings and panties. She had some DNA of a male under her fingernails. It wasn't the same as the leggings and panties if I'm not confused in my readings. So there's that. I tend to believe that the more reliable one would be the DNA from the fingernails but it seems, after falling asleep in the car, JonBenét was put to bed directly after coming back home (I haven't read yet all the transcripts of the Ramsey's interviews so I could be mistaken but it's the version I saw most related on the two sites providing a chronology of the events), so she probably didn't take a bath, so the DNA could come from a random male at the party, even if more than 60 people were cleared and I imagine the police did tests on the guests. 

 

15 hours ago, ghoulina said:

There's still so much about the Ramseys that bug, though. I saw a clip of that "Keep your babies  close to you" interview and I never noticed before, but John is clearly mouthing those words to Patsy. So it was obviously rehearsed. Their behavior was just odd. I get want to protect yourself when LE is clearly targeting you, but they seemed to not want to help in the case at all. The neighbor lady that was on one of the documentaries stated that friends were also told not to talk to the cops, and SHE was personally shunned because she did. 

They did help :
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682485/John and Patsy Ramsey#EarlyCooperation
Specific Evidence
Early Cooperation
Ramseys Questioned Early. Judge Carnes notes that BPD "did, however, question defendants jointly at various times on December 26, 27 and 28, and, soon thereafter, began to focus the investigation on defendants as the main subjects. (SMF PP 54, 71-72; PSMF PP 54, 71-72.)" (Carnes 2003:31).
Extensive Forensic Evidence Provided. "During the course of the investigation, defendants signed over one hundred releases for information requested by the police, and provided all evidence and information requested by the police. (SMF P 61; PSMF 61.)(Carnes 2003:32).
Handwriting Samples Provided Early. "Upon request, within days after the murder and in the months that followed, defendants provided the police with historical handwriting samples and supervised written exemplars. (SMF P 55; PSMF P 55.) Defendants also gave hair, including pubic hair, and DNA samples to the police. (SMF P 56, 60; PSMF P 56, 60.) Despite widespread criticism that defendants failed to cooperate in the murder investigation, defendants note that they agreed, on at least three occasions, to be interviewed separately by representatives of the police or the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. (SMF P 62; PSMF P 62.)" (Carnes 2003:32).
 
Parents Endured Tough Questions
42 Hours of Questioning. The parents endured very tough questioning by law enforcement. The June 1998 interviews "conducted by veteran homicide detectives from other cities, went on for 42 hours." (Glick et al. 1998).
Interrogators Sought to Break Ramseys Down. "At times, the questioning was rough, as the interrogators tried to break the Ramseys down. Hunter and his staff stood by in a nearby room, watching the proceedings on a bank of closed-circuit monitors." (Glick et al. 1998).

Furthermore, we saw Burke being interviewed by the police in 1996 too. Patsy Ramsey gave 5 times, (from december to may 97) handwriting samples. 
The only thing they postponed as long as they could was the interviews AS SUSPECTS. They got interviewed in april 97 for the first time AFTER the DA said formally to the press for the first time there were suspects. http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm Here, you can find transcripts of those interviews.

It's a totally different approche that going in as a witness and their friend, the lawyer, who took it upon himself and said to the police that they wouldn't answer anymore without a lawyer was right to do just that. And the Ramseys were right to lawyer up as soon as they did. And if I get the urge to help and say everything you can to do just that, as a parent of a murdered little girl you are indeed the first suspect. Two days in, they were the focus of the investigation. Innocent or guilty, if it has been me, I would have put in my corner everything I could to fuck with the police on that matter, especially innocent come to think of it, because my only answer would be WTF ARE YOU DOING TALKING TO ME WHEN THE MAN WHO KILLED MY DAUGHTER IS OUT THERE?? anyway, for 42 hours. And except from shouting that like a banshee until the end of time, you wouldn't have obtain nothing more from me. There is enough reports of innocent people in prison to make sure my other children won't go visit me in jail after having to burry their sister.

 

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

But I don't believe the Ramseys either. Yes, everyone grieves differently when they lose a child. But nothing they did really rules them out either. Why didn't John remember that little room sooner? Didn't they search the house? Even if you have a random note don't you still search the entire house? How is it no one looked in that room until he remembered it?  Why didn't John fix the window after he broke in? What about the alarm off? Why was the random not and other stuff from things in the house? If the intruder or who ever did all that to their daughter in the house? Why didn't someone hear something? Why did they stop talking to the police? Everyone knows the first suspects are going to be the parents' so why not cooperate and get the questions and cleared so they can focus on other people? Why weren't they all over the police department to find out what happened to their daughter? If your daughter's been murdered and you don't trust the detective assigned to the case why not try get the FBI involved and/or hirer a private detective? Or both? The Ramseys have all of this money, but as others' have pointed out they don't spend any of it to find out who murdered their daughter, in their house?  They don't use their wealth and connections or whatever to get someone involved in their daughter's case? We've seen people with less money do more to find out what happened to their child. Fliers, rewards, phone numbers to call, harassing the police department, doing interviews, etc. But John and Patsy Ramsey do nothing. Then move to Altanta where they still don't do anything proactive to find out what happened to their daughter.

Bolded is mine.
To my knowledge, it wasn't the FBI's jurisdiction was it? Didn't it ceased to be their job the second they found JonBenét? So even if the parents ask them for help, wouldn't the answer be no because legally they can't answer anything else? Real question, I'm really confused by the jurisdictions in the US. 

Same source : http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682489/Key Events in the Investigation

January

1-1-97 Ramseys CNN Appearance. Ramseys appear on CNN, confirming that John and Patsy each have hired an attorney and that John also hired a private investigator (Zaret 1997).

1-2-97 Ramseys Return to Boulder. (Daily Times-Call); they stayed with Mike Bynum.

1-3-97 Ramseys Hire Private Detective. "The Ramseys have reportedly hired Denver private investigator Ellis Armistead, a former Lakewood police detective and the former chief investigator for the Routt County District Attorney's Office" (Daily Times-Call); Ramseys stayed with Mike Bynum.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/01/18-1.html
states that with Ellis Armistead (who quit the team in 2000 I think) they also hired another one : a guy named Williams "Williams has been a private investigator for nearly 20 years. Prior to that he spent five years on the Colorado Organized Crime Strike Force".
Also, they put ads in the press and offered a reward : http://www.acandyrose.com/s-ramsey-ad-flyers.htm This also caused controversy. Damn if you do, damn you don't I guess...


Again, I want to stress that I'm not saying they didn't do it, or Burke didn't do it, or Santa, or Random Pedo who watches padgeants, I'm not defending anyone, I'm team no one, I don't have a definitive theory of the crime, I'm a virgin on this case, I have no idea just with the facts, and only things we know for facts, not speculations or distorted facts (with that much time, it's only natural to forget or reconstruct facts, we aren't infaillible) and to help the conversation, I'm just trying to provide sources because I had to much time in my hands this week and I read a lot so it's really fresh in my mind, if not clear! 

[Court]

You're correct. It was the FBI's jurisdiction when it was a kidnapping. Tbr FBI let everyone in and traipse over the place. The police made plenty of mistakes but that one is on the FBI.

Once it was a homicide, it became BPD, the local jurisdiction. The FBI guy said bye, this is your problem and you have a contaminated crime scene.

In regards to the DNA, it's highly possible that it wouldn't even be allowed in trial since they only used 4 markers when 13 is the standard. If allowed, the defense would say it is unreliable because of the contamination and the above.

I don't have a problem with them getting a lawyer. They also hired a media relations firm. The police had more questions and they did a TV interview instead which their lawyer had no clue about! He said he would have advised against it had he known. That's odd to me. 

They did refuse to speak to the police after obtaining the lawyer and said they would only answer written questions submitted through the lawyer and then he would return them.

Also, after Lou Smit resigned, he went to work (unpaid) for the Ramsey's on the case. This was seen as unethical by many considering his knowledge of the case and access to the records. The Ranseys were still under investigation and it's speculated he shared confidential information with them.

[Pollock]

Thanks Court, for the clarification about jurisdictions, I appreciate! 

The PR hiring is indeed a super bad move. I don't even get why the PR firm wouldn't say to them: "that's a bad move to hire us, that won't fly well with the public". I guess they were really bad at their job!

[cynicat]

We may never know, and the Jon Benet case will likely end up alongside Jack the Ripper of never being solved.  That being said, I think I'm more and more leaning towards Santa Bill as the killer.  For me, it fits on many levels, but others feel the same way about other theories.  So frustrating and sad.  Regardless, every time I hear about this case all I can wonder is: who could possibly do this to another human being, let alone a beautiful little child?

[glowlights]

My understanding is that the FBI did not take jurisdiction, one of their agents consulted with the BPD. And that agent did not believe it was a kidnapping. He told them from the start they were looking at a murder. Which is probably why the FBI left it with BPD.

ETA I was mainly wrong. The FBI briefly took co-jurisdiction but that was after BPD was already well into screwing up the scene. An agent went to the house for a quick visit before the body was discovered but he did not kick everyone out, so yes maybe they should take some responsibility too. When the body was found an agent told the BPD "look at the parents". I can't find the quote where they never thought it was really a kidnapping so maybe I made that up in my head. And now I will go outside and get a life.

Edited September 17, 2016 by glowlights

[Court]

Interesting! I'd like to know why the FBI didn't believe it was a kidnapping from the start. 

[BitterApple]

30 minutes ago, Court said:

Interesting! I'd like to know why the FBI didn't believe it was a kidnapping from the start. 

I can't remember the details of the FBI agent's Dateline interview, but the vibe I got was that he thought the parents did it. He said something along the lines that he knew the kidnapping was staged by looking at the scene. 

*if anyone remembers differently, please feel free to correct me

[WicketyWack]

23 hours ago, Pollock said:

Thanks Court, for the clarification about jurisdictions, I appreciate! 

The PR hiring is indeed a super bad move. I don't even get why the PR firm wouldn't say to them: "that's a bad move to hire us, that won't fly well with the public". I guess they were really bad at their job!

Because the #1 job of *any* business is (A) to get more business for itself.

Any PR firm that specializes in crisis management would LOVE to have John and Patsy Ramsey as clients ... what better way to advertise your business than to have the entire world know that these people had the money to hire literally anyone else in the world and they chose YOU? If someone in a PR firm tried to tell John and Patsy Ramsey to take their super high-profile business elsewhere, that person would be fired, and for good reason. 

"Providing excellent client service" is a function of many businesses but that is (B). It might and should lead to (A), if the business is ethical, but let's not forget that (A) is the primary goal in EVERY business out there.

John Ramsey was tipped off by a law enforcement insider that he and Patsy were being targeted from day one and that he should lawyer up and he did. And it was SMART of him to do so. The attorney, *I presume*, suggested they hire a PR firm because the Ramseys let's face it were WEIRD. They were never going to play well with the public and they needed help and they hired it. SMART.

If you truly think the Ramseys did it, then you also have to acknowledge that they did not spend one second behind bars.

So I would say that hiring attorneys and a PR firm right off the bat was pretty damn smart.

[WicketyWack]

On 9/16/2016 at 11:25 AM, Jellybeans said:

Did you know that many grieving parents cry without tears?  I even laughed inappropriately during my daughter's wake.  Thank God it wasn't televised.  I am still traumatized, and when I hear people talking about how someone is acting about their own child's death I am .... well, shocked.

This is not directed to you- it is something I have seen come up often about Patsy's behavior and interview demeanor.

I lost a child too. My infant son died suddenly and unexpectedly. I didn't react in the way I would have thought a "normal mother" would react to her baby's death. I went into a crazy state of shock. For 3 days after he died, I didn't cry. I was numb. I was polite. I was distant. It felt like I was standing outside of my body watching it be controlled by someone else. Everyone told me later that my behavior creeped them out more than anything. I learned later this is not unusual in situations like this, but it was BIZARRE for me. Had my son died under mysterious circumstances, I know now that I would have been the primary suspect, partly based on my behavior, and that thought terrifies me to this day. 

So, I will say that "behavior of grieving parent" is not ever a "clue" or a "tell" in my book. Not even close.

[Jellybeans]

6 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

I lost a child too. My infant son died suddenly and unexpectedly. I didn't react in the way I would have thought a "normal mother" would react to her baby's death. I went into a crazy state of shock. For 3 days after he died, I didn't cry. I was numb. I was polite. I was distant. It felt like I was standing outside of my body watching it be controlled by someone else. Everyone told me later that my behavior creeped them out more than anything. I learned later this is not unusual in situations like this, but it was BIZARRE for me. Had my son died under mysterious circumstances, I know now that I would have been the primary suspect, partly based on my behavior, and that thought terrifies me to this day. 

So, I will say that "behavior of grieving parent" is not ever a "clue" or a "tell" in my book. Not even close.

I am sorry about the loss of your child. No parent should have to endure such a horror.  Like you, I did not cry.  It took me a year to cry and I was very, very close to my daughter.  Now, crying is the norm.

I agree, trying to judge the behavior of a grieving parent is never a clue.  Never.   

[FormerMod-a1]

Being in a state of shock and being numb seems quite normal to me.  I never heard about the crying without tears being common, though, do you have a source?  A study or article?  I don't doubt it, but I personally haven't seen it.  And, unfortunately, I have experienced a lot of loss, from an early age.  I've seen the numb and no crying, I've seen endlessly weeping.  I've even seen people looking like nothing has happened, not just numb, but acting like it's any other day, and so on.  So I do know everyone is different and it wouldn't surprise me for some to have no tears when crying.  However, it seems a bit much to say it's so common that "many" do not have tears.  Unless by many you mean "some"?  

ETA: Also, the psych major in me would love to read up more on it but I tried a google search and didn't find anything.  So I need a little help finding the info.  Thanks.

[TattleTeeny]

I'm so sorry, WicketyWack & Jellybeans.

[BitterApple]

11 hours ago, WicketyWack said:

 

John Ramsey was tipped off by a law enforcement insider that he and Patsy were being targeted from day one and that he should lawyer up and he did. And it was SMART of him to do so. The attorney, *I presume*, suggested they hire a PR firm because the Ramseys let's face it were WEIRD. They were never going to play well with the public and they needed help and they hired it. SMART.

Absolutely. You had a somewhat cold, unemotional father and a flighty Southern Belle trophy wife who was tarting her six year-old up like a hooker and bleaching her hair. That dynamic alone would give the best defense attorney a bleeding ulcer. Throw in the Ramsey's lifestyle and one percenter status and it's no wonder they hired a PR firm to make them more appealing to the masses.

Edited September 18, 2016 by BitterApple

[glowlights]

18 hours ago, Court said:

Interesting! I'd like to know why the FBI didn't believe it was a kidnapping from the start. 

Well like I said I might have made that part up, aka conflated two statements. But as soon as the body was found and the FBI stepped down, an agent told the cops "look at the family". Because the majority of kids who are killed are killed by their family, so it only makes sense to start there and move outward. Especially since she was found dead in their own basement and the ransom note was obviously fake.

[TattleTeeny]

Seriously, it is so hard not to conflate info with this case!

[annzeepark914]

I watched the show tonight (wasn't going to but got curious) and found it interesting.  At least Lou Smits wasn't on (the retired cop who prayed with John and Patsy!).  It looks like they're focusing on Burke.  It'll be interesting to see how they handle their accusation of the murderer on tomorrow's show.

[glowlights]

13 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

I watched the show tonight (wasn't going to but got curious) and found it interesting.  At least Lou Smits wasn't on (the retired cop who prayed with John and Patsy!).  It looks like they're focusing on Burke.  It'll be interesting to see how they handle their accusation of the murderer on tomorrow's show.

The Ramsey attorney has been on a little Twitter rampage. Among other things, he said CBS has been warned the Ramseys will sue if Burke is accused. I suspect CBS knows a thing or two about what they can and cannot air, legally speaking.