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

[Tara Ariano]

Quote

Key evidence and information in the 1996 murder of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey sheds new light on who may have been responsible for the crime; John Ramsey discusses his daughter's death in a sit-down interview.

Premieres Monday, September 5, at 9 PM ET on A&E.

[Guest]

Wow. They should have called this one, "The Exoneration of John and Patsy Ramsey." 

The narrator's condescending tone and the awful, sensationalistic script are way over the top. I get that this show has a POV, and one that I don't necessarily agree with, but Jesus. Dial back the hyperbole to 11 people. 

[TattleTeeny]

The Boulder police's bellyaching over that window grate makes me nuts every time I see it rehashed. 

[Court]

3 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Wow. They should have called this one, "The Exoneration of John and Patsy Ramsey." 

The narrator's condescending tone and the awful, sensationalistic script are way over the top. I get that this show has a POV, and one that I don't necessarily agree with, but Jesus. Dial back the hyperbole to 11 people. 

I felt this way during the short preview I watched. I don't think I can make it through a whole show. 

The parents know what happened or were involved in some way. Too many coincidences.

[Luckylyn]

I really appreciate the DA's office refusal to prosecute the Ramsey's despite the pressure from the police, politicians and the public.    There just is not enough evidence and too much that can be used to promote reasonable doubt for a successful conviction.    There was a case of a man accused of raping and murdering his ex.  His girlfriend went to the police and said she was a witness and that he had her take pictures of him committing the crime which the police didn't find.  The DA went forward with the case with only the girlfriend's testimony as evidence which the defense was successfully able to discredit because she had a shady history leading to a not guilty verdict.  Decades later the man moves out of his house and the new owners found the pictures of him committing the rape and murder hidden in a wall but the police can't go after him because of double jeopardy.  There's no statute of limitation on murder and so it is better to wait until you have a strong case than to rush when it's weak.

Any conviction would be difficult in this case because there seemed to be a lot of incompetence in the investigation from the very beginning.  They claimed they searched the whole house and yet didn't find the body in the basement.  The police never properly secured the scene to protect possible evidence.  During the period when the kidnapping story was still being pursued, the police allowed various people to come and go through the house unsupervised.    Things were moved and rooms were cleaned.  There will always be a question mark of what evidence was tainted and/or possibly removed because of that.  They insist an intruder wasn't possible but the unlocked storm grate, open window, and foot print on the case by the window show an intruder was possible.   The DNA in the underwear and leggings do not belong to anyone living in the house and not to anyone involved in the investigation who may have touched them.  All evidence from experts about the use of a taser were discounted even when the experts were able to replicate JonBenet's injures with a taser.  When the investigation lead to evidence that didn't support the police theory that the parents did it the police delayed sharing it , tried to bury it, and the special prosecutor tried to have it destroyed.  All of that would give a defense attorney for the Ramseys a path to attain a not guilty verdict.  It seems to me that if the Ramsey's were guilty than the police screw ups did irreparable damage to the case.  Whether it was the parents, someone the parents knew (maybe one of the guests they'd had over for their holiday party or knew the house in some other way), or a random intruder is something that may never be definitively known because there were just too many errors during those first critical days of the investigation.    Who knows what could have been uncovered if the police had thoroughly searched the house immediately and not allowed friends and neighbors to possibly contaminate the scene in those first hours.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

The parents know what happened or were involved in some way. Too many coincidences.

I used to staunchly feel like this but I haven't for years now--too many things pointing completely the away from them too. Seems like almost nothing in here is right in the middle; I'm not sure I even know how to feel anymore. But it doesn't matter; the crime isn't solved (and maybe not even solvable) because of police incompetence and tunnel vision.

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Yokosmom]

The documentary didn't really cover the incriminating evidence in the ransom note and it didn't mention the pineapple in JonBenet's stomach either, I think.  The experts who dismissed the toy as the source of the marks on her neck got me thinking.  I go back and forth on the guilt of the Ramseys.  I really have a hard time picturing them garroting their own (apparently much-loved) child, but there are many things that point to it being someone who lived in that house.  Have they ever really explained the pineapple in her stomach?  Because I can stretch my belief to it being an intruder, as some of the physical evidence leans that way, but I simply can't picture said intruder fixing the girl a bowl of pineapple.

It's just as well that this crime didn't take place in Kenda's town.  He would have had a breakdown over it.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

 

Have they ever really explained the pineapple in her stomach?  Because I can stretch my belief to it being an intruder, as some of the physical evidence leans that way, but I simply can't picture said intruder fixing the girl a bowl of pineapple.

It's just as well that this crime didn't take place in Kenda's town.  He would have had a breakdown over it.

 

Yeah, I was waiting for the pineapple! It was mentioned in one of the "never before seen" documents though (yes, I paused and read them, haha!). There was also no mention of some of the big names in crime-solving and forensics weighing in.

I believe that the pineapple was said to have been out on the table in a bowl. I also feel like I recall reading that Patsy said that no one gave JonBenét any pineapple that night, but then later (or vice versa) saying otherwise. I am not sure where I read these things--I've been reading about this case for 20 years!--so either or both assertions could be something the cops claimed incorrectly.

I still can never wrap my mind around the layout of that house! From the street view, it looks only about average sized to me.

ETA: I had forgotten that Lou Smit was from Colorado Springs, like Joe Kenda!

http://crimefeed.com/2016/09/24701/

Quote

Joe Kenda: “I had just retired from the CSPD when this crime occurred in Boulder, Colorado. I was approached and consulted with well after the event by the Boulder Police Department, so I am quite familiar with facts not known to the public. In my opinion, gross deficiencies occurred during the initial stages of this investigation by the Boulder Police Department. These deficiencies were so great they produced fatal errors and preclude any possibility of this matter ever being presented in court. Murder cases are like a spinning top on a table: One should admire it first and study it carefully before proceeding. Touch it too soon, and it goes off the table. And you never get it back. That little girl remains in her grave, and no one will pay for it.”

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[beesknees]

I think the family HAD ZERO TO DO WITH IT.  New-fangled DNA procedures has said the killer may be Hispanic?  I think the advanced techniques regarding DNA evidence will progress until TPTB will be able to create an iron-clad profile on who killed JonBenet.

The sad thing is that the real killer will probably die before JonBenet's case ever get solved.  That's the sickening truth.  :( because he/she has been able to fly under the radar since the killing.  In the beginning I thought the parents suspect?  No, not now.  I have revised my opinion many years ago and think them 1000% innocent.

Edited September 6, 2016 by beesknees

[beesknees]

43 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Yeah, I was waiting for the pineapple! It was mentioned in one of the "never before seen" documents though (yes, I paused and read them, haha!). There was also no mention of some of the big names in crime-solving and forensics weighing in.

I still can never wrap my mind around the layout of that house! From the street view, it looks only about average sized to me.

ETA: I had forgotten that Lou Smit was from Colorado Springs, like Joe Kenda!

http://crimefeed.com/2016/09/24701/

Talk to me about the pineapple!  I remember the pineapple but why is that a smoking gun?  Who cares about pineapple in the stomach unless it creates a timeline?  Do tell and enlighten!

1 minute ago, beesknees said:

Talk to me about the pineapple!  I remember the pineapple but why is that a smoking gun?  Who cares about pineapple in the stomach unless it creates a timeline?  Do tell and enlighten!  I have forgotten ...

Edited September 6, 2016 by beesknees

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

Talk to me about the pineapple!  I remember the pineapple but why is that a smoking gun?  Who cares about pineapple in the stomach unless it creates a timeline?  Do tell and enlighten!

Haha, I just actually added (very little) pineapple info to my comment above! Something about the digestion rate of pineapple can be very telling in a timeline (I also love reading about forensics stuff and, for some reason, stomach contents have always been fascinating to me. Oh my god, what a nerd).

The thing is though, while once I was skeptical of everything John or Patsy ever said*, I now think that it's not so weird for busy parents on Christmas to have no idea if their kid ate a few bites of pineapple. It's like, say, brushing your teeth--or in this case, your kids brushing theirs: you probably know you/they did it 2-3 times every day but it becomes so blandly habitual, and thus not memorable in particular instances, that if a cop asked you to describe what time and how you/they did it on a specific day, you probably couldn't say enough about it to exonerate you (sorry if that made no sense!).

* I think that was because all I had to read back then was generally from the cops' perspective. I remember being horrified that they tainted their own crime scene but also wanting to believe what trained law enforcement officers were reporting (maybe because my grandpa♥ was a cop). I am far more discerning now, partially thanks to the West Memphis Three case. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[beesknees]

I couldn't EVEN IMAGINE how crazy I'd be acting if my husband brought my little daughter's lifeless, battered, tortured body up from the basement.  Nuh-uh.  Never, never, ever.   Then, every movement, gesture, etc, you made be scrutinized and dissected to the Nth degree after the fact?  Oh God and all that is holy in Heaven.  I feel for those parents (the Ramseys).  I could not take it.  I could never go through that and come out the other side.  Just nope.

[TattleTeeny]

Right! And from the opposite perspective, even if someone were to murder his or her own child, it is entirely possible that the person would indeed display "normal" grieving behavior that isn't being faked...meaning that a nut who kills his or her own kid can also be legitimately distraught that said kid is deceased. Meaning that judging the emotional output of someone who just lost a child is probably a dead end.

[BitterApple]

I think the problem with these murder cases is that every little detail tends to get twisted into something nefarious. Not remembering if she gave her kid pineapple isn't necessarily an indication of Patsy's guilt. It was Christmas, it's a stressful and busy time of year, they'd had people in and out of the house all day etc. 

As far as the whodunit, I really don't think it was the parents, but I do believe it was someone close to the family. Initially I thought it may have been a maintenance guy or landscaper, but unless they were rifling through the Ramsey's checkbook, how would they have known what John was getting for a yearly bonus? 

Sadly I don't think the killer will ever be found, which is a shame for Jon Benet and her remaining relatives.

Edited September 6, 2016 by BitterApple

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

unless they were rifling through the Ramsey's checkbook, how would they have known what John was getting for a yearly bonus? 

YES! This is one of those "points right at the Ramseys" examples, among all the ones that do the opposite! Seriously, WTF?! I remember that there was a disgruntled-employee theory at a time too.

I was also surprised that they didn't detail more of that completely bizarro ransom note...though that has been done a million times over and wouldn't have been anything new.

[BitterApple]

23 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

YES! This is one of those "points right at the Ramseys" examples, among all the ones that do the opposite! 

Exactly, and the flip side of that is why would John and Patsy be so stupid as to put such a specific and personal detail in a fake ransom note? There's just so much conflicting information it's no wonder the investigators were screwing everything up. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by BitterApple

[TattleTeeny]

That and why would they put the notepad away in plain sight while getting rid of paintbrush pieces, duct tape, and a stun gun (not that police actually believed there to be a stun gun in the first place)? Although...I guess it could be plausible that an inexperienced killer would only think to ditch the actual implements of the murder as opposed to a run-of-the-mill legal pad that never touched the victim. 

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[walnutqueen]

12 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

The Boulder police's bellyaching over that window grate makes me nuts every time I see it rehashed. 

The insistence that a cobweb proved nobody could have entered through the grate is also ridiculous - spiders can spin those suckers in no time.

The cops totally screwed the pooch on this, and have been doubling down on their cockamamie theory ever since (and ignoring any & all scientific evidence to the contrary).  This happens far too often with law enforcement, which is yet another reason I distrust them.

[tobeannounced]

The DNA really makes me lean towards it not being the Ramseys.  It's the same DNA on her leggings and her underwear, yet the police just dismiss it.  If it was one of the Ramseys' DNA on the leggings and underwear, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss it.

I didn't find the tone of the show to be over the top or condescending.  If anything, I thought they were going to say the parents did it as they were detailing all the damning information in the leaks in the first part of the show, but then they revealed that many of the leaks from the police were false.  Why release false information to make the parents looks bad if you have such a great case against them?  Let the facts speak for themselves.

I think the Boulder PD are so wedded to their theory and their big egos that they will never admit they were wrong no matter what the evidence.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

The insistence that a cobweb proved nobody could have entered through the grate is also ridiculous - spiders can spin those suckers in no time.

I know! While I am not in Boulder and have no idea what those hippie arachnids get up to there, I regularly (and somewhat guiltily) clean the cobwebs from my balcony and they're always back within a day or two. Between that and the grate, it's like the cops thought that just because they said it out loud, people would blindly believe it. Come on--the first time I saw that grate and the window, it was obvious to me that an adult could easily get through them both! So that reporter in the footage with her "you'd have to be a contortionist" business can shut up too. 

The other thing that has always pissed me off was the cops' sometimes attitude of "bear with us, we don't get a lot of homicide here" juxtaposed with bristling at the suggestion of FBI assistance. Which is it--you've got it covered or you're a bit green (the latter of which is nothing to be ashamed of)? 

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Mountainair]

I didn't like the tone of this special either. I will say though that it brought up some good points and has me questioning where I still stand on this case. I used to be very much "Ramsey's Did It" but now I have about 20% of me that thinks it's plausable someone else did. There are just some details I can not get over. Why stage a kidnapping if you are just going to kill her in the house and leave the body? That makes it seem like a cover up on the Ramsey's part. What murderer is going to sit in the house and write such a long ransom note at the scene of the crime? The pineapple is pretty damning in my eyes as well because they claimed to have brought her directly upstairs and straight to bed. I think you would remember if your kid ate in an instance like that. Either they were lying and they fed her some pineapple or her murderer fed her some before killing her. Then not to mention Burke (I don't think he did it) but the way they treated him the morning of finding the note seems odd to me. Almost like they didn't want him out of his room to gum up the plan they had going.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Mountainair

[Court]

3 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I used to staunchly feel like this but I haven't for years now--too many things pointing completely the away from them too. Seems like almost nothing in here is right in the middle; I'm not sure I even know how to feel anymore. But it doesn't matter; the crime isn't solved (and maybe not even solvable) because of police incompetence and tunnel vision.

I can easily see them covering it up for someone they wanted to protect. That would explain some things. 

If it was an intruder, I don't believe it was a random stranger. 

Agreed about the police on this case.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

"those hippie arachnids" A+

[Court]

As far as the DNA goes, who says it wasn't contaminated originally? Was it preserved correctly? I don't trust that police department to do any of that correctly. 

I can believe the parents didn't do it. It's difficult for me but I can. I definitely think they helped cover it up which would explain some of the points posted above.

 

Also, how did no one hear this happen? I guess I'm just a light sleeper and wake up to any sound when my kids are in the house. My house is also small.

[Primetimer]

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

View the full article

[Court]

Random tidbit: Jonbenet and her mom are buried at a cemetery I drive past everyday. 

It is incredibly sad we'll never know the truth thanks to the PD incompetence.

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

If it was an intruder, I don't believe it was a random stranger.

I am with you here, to the extent that I find it very plausible that (a) it was someone the Ramseys knew, though I don't currently believe they in any way conspired to cover it up, or (b) it was someone who knew the Ramseys but not necessarily the other way around.  

Quote

Also, how did no one hear this happen? I guess I'm just a light sleeper and wake up to any sound when my kids are in the house. My house is also small.

That's where the stun gun theory comes in, I guess--that it was used on her before taking her from her bedroom. Once you get into that kooky-ass basement room (which, IIRC, was off of a couple of other minor basement rooms), no one would likely hear anything. It seems like that house had a seriously labyrinthine layout, man--which supports the theory that it was someone who knew the Ramseys and their home.

Quote

"those hippie arachnids" A+

Haha! I rarely read recaps anymore, but I was hoping you'd be doing this one!

Quote

this is information I feel like I already had, and chasing down that lead is what I want to see onscreen

YES! This is why I wanted you to do it! This is exactly why I get pissed off at various (and sensationalistic) true-crime TV shows--not enough investigation procedure detailed for me!

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[BitterApple]

50 minutes ago, Mountainair said:

I didn't like the tone of this special either. I will say though that it brought up some good points and has me questioning where I still stand on this case. I used to be very much "Ramsey's Did It" but now I have about 20% of me that thinks it's plausable someone else did. 

Out of curiosity, what makes you suspect the parents? Is it the logistics of the crime or the fact that when kids are murdered it's usually by someone well known to them? I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just love hearing everyone's opinions and theories. 

[jenrising]

16 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Once you get into that kooky-ass basement room (which, IIRC, was off of a couple of other minor basement rooms), no one would likely hear anything. It seems like that house had a seriously labyrinthine layout, man--which supports the theory that it was someone who knew the Ramseys and their home.

Yep. Here's a look at the floorplan of the house. You can see how out of the way the wine cellar is (and how huge the whole thing is). 

[Mountainair]

Mostly the inconsistencies and the fact that it was made to look like a kidnapping with that long assed ransom note. If the Ramsey's didn't do it I believe it was someone that knew them well and even someone JonBenet knew well. How else do you explain the pineapple? Either the Ramsey's were lying about what happened that night when they got home or someone JonBenet knew and or trusted opened some pineapple for her to eat and she ate it. I'm not exactly sure how stun guns work but if she was stunned in her room when did she eat the pineapple? 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? 

It's hard to judge people based on grief. We all grieve differently but it all just seemed so matter-of-fact with them besides the one interview where Patsy was high as a kite I didn't see what I would call grieving parents. But that's my opinion and not the sole reason I think they had a hand in this. 

I researched this case 10 years ago and had to let it go. It was too emotionally draining so watching this last night made me heart ache all over again but also presented some new tidbits I had not heard before, thus the 20% doubt.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Mountainair

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

You can see how out of the way the wine cellar is (and how huge the whole thing is). 

Haha, I love how they call that dingy room a wine cellar! Also, thanks--along with stomach contents I have a weird preoccupation with floor plans. Makes my BF crazy because I get distracted during movies (Paranormal Activity 3, WTF was up with that house?!). Also, these Ramseys had two laundry rooms?!

Quote

How else do you explain the pineapple? Either the Ramsey's were lying about what happened that night when they got home or someone JonBenet knew and or trusted opened some pineapple for her to eat and she ate it. I'm not exactly sure how stun guns work but if she was stunned in her room when did she eat the pineapple? 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? 

Stun guns' effectiveness/damage to a person depends on that person's size and the amount of time the...stunning probes (?)...are applied. I think we could reasonably assert that JonBenét would be at least close to unconsciousness from even a one-second zap, I guess, but maybe not down for the count--otherwise why the duct tape? Of course, I'm speculating here, considering the up-in-the-airness about the stun gun or the chronology of events. And the pineapple was supposedly already sitting out in a bowl on a counter or table (who does that?!); no need for someone to open anything prepare it for her.

Also, there's the whole deal with the blanket covering her. Often, bodies are concealed in this way not to hide them (because, blanket or not, she was still right in the middle of the floor) but as a respect/love/protection kind of thing, indicating that the killer likely cared for her in some regard.

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[BitterApple]

10 minutes ago, jenrising said:

Yep. Here's a look at the floorplan of the house. You can see how out of the way the wine cellar is (and how huge the whole thing is). 

Wow, that is the most convoluted house layout I've ever seen. Each floor is like a maze, I was getting a headache just looking at it.

Mountainair, thanks for responding. I think the staged kidnapping is the oddest part of the crime scene. Why go to all that trouble but then leave the body? When you factor in all the evidence and details, so much doesn't make sense. I wonder if this case could've been solved if the Keystone Kops had brought in the State Police or the FBI from the get go.

[Yokosmom]

Quote

Also, how did no one hear this happen? I guess I'm just a light sleeper and wake up to any sound when my kids are in the house. My house is also small.

A neighbor heard a child scream around 2:30 in the morning (may be wrong on the time).  She told the police this before the time of death was known--it was pretty close to then.  The police had someone give a short scream in the basement--it could not be heard from the parent's bedroom, which was (3?) floors up and on the other side of the house.  

Quote

Joe Kenda: “I had just retired from the CSPD when this crime occurred in Boulder, Colorado. I was approached and consulted with well after the event by the Boulder Police Department, so I am quite familiar with facts not known to the public. In my opinion, gross deficiencies occurred during the initial stages of this investigation by the Boulder Police Department. These deficiencies were so great they produced fatal errors and preclude any possibility of this matter ever being presented in court. ..

Anyone else wish that they knew what the facts are that aren't known to the public?

I swear, I just go back and forth on this case.  I've gone from mostly supporting the parents' innocence, to believing in their guilt, to wondering if they covered up for the young son. Things that I've read on various forums (which may not be true)  that they didn't mention in the documentary:

Supposedly there was a book on sibling incest in one of the rooms of the house (according to the "Burke did it" camp.) That's why I was especially interested in the experts' deduction that his toy did not make the marks on her face.

A few weeks prior to the murder, JonBenet told an adult that Santa Claus comes on December 26th.  When the adult told her, no, that Santa Claus comes on the 25th, she supposedly said, "oh, I'm not supposed to tell--it's a secret"--ties into a friend of the family doing it

6 weeks or so after the killings a woman in a different upper middle class neighborhood of Boulder woke up in the middle of the night, thinking that she heard a noise.  She called out to her 12 year old daughter and heard her make a small sound.  Disturbed, she went into the daughter's bedroom and discovered a man, dressed all in black, standing next to her daughter's bed (with the daughter sitting up, terrified).  Fortunately, the intruder ran away.  The daughter went to the same dance school as JonBenet.  Off course, pedophiles tend to go for a specific age range, but still.....Ties into the intruder theory

In addition to the ransom amount being the same as John Ramsey's bonus, the letter mentioned the initials of a submarine base that he served at many years ago.--Points to the Ramsey's since he talked about the place to virtually no one (and it could be a handy, mysterious initial to pull up for one of them frantically writing the letter.)

Yikes what a rabbit hole.  That said, I still think that the case has a chance of being solved.  Trouble is, they would need a whole new team with fresh eyes, (not from Boulder) and unlimited funds for DNA testing, more witness interviews, etc. etc. and I don't see Boulder, or much of anyone else being able to cough up the extra money for that.  Not a federal crime, but it is the sort of thing that the FBI could possibly solve.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Yokosmom

[andromeda331]

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?

[TattleTeeny]

Oh, Yokosmom, I think we're soulmates! I was thinking about all of that stuff last night!

Quote

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?

Someone could have entered long before the Ramseys returned home. And if that someone were a person that knew the family, it would not be too difficult to round up supplies. And don't forget that weird Christmas tour of the house too--lots of friends, plus acquaintances and near strangers traipsing through. Who knows if they showed off that fancy-pants wine cellar, but maybe mentioned it?

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Yokosmom]

Ack, I've got to stop or I'll spend all day on this (though it is more interesting than work at the moment).

Quote

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?

Smit's theory was that the intruder actually broke in while they were at the Christmas party and wrote the note ahead of time.  Plenty of time to scope out the layout of the house.  The note was written because the intruder truly did intend to kidnap her and only killed her when he was A) caught up in a killing frenzy or B) realized that getting her into the suitcase and out of the window would be easier said than done.  The Ramsey's had an alarm on the front door, which may have made the intruder (assuming there even was one) leery of leaving that way.

[Court]

Or someone just stayed after the party and waited for them to go to sleep.

 

@Yokosmom I'm avoiding housework. This is way better.

[BitterApple]

Were the Ramseys show-offy kinds of people who flaunted their wealth? If so, that's one way a stranger could've found out about the bonus. If Patsy was blabbing at one of those kiddie beauty pageants and some pedo overheard, that might support the intruder theory and explain the ransom note.

[Yokosmom]

I believe that the party was at a friend's house, not the Ramsey's.  

I'm a true crime junkie--this case drives me nuts.  One thing that this special really brought home was the utter brutality of that poor little girl's death.  To think that she was alive and staring at her killer as he garrotted her gives me the willies.  Total psychopath and another thing that points away from the parents.  FBI profilers said later that they didn't really have anything in their files on parents killing their children that way.  Every other horrible way, mind you, but not that one.

Court, almost anything is better than housework!

[TattleTeeny]

For no particular reason, I have always found Patsy Ramsey off-putting but I have no idea if she flaunted their wealth or was anything but attentive to JonBenét at the pageant events (which, by the way, look positively appropriate and tame compared to what I've seen on Toddlers & Tiaras--public admittance notwithstanding). Also, it was pretty well known that John Ramsey was very affluent even without a bonus, so I don't know that a flippant mention of the exact bonus amount would set someone off concocting a plan. I'm not shooting down your thoughts or anything, just trying to think of how that would go down; I feel like even if Patsy was a braggart, would she say the exact amount as opposed to "over $100,000" or rounding up to $120,000? 

Quote

Total psychopath and another thing that points away from the parents. 

Yeah. And this would be very strange for someone's--either John's or Patsy's--first violent offense (not to say that it unequivocally is or isn't one, but that we have no record of similar prior behavior on their parts).

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Court]

Who leaves a ransom note strung along the stairs? Who writes it? It's just weird.

So much of it is bizarre.

[walnutqueen]

41 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Also, there's the whole deal with the blanket covering her. Often, bodies are concealed in this way not to hide them (because, blanket or not, she was still right in the middle of the floor) but as a respect/love/protection kind of thing, indicating that the killer likely cared for her in some regard.

I believe the profilers call it "Undoing", and it can signify an emotional attachment or a deep shame.

(Not that I watch too much true crime or anything - hee!)

[BananaRama]

I wish there was a document with two columns titled: "Evidence that Proves that an Intruder Did It" and "Evidence that Proves that the Ramseys Did It."

[TattleTeeny]

There is, and it's inside my head--and has been taking up valuable space there for two decades!

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Court]

If the other special is as biased as this one  but against the parents, I'm going to be annoyed too. The stun gun doesn't prove they didn't do it. It just proves whoever did it wanted her silent.

I've heard the comment about Santa coming on Dec 26 before too. That makes me think someone was sexually assaulting this little girl on some sort of schedule. Perhaps this time she tried to fight back. 

[BananaRama]

How come the Ramseys spent a ton of money on lawyers, a public relations agency and a detective to prove that they didn't kill their daughter? Why not spend that money on a team of detectives to find the real killer?

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

How come the Ramseys spent a ton of money on lawyers, a public relations agency and a detective to prove that they didn't kill their daughter? Why not spend that money on a team of detectives to find the real killer?

They probably (and rightfully) assumed that the existing team of detectives (which the Ramseys' tax money already paid for) would do that job. Paying for attorneys is nothing out of the ordinary for anyone (though there is some ire about how quickly they got one, which was explained last night), much less rich people. Same with PR management when something gets so sensationalized by dubious media outlets.

Do you mean Lou Smit? The Ramseys didn't hire him; the DA did.

Edited September 6, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[BananaRama]

The DNA really makes me lean towards it not being the Ramseys.  It's the same DNA on her leggings and her underwear, yet the police just dismiss it.  If it was one of the Ramseys' DNA on the leggings and underwear, you can bet they wouldn't dismiss it.

I didn't find the tone of the show to be over the top or condescending.  If anything, I thought they were going to say the parents did it as they were detailing all the damning information in the leaks in the first part of the show, but then they revealed that many of the leaks from the police were false.  Why release false information to make the parents looks bad if you have such a great case against them?  Let the facts speak for themselves.

I think the Boulder PD are so wedded to their theory and their big egos that they will never admit they were wrong no matter what the evidence.

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?

[BananaRama]

Wow. They should have called this one, "The Exoneration of John and Patsy Ramsey." 

The narrator's condescending tone and the awful, sensationalistic script are way over the top. I get that this show has a POV, and one that I don't necessarily agree with, but Jesus. Dial back the hyperbole to 11 people. 

I agree with Giant Misfit. I have read a lot about this case and there is a lot of details that make the Ramseys look guilty that were ignored.

[Mountainair]

21 minutes ago, Court said:

If the other special is as biased as this one  but against the parents, I'm going to be annoyed too. The stun gun doesn't prove they didn't do it. It just proves whoever did it wanted her silent.

I've heard the comment about Santa coming on Dec 26 before too. That makes me think someone was sexually assaulting this little girl on some sort of schedule. Perhaps this time she tried to fight back. 

Any documentary worth its salt would clearly examine all possible scenarios. This one clearly only represented the "Ramsy's didn't do it" school of thought. So I agree with you. I hope the next special is not so biased. Although, the next one is something like 8 hours long I think so I'm hopeful.