JonBenet Ramsey

[ElDosEquis]

15 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

This case is the living embodiment of fact being stranger than fiction. If someone wrote this case as a work of fiction they would be laughed at and ridiculed. Nothing about this case makes a damned bit of sense. There is too much evidence of a cover up for it to have been an intruder, but there are too many little things that point to an outsider that makes it impossible to say for certain that it was in inside job.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had been treated as a murder right away and the crime scene had been treated as such and the Ramsey's didn't have friend over to complicate things and no one was allowed to touch the body, or trample around the house, or vanish for a long period of time. I wonder how much difference there would be in the evidence.

You answered another question I had.

Sometimes it's hard to see the trees because of the forest?

Calling the friends over was a red herring.

It was done as a façade - those friends would be there to witness their 'pain' and to be on hand when the body was found

The fact that JR found the body reminded me of the shit that little kids do when they fuck up? They will take you to, or be the ones that discover whatever that have broken/spilled or screwed up - to try and distract you. The 'how did THAT happen' scenario seems pretty plausible?

I seem to remember that a cursory search of the house was done BEFORE the body was found. That was one of the stories that came out of the crime that made me think. IF I was a parent and woke up to a ransom note, I would have torn that house down trying to find out how any k/n got into the house.

I do remember thinking that if the body wasn't found the first go 'round, that meant the killer was still inside the house and moved the body to the area where it first was found?

Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the case can help with that?

[Orangepop]

Quote

I talked to my cousin a few days ago and she watched the other special, the one that aired on either ID or A&E, and she said that she now believes an intruder did it, just from the way that special presented the evidence. She said she thought the pineapple was a lame piece of evidence and was not sure why it was even introduced. Now I don't know what to believe! I guess I can watch that other special but I'm curious as to what you guys (who have watched both specials) think. I apologize in advance if this was discussed in another thread.

I watched them both. And as someone who didn't follow the case closely, I could see myself saying "yeah, maybe it was an intruder..." if I had only seen the A&E special. But now I have four huge problems I have with the A&E special, which focused primarily on Det Smit:

CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE: Smit pointed to the crime scene as proof of an intruder. Yet he never seems to take into account that crime scenes can be easily staged.

BEHAVIOR:  The A&E focuses on physical evidence, while completely ignoring everyone's behavior. For me, forensic evidence can often tell several stories, especially if there's so little of it left. You can stage a crime scene. But behavior doesn't lie. Of course, we've all heard of those crimes were someone's acting fishy as hell, yet turns out to be innocent. But we're talking about the behavior of an entire family. They circled the wagons, shutting out police. Why? Because they're likely protecting someone. Who? One of them. As someone mentioned earlier, if it had been either Patsy or John, I think in time one of them would turn on the other. But their behavior's consistent with wanting to protect their last remaining child - Burke. 

METHOD OF MURDER: What SSAHotchner said:

Quote

An adult intruder would not have to hit a 6 year old child in the head. He would have been able to subdue her just by the difference in size and strength. An adult could have snapped her neck. The head injury to me says anger just as the smeared feces, especially on her brand new box of candy.

MOTIVE:  There are so many stories, it's important to question the person's relationship to the story. Smit - the main interview in the A&E special - was a family friend. The only people who stood by the intruder theory were people who knew the Ramseys. But the vast majority of folks who've never met the Ramseys before this case - including the grand jury! - believed they were covering up what really happened.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Orangepop

[BitterApple]

20 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

 

Speaking of friends, or should I say former friends, I came across an interesting article from 2014 where the Whites spoke out about the case for the first time. Lots of good details about the weirdness of the Ramseys' Atlanta crowd along with the Whites' shock over how easily John threw their names into the ring as potential child murderers. It might be rehash for those of you who've followed the case for a while, but it's a good read for newbies. 

 

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856

Edited September 27, 2016 by BitterApple

[ghoulina]

21 hours ago, BitterApple said:

 

I think Burke's behavior both before and after the body was discovered is weird at best and frightening at worst. IIRC, not only didn't he ask what was going on while still at his house, but he also didn't press Fleet White for details while being driven to the White's home. If Mom's accounted for and Dad's accounted for, wouldn't the next logical question be, where's JonBenet? Even a school boy is savvy enough to know the cops weren't there on a social call. So the only alternative is Something Bad happened. The Ramseys were due to head out on vacation, yet Burke doesn't question either his parents or Fleet as to why their plans have changed? Pamplemousse, I feel you on not wanting to judge someone so young, but goddamn, the creepiness factor is off the charts with that kid.

 

Yes, it was all very odd. I think he knew exactly what was going on and been instructed to pretend to be asleep. The initial officers arriving on at the house were told that Burke hadn't even been up yet, just checked on. One of them found his room open and the lights off, said the child appeared to be asleep in his bed. No way in hell he slept through all of that commotion until they woke him up to take him to the Whites. Plus, no matter if everyone agrees on the words said, it was very clear to me that a child's voice was heard on the 911 tape. So I believe they lied about him being asleep the entire time. 

Also, just started Kolar's book and it mentions that Burke grabbed his Nintendo on the way out of the house. So either he was told his sister was kidnapped, but he was still calm enough to think to get his game, or he wasn't told at all. Neither looks good, if you ask me. 

16 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

For me, the issue is not if Burke knew how to tie that particular knot, but if he would even know what a garrote is.  I am leaning towards no.  I just don't think that is something a kid would know about.   Some people have mentioned him possibly learning about that it scouting, but I find that hard to believe considering he was only a Cub Scout.   I don't see them teaching third graders how to choke something to death.

Maybe no one taught him specifically what a garrote is and what its purpose is. But maybe he learned about knots in Boy Scouts, sailing, whatever, and he thought up using one to hurt her on his own. Maybe he saw it in a movie at some point. The family had tons of framed movies around the house, they might have been the type to let the kids watch adult themed movies. My dad drank too much one night when I was about 8 and let me watch Fatal Attraction. I could't look behind me in a steamy bathroom mirror for years!

It's also possible, as another poster mentioned, that he was chasing her and grabbed her shirt from behind and pulled her by it or something that would cause bad marks on her skin, and one (or both) of the parents fashioned the garrote to account for that. 

[ghoulina]

3 hours ago, MaggieG said:

 

I talked to my cousin a few days ago and she watched the other special, the one that aired on either ID or A&E, and she said that she now believes an intruder did it, just from the way that special presented the evidence. She said she thought the pineapple was a lame piece of evidence and was not sure why it was even introduced. Now I don't know what to believe! I guess I can watch that other special but I'm curious as to what you guys (who have watched both specials) think. I apologize in advance if this was discussed in another thread.

 

I watched this one, the A&E one, and the ID one. I still think Burke did it, but I thought that before reading any specials - based on what I've read about the case over the past 20 years and just my own instincts. I don't think the pineapple is a lame piece of evidence, especially not when Burke is asked about various foods he likes, mentions pineapple, then sees the bowl of it from that night and suddenly says, "Oh" - as if it all dawned on him. They were super cagey about that pineapple for a reason. 

 

58 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

I seem to remember that a cursory search of the house was done BEFORE the body was found. That was one of the stories that came out of the crime that made me think. IF I was a parent and woke up to a ransom note, I would have torn that house down trying to find out how any k/n got into the house.

Yes, the first officer on the scene checked just possible entry points, I believe. He never checked the cellar because he saw that lock from the outside, and knew it couldn't be an entry point. I believe Fleet White did the second search of the house, solo. It was written that he was the only one to call out her name as he searched. He actually opened the wine cellar door, but didn't turn on the light and didn't see far enough into the room to notice the blanket. Sometime after noon, Det. Arndt was there by this point and told John to search to keep him busy, look for things out of place. He took Fleet with him, and headed straight for that cellar. I think he was antsy to just get the real story out there. 

I would also like to see the latch/lock on the outside of the cellar door. I'm curious if it was something that was obvious. How dark was it down there? Where was it placed on the door? Would an intruder have seen it and thought to lock it after dumping Jon Benet?

[ghoulina]

So I started reading Kolar's book (Thanks, Cara, for letting us know it's available to borrow from Amazon!) and there was a snippet of Patsy's CNN interview. She said she glanced at just the first few lines of the note before running to get John. She never says she goes back and reads the rest before calling 911, and I wouldn't think I would do so either. Yet, on the call (and I've touched on this in other threads) she is able to tell them that the note says, "Victory! SBTC". Even if she DID read the entire thing, I find it hard to believe she'd remember that acronym immediately, unless it had special meaning to her. But if she'd only read the first part, about them having her daughter, how would she even know that at all?

[AZChristian]

7 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

I would also like to see the latch/lock on the outside of the cellar door. I'm curious if it was something that was obvious. How dark was it down there? Where was it placed on the door? Would an intruder have seen it and thought to lock it after dumping Jon Benet?

Here's a picture.  The "lock" is the wood block at the top of the door.  Most adults would look at it and think, "This couldn't be an entry point."  Fleet was looking for JB, not for an entry point.  He did open this door, but there are no windows in the room, and someone would have to step into the room and turn on the light to see her.  According to Kolar's book, White was in another room in the basement when he heard John yell.  AFTER the yell, John turned on the light in that room.

 

[Mittengirl]

The grabbing of the shirt collar from behind is not something I had heard before, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense, in terms of why the garrote was used.  And explains the scratches on JB's neck.  And I can easily see it as something a kid would do to a sibling.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Mittengirl

[iMonrey]

Quote

 Now I don't know what to believe! I guess I can watch that other special but I'm curious as to what you guys (who have watched both specials) think.

The A&E special made a compelling case for the intruder theory but it was very one-sided. They didn't talk to anyone who actually investigated the crime at the time it took place (i.e. the Boulder police department) or anyone else who disagreed with the intruder theory. They also presented theories and hypotheses as proven fact.

I thought the Dateline special did a much better job and presented both sides of the argument (for and against the intruder theory) and were diligent in speaking to people who investigated the crime originally.

This CBS special was somewhat more detached and played armchair detective, but it did an excellent job exploring various theories like the alleged break-in through the basement window, the so-called taser marks and the DNA "evidence." It was probably the most clinical and thorough of the three specials I watched. There were a few points that were never addressed but that's probably due to the fact that it was trimmed from six hours to four.

[BitterApple]

For those of you who have read books on the case, which would you recommend? Are there any which are more credible in terms of being based on fact and not wild speculation?

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

For those of you who have read books on the case, which would you recommend? Are there any which are more credible in terms of being based on fact and not wild speculation?

Good question, but each book is based on the speculation of the author.  What I'm trying to do is read both sides and decide for myself what sounds the most sensible.  So far, I'm in the "Burke did it" camp.  I am sure as I can be that Patsy wrote that ransom note.

[ghoulina]

Yea, it might be best to read ALL books, then form your own opinion. Kolar was a lead investigator on the case, so I do think that gives his book (Foreign Faction) some validity. The first one I ever read was Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. I was very young when I first read it. That put me in the RDI camp, but I came around to BDI just from thinking about it over the years, reading stuff online, etc. I haven't read the Ramsey book yet, but I might at some point if the price isn't too bad.

[Cara]

On September 24, 2016 at 6:42 PM, EVS said:

 

Here's a Jim Cleamete interview about the case among other things from 2012.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Cara

[Chai]

I also am looking for recommendations for  books on this case. I, too, want to form my own opinion. I want to make sure the CBS show didn't choose to show only partial evidence and not others. (BTW I watched it on line at cbs.com if you missed it).

I read that Burke is willing to take a polygraph test to prove he didn't do it. I think that's terrible if he is being blamed for his sister's death, IF he didn't have anything to do with it. I don't think  that should happen to anyone. We are all presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

However, this case had some strange, strange behavior. The baby beauty pageants are strange to me. For the same reason I won't watch Toddlers and Tiara's. I think the poster up above said it best with the crazy mothers screaming at a 5 year old to act sexy. Then Burke's behavior.  The inappropriate smile and look of his eyes was something that I would expect to see in a horror movie.  Then there's the other issues he has. Smearing poop on everything?! what! why hasn't that kid been to see a psychologist?! and I haven't even gotten to the point where he attacked JB with a golf club yet.....

 

And yet, as a parent my heart breaks for the whole family.

[ghoulina]

Polygraphs mean little and less to me. You can fail one when telling the truth, if you're very nervous. You can lie and pass with flying colors, if you can stay calm and in control. If they've been telling this lie for so long, they might have actually grown to believe it on some level. I could see Burke passing one, but I'd need something more concrete to convince me it was someone outside the house. I don't know if we'll ever get that. 

[BitterApple]

I was always Team IDI, but after watching these specials I'm slowly leaning towards the middle, where honestly I have no clue what to think. One of the things that disturbs me about the Ramseys is how quickly they threw their close friends and housekeeper under the bus. Seriously, if you have a best friend you believe capable of bashing a child over the head and sexually assaulting her, then you might need to reconsider your social circle. Ditto for your staff.

[ElDosEquis]

Here's another tidbit that didn't seem like a big deal at first but makes sense in the scenario that I have in my head.

There are a few things that don't make sense -

Someone stated that JBR had some on the fibers from the lining of the suitcase that was found under the window.

Riddle me this?

How did that happen?

IF a k/n did enter the house and try to take JBR, she was 'worth more' alive, but if the child was killed and the body was in the process of being taken FOR the ransom, why go thru the hassle of putting the body into the suitcase and then removing it?

Why move it from the 'window room' into another, to hide it?

Another thing that don't sit right with me is in many k/n cases, no note is left and the family is contacted later on with instructions - that way there is no evidence left at the scene.

How many of us call our friends and ask THEM to contact the authorities in an emergency?

One other thing that intrigues me is when you add up a 'criminal timeline' you get a chunk of time where the killer entered the home and had time to write two drafts of a kidnap note that took 21 minutes to write, but HOW long to compose, they also have time to kill JBR and move about the house without waking the other occupants of the house and also move through the house and never leave ANY kind of definitive DNA, hair or fiber evidence?

Edited September 27, 2016 by ElDosEquis

[pamplemousse]

I didn't even bother watching the A&E special. The producers got in trouble a few years back for making up information in another pro-Ramsey special they did for tv. I can't believe they're still playing this absurd game. They don't make documentaries, they make infomercials selling the intruder theory. A&E must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel to air anything from that particular production team.

Here's some more speculation regarding the suitcase: maybe the packed suitcase was due to Burke telling Jonbenet she should try to run away that night to see Santa and he would help her, then their parents would feel bad for getting upset with her repeated bedwetting. When they got to the basement and she got scared and changed her mind, he got frustrated and angry and it got physical. 

Also, I don't think a garrote is a sophisticated piece of construction for a 9 year old. It's basically a jump rope -- two handles with a rope tied to both. In this particular case, it was even more rudimentary -- one handle and the other end a loop.

Edited September 27, 2016 by pamplemousse

[BitterApple]

30 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

 

IF a k/n did enter the house and try to take JBR, she was 'worth more' alive, but if the child was killed and the body was in the process of being taken FOR the ransom, why go thru the hassle of putting the body into the suitcase and then removing it?

The suitcase never made sense to me because there's no way in hell a bulky item like that was going to fit through a narrow basement window in the first place. It's just more conflicting details. If an intruder cased the house and planned to kidnap JB all along, wouldn't he have also figured out an exit strategy in advance? If the kidnapping turned into murder, why leave two items of evidence behind (body and suitcase) that might have your DNA or prints on them? Also, it's pretty easy to look at an alarm keypad and tell if the system is armed or not. Why haul the kid out the window when you can just walk out a side door? 

[pamplemousse]

I don't think the Ramseys ever seriously believed the Whites or their housekeeper were capable of doing that, their accusations were pretty stupid and paper-thin -- John Ramsey saying that Priscilla White seemed like the type of person to own a stun gun and was extremely jealous of Patsy, uh ok that's convincing. They were just trying to throw off the police, which they did all throughout the investigation -- sending the police in circles for "evidence" that either never existed or they already knew was totally meaningless with no evidentiary value. Just another highly suspect thing they would do. They seemed more interested in casting blame on their own friends and staff and impeding the investigation, than they ever did in Jonbenet's killer being found.

[SSAHotchner]

13 hours ago, MaggieG said:

I talked to my cousin a few days ago and she watched the other special, the one that aired on either ID or A&E, and she said that she now believes an intruder did it, just from the way that special presented the evidence. She said she thought the pineapple was a lame piece of evidence and was not sure why it was even introduced. Now I don't know what to believe! I guess I can watch that other special but I'm curious as to what you guys (who have watched both specials) think. I apologize in advance if this was discussed in another thread.

I saw the A&E special. They weren't able to convince me that an intruder did it. For one thing, I just can't get past that ransom note. But while I had never suspected the brother before watching this special, the evidence they presented is very credible to me. Plus we'd never seen much of Burke before and he just gives off a creep vibe. Something is off about him no matter what happened in 1996. The programs that try to push the intruder theory really try to discredit the police and push the "police rushed to judgement" theory. I think most people will agree that the police made some significant errors in the way they handled the Ramseys and the crime scene that first day. But even untrained folks like most of us here can tell that the whole story is fishy, the Ramseys' behavior was fishy and the ransom note was not real. The cops had every reason to suspect the Ramsey's at the most of homicide and at the very least at hindering an investigation. 

Re-watched part 2 today as it is still on my DVR, and noticed something else that creeped me out, although I'm sure this is Patsy's fault and not Burke's. In the family photos they feature in this special, Burke appears to be wearing lipstick. Even in the black and white photos you can see the dark color of his lips and the shine of gloss or lipstick. If it were just one photo, you might think maybe his lips were chapped, but not in every one from various years. Jon Benet is also wearing lipstick. They both appear to have the same color lips as Patsy. I just think that's creepy. Doesn't have anything to do with the murder, but since I only noticed it for the first time today, I just wanted to mention it. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by SSAHotchner
brain not working :)

[BitterApple]

The ransom note and the pineapple, IMO. Let's say an intruder was the killer and he was someone known to JonBenet. Regardless if his intentions were kidnapping for ransom or sexual in nature, I can't see lingering in the house any longer than necessary. He'd want to snatch JB, subdue her quickly and squirrel her away. Hiding out in that basement maze is one thing, but sitting at the kitchen table calmly feeding her a snack? It doesn't jibe. It would take serious cojones to pull that off.

Edited September 28, 2016 by BitterApple

[Maharincess]

On 9/23/2016 at 7:41 AM, Jel said:

 

 

16 hours ago, ElDosEquis said:

You answered another question I had.

Sometimes it's hard to see the trees because of the forest?

Calling the friends over was a red herring.

It was done as a façade - those friends would be there to witness their 'pain' and to be on hand when the body was found

The fact that JR found the body reminded me of the shit that little kids do when they fuck up? They will take you to, or be the ones that discover whatever that have broken/spilled or screwed up - to try and distract you. The 'how did THAT happen' scenario seems pretty plausible?

I seem to remember that a cursory search of the house was done BEFORE the body was found. That was one of the stories that came out of the crime that made me think. IF I was a parent and woke up to a ransom note, I would have torn that house down trying to find out how any k/n got into the house.

I do remember thinking that if the body wasn't found the first go 'round, that meant the killer was still inside the house and moved the body to the area where it first was found?

Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the case can help with that?

What does k/n mean? 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Maharincess

[BookWoman56]

Maharincess, I believe k/n refers to kidnappers. Someone had suggested the Kolar book Foreign Faction, and I used my Kindle Unlimited to download it. The book answered a lot of questions that I still had, and pointed out the extent to which the police were hindered by the DA's office, even after the new DA came on board. Sorry, but when the investigators on a case present fairly compelling evidence and ask for warrants, to convene a grand jury, etc., the appropriate response is not, "I don't want to damage my relationship with the Ramseys." The book, in tandem with this show, has removed any minor doubts I might have had about Burke's culpability. One of the most telling aspects of the case, at least to me, is the falling out that occurred between the Ramseys and the Whites.  I don't think the fracture of the friendship was just about John Ramsey throwing Priscilla White under the bus. Based on the letter that the Whites ultimately wrote to the governor's office (I believe), it sounds very much as if somewhere along the way, the Whites began to think that the Ramseys were deliberately impeding the investigation. Even though the Whites did not flatly state that one of the Ramseys was responsible for JonBenet's death, the tone of that letter left no doubt they believed the Ramseys were at fault.

I was discussing the case a couple of days ago with a friend, who raised an interesting point: If the cover-up prevented Burke from being thrown into the legal system or a mental health institution, and he has not committed violence against anyone else, isn't it possible the Ramseys did the right thing? Presumably he would have become even more psychologically damaged in either of those settings. Against that question, I still feel their actions were reprehensible. They saved their son, but at a tremendous cost not only financially to investigate the case, but also the psychological toll on the investigators, some of whom left the force because of their frustration at being stonewalled by the DA, and the damage to reputation and so forth for the various people who came under suspicion of being the killer.  And while Burke apparently did see a psychiatrist or therapist of some sort for a year or so after JonBenet's death, who probably provided better treatment than Burke would have gotten in an institution, Burke is not someone I could ever trust. His lack of subsequent violence doesn't necessarily mean the capacity or desire to commit violence is gone; it may just mean that once he became old enough to realize how the situation played out, he figured that the parents had been able to save him once but wouldn't be able to again.  It's easy to think of this as a one-time incidence of him losing control of his temper, but the other indicators (golf club incident and smearing feces) point to some kind of underlying pathology.

Edited September 28, 2016 by BookWoman56

[Maharincess]

13 hours ago, BitterApple said:

For those of you who have read books on the case, which would you recommend? Are there any which are more credible in terms of being based on fact and not wild speculation?

I can recommend the Steve Thomas book, JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation and Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller, both were really good and thorough.    The James Kolar book is the one I'm reading now and that's really good as well. 

I watched all of the specials and none of them changed my mind.  I've thought that Burke did it from day one.  I've watched and read just about everything out there on this case and nothing has made me change my mind. 

[ghoulina]

15 hours ago, BitterApple said:

 

I was always Team IDI, but after watching these specials I'm slowly leaning towards the middle, where honestly I have no clue what to think. One of the things that disturbs me about the Ramseys is how quickly they threw their close friends and housekeeper under the bus. Seriously, if you have a best friend you believe capable of bashing a child over the head and sexually assaulting her, then you might need to reconsider your social circle. Ditto for your staff.

 

Yes, they claimed Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the housekeeper might have done it, because she supposedly had asked Patsy for a loan of about $2,000. I thought that was just awful, to suggest that. Two grand is way off from $118,000. She probably just need holiday spending money. 

 

14 hours ago, BitterApple said:

The suitcase never made sense to me because there's no way in hell a bulky item like that was going to fit through a narrow basement window in the first place. It's just more conflicting details. If an intruder cased the house and planned to kidnap JB all along, wouldn't he have also figured out an exit strategy in advance? If the kidnapping turned into murder, why leave two items of evidence behind (body and suitcase) that might have your DNA or prints on them? Also, it's pretty easy to look at an alarm keypad and tell if the system is armed or not. Why haul the kid out the window when you can just walk out a side door? 

Yes. But a family member could have conceivably walked right out the front door with a body in a suitcase, and no one would have batted an eye. It was Christmas, they had a trip planned. I wonder if they did initially want to remove the body, and then changed their mind for some reason. 

 

10 hours ago, SSAHotchner said:

The programs that try to push the intruder theory really try to discredit the police and push the "police rushed to judgement" theory. I think most people will agree that the police made some significant errors in the way they handled the Ramseys and the crime scene that first day. But even untrained folks like most of us here can tell that the whole story is fishy, the Ramseys' behavior was fishy and the ransom note was not real. The cops had every reason to suspect the Ramsey's at the most of homicide and at the very least at hindering an investigation. 

The fact of the matter is, when a child is killed, it's only like 6% of the time that it's someone outside the family. And when the murder actually takes place IN the home, those statistics drop even more. I, personally, don't blame the police for focusing on the family. And, it was actually the FBI who told them to do so. The FBI was initially there when they thought it was a kidnapping. After the body was found, they were packing up and leaving, and one of the agents told one of the Boulder officers - "look at the family". I think most of those originally on the scene got very bad vibes. 

Officer French related that Patsy had her hands over her face a lot, ostensibly crying and covering her grief. But at one point he noticed she was just watching him through her fingers. Very very odd. 

10 hours ago, SSAHotchner said:

Re-watched part 2 today as it is still on my DVR, and noticed something else that creeped me out, although I'm sure this is Patsy's fault and not Burke's. In the family photos they feature in this special, Burke appears to be wearing lipstick. Even in the black and white photos you can see the dark color of his lips and the shine of gloss or lipstick. If it were just one photo, you might think maybe his lips were chapped, but not in every one from various years. Jon Benet is also wearing lipstick. They both appear to have the same color lips as Patsy. I just think that's creepy. Doesn't have anything to do with the murder, but since I only noticed it for the first time today, I just wanted to mention it. 

Those pictures creep the hell out of me. The kids are very heavily made up for sure. And just the looks and posing, very adult. Very suggestive. I don't know what parent would want pictures of their children look like that. It's like a pedophile's dream come true. 

 

19 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Here's a picture.  The "lock" is the wood block at the top of the door.  Most adults would look at it and think, "This couldn't be an entry point."  Fleet was looking for JB, not for an entry point.  He did open this door, but there are no windows in the room, and someone would have to step into the room and turn on the light to see her.  According to Kolar's book, White was in another room in the basement when he heard John yell.  AFTER the yell, John turned on the light in that room.

Thanks for this. It was still hard to see, but then I realized it was right in Kolar's book, as I read a few more pages. I can see it more clearly in the book, and I just don't know that an intruder would notice that block of wood at night, in a dark and cramped basement. So was the door locked when he happened upon it. Did he take even MORE time to figure out how to unlock it, because he just HAD to stash the body there? Or was it unlocked, and he dumped her body there, and then just happened to notice that homemade latch and locked it....for what reason? I really just think it's another one of those things that wouldn't be known to someone outside the family. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by ghoulina

[Jel]

Can someone please refresh my memory re: the footprints in the snow? I do remember, very clearly, from when the case first became news that there was talk about the fact that there were no footprints in the snow. Did the BPD reveal that? Was it the media? How did that get to be a topic of conversation in my world at the time?

[Court]

BPD said there were no footprints. However, based on photos, there was no snow where an intruder would have been.

[ghoulina]

I believe the snow that morning was fairly light and wet. There wasn't really much sticking. So I don't know that the fact that there weren't any footprints in the snow was significant anyhow. But I do remember someone from BPD also said that none of the grass, plants, etc. near the grate looked walked upon either. 

[BitterApple]

Was any foliage or dirt found inside the basement? If there were any leaves, pine needles, twigs etc. inside that grate area, it would be impossible to squeeze through such a narrow opening without dragging debris inside with you.

Edited September 28, 2016 by BitterApple
posts getting cut off

[Jel]

2 hours ago, Court said:

BPD said there were no footprints. However, based on photos, there was no snow where an intruder would have been.

Well, that strikes me as an odd thing to release then. Why say it if there was no agenda? 

At the time, I remember thinking no footprints in the snow would suggest no intruder. Is that the message the BPD wanted to send the public? If so, why? What does public opinion have to do with their professional murder investigation? That seems a lil shady to me.

1 minute ago, BitterApple said:

Was any foliage or dirt found inside the basement? If there were any leaves, pine needles, twigs etc. inside that grate area, it would be impossible to squeeze

I think there was, but since the window was broken, it was not really looked at as evidence, since any debris could have blown in over the days or weeks prior. I mean, it could have blown in and been tracked in, right? I don't think that line ever went anywhere though.

[Mabinogia]

7 minutes ago, Jel said:

I think there was, but since the window was broken, it was not really looked at as evidence, since any debris could have blown in over the days or weeks prior. I mean, it could have blown in and been tracked in, right? I don't think that line ever went anywhere though.

It just seems like nothing in this case is clear cut. Not even the freaking debris. lol It really was the perfect murder in that it is so messy that there is no way in hell they will ever get "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless someone finally confesses. There is just too much conflicting evidence and two much evidence that can be interpreted multiple ways.

[EmpressElle]

I don't think a confession would convince people unless they already believed that IDI and an intruder confesses, or they already believed BDI and Burke confesses, etc.. . 

Edited September 28, 2016 by EmpressElle

[ElDosEquis]

13 hours ago, Maharincess said:

What does k/n mean? 

Kidnapper/kidnapping?

If you take the basic and common sense approach to any crime, you get some kind of common sense resolution.

And that is based on what was left at the crime scene.

There are too many 'crime scene non sequiturs' clues that don't make sense and don't lead to any logical conclusion when relating to this murder.

[BitterApple]

45 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

There is just too much conflicting evidence and two much evidence that can be interpreted multiple ways.

I agree. No matter what the piece of evidence is, there's several different explanations. Take the scuff mark underneath the window, for example. Was it made by the intruder? Or did John leave it when he broke in? Is it possible Burke or JB scuffed the wall while horsing around? Or maybe the mark had been there for ten years and it was completely irrelevant. 

How the hell could a D.A. ever build a rock solid case out of this mess?

[Cara]

7 minutes ago, EmpressElle said:

I don't think a confession would convince people unless they already believed that IDI and an intruder confesses, or they already believed BDI and Burke confesses, ear . . . 

Don't forget there was a false confession by that nut case, John Mark Karr. I think for an intruder confession to be belived he would have to know details not known to the public. I think as much information that has come out about this case in the last 20 years there are probably some details not publicly released. Also  there would have to be some evidence that they were actually in Boulder on Dec 25/26 1996. Or at least no evidence that they were somewhere else at the time. I believe there was strong evidence that Karr wasn't anywhere near Boulder at the time. Mary Lacey didn't even bother to verify that before going to the trouble and expense of bringing him back from Thailand.

[ElDosEquis]

14 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

Maharincess, I believe k/n refers to kidnappers. Someone had suggested the Kolar book Foreign Faction, and I used my Kindle Unlimited to download it. The book answered a lot of questions that I still had, and pointed out the extent to which the police were hindered by the DA's office, even after the new DA came on board. Sorry, but when the investigators on a case present fairly compelling evidence and ask for warrants, to convene a grand jury, etc., the appropriate response is not, "I don't want to damage my relationship with the Ramseys." The book, in tandem with this show, has removed any minor doubts I might have had about Burke's culpability. One of the most telling aspects of the case, at least to me, is the falling out that occurred between the Ramseys and the Whites.  I don't think the fracture of the friendship was just about John Ramsey throwing Priscilla White under the bus. Based on the letter that the Whites ultimately wrote to the governor's office (I believe), it sounds very much as if somewhere along the way, the Whites began to think that the Ramseys were deliberately impeding the investigation. Even though the Whites did not flatly state that one of the Ramseys was responsible for JonBenet's death, the tone of that letter left no doubt they believed the Ramseys were at fault.

I was discussing the case a couple of days ago with a friend, who raised an interesting point: If the cover-up prevented Burke from being thrown into the legal system or a mental health institution, and he has not committed violence against anyone else, isn't it possible the Ramseys did the right thing? Presumably he would have become even more psychologically damaged in either of those settings. Against that question, I still feel their actions were reprehensible. They saved their son, but at a tremendous cost not only financially to investigate the case, but also the psychological toll on the investigators, some of whom left the force because of their frustration at being stonewalled by the DA, and the damage to reputation and so forth for the various people who came under suspicion of being the killer.  And while Burke apparently did see a psychiatrist or therapist of some sort for a year or so after JonBenet's death, who probably provided better treatment than Burke would have gotten in an institution, Burke is not someone I could ever trust. His lack of subsequent violence doesn't necessarily mean the capacity or desire to commit violence is gone; it may just mean that once he became old enough to realize how the situation played out, he figured that the parents had been able to save him once but wouldn't be able to again.  It's easy to think of this as a one-time incidence of him losing control of his temper, but the other indicators (golf club incident and smearing feces) point to some kind of underlying pathology.

Spot on assessment.

Nine, going on ten, is an age where you can be scared shitless, as a result of your actions?

I can see a small boy confused by what happened - how many cartoons had he watched where a character takes a mallet/hammer/2x4 to the head, shake it off and walk away?

"It was an accident, Burke......"

By the time he was looked at as a suspect - with the stipulation that no cop was to interview him - they had reinforced the idea that if he spoke/told the truth he was going to be 'taken away/go to jail'?

Here is something to ponder?

Exactly what did the interviewer ask Burke? We saw him being questioned about waking up to the commotion and being told to stay in his room, we also saw the 'pineapple' questions. He was asked how JBR died but was he asked who he thought did it?

------------

@SSAhotchner...

GREAT CATCH on the photos.

Is it me or does this case make you feel like Colombo?

You see something that doesn't         quite         make        sense         and      you     can't      put     your finger on it, then someone says, "that's not a hen, it's a rooster!"

I saw what you saw, but never thought about lipstick - I can see Patsy's "toddler and tiara" side coming out during a photo shoot like that?

[ElDosEquis]

2 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I agree. No matter what the piece of evidence is, there's several different explanations. Take the scuff mark underneath the window, for example. Was it made by the intruder? Or did John leave it when he broke in? Is it possible Burke or JB scuffed the wall while horsing around? Or maybe the mark had been there for ten years and it was completely irrelevant. 

How the hell could a D.A. ever build a rock solid case out of this mess?

I get what you are saying, but when you take into consideration that the PD and the D.A.'s office didn't get along, the crime scene contamination and the inability of the cops to speak with the J and P and their friends?

What I don't understand is the power JR had over the whole town.

[BitterApple]

6 minutes ago, ElDosEquis said:

I get what you are saying, but when you take into consideration that the PD and the D.A.'s office didn't get along, the crime scene contamination and the inability of the cops to speak with the J and P and their friends?

What I don't understand is the power JR had over the whole town.

I agree. When looking at everything in totality, it's no wonder why the cops were laser focused on the Ramseys. The kidnapping is obviously staged. No ransom call ever came. John isn't talking. Patsy isn't talking. They won't allow access to Burke. John's first wife is lawyered up. Their inner circle is refusing to assist in the investigation. If I was a detective red flags would be flying everywhere that those closest to a murdered six year-old don't seem to want the case solved. I'm not saying the Boulder PD did a bang-up job, but I understand their frustration.

[Chai]

I thought Burke couldn't be charged for a crime even if his parents hadn't covered up for him? Colorado law at the time could only charge juveniles age 10 and older? Burke was 9 at the time.

 

Also, I didn't like the show playing down the minimal aspect  of sexual abuse. The autopsy clearly stated " ....evidence of prior sexual abuse,"

 

I have been reading and researching. This link provides excellent info if you are interested in more reading.

http://forumsforjustice.org

[OSM Mom]

1 hour ago, Chai said:

I thought Burke couldn't be charged for a crime even if his parents hadn't covered up for him? Colorado law at the time could only charge juveniles age 10 and older? Burke was 9 at the time.

 

But the Ramseys social standing would have been ruined.  Patsy was very concerned with appearances and her social status.  It was better to be thought of as victims of a kidnapping and murder of their daughter than to have their son be labeled a murderer.  

[Cara]

1 hour ago, Chai said:

I thought Burke couldn't be charged for a crime even if his parents hadn't covered up for him? Colorado law at the time could only charge juveniles age 10 and older? Burke was 9 at the time.

 

Also, I didn't like the show playing down the minimal aspect  of sexual abuse. The autopsy clearly stated " ....evidence of prior sexual abuse,"

 

I have been reading and researching. This link provides excellent info if you are interested in more reading.

http://forumsforjustice.org

No, Burke couldn't be criminally charged. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be repercussions. At a minimum, child services would have become involved. It's possible they could have lost custody.

[SSAHotchner]

20 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

Maharincess, I believe k/n refers to kidnappers. Someone had suggested the Kolar book Foreign Faction, and I used my Kindle Unlimited to download it. The book answered a lot of questions that I still had, and pointed out the extent to which the police were hindered by the DA's office, even after the new DA came on board. Sorry, but when the investigators on a case present fairly compelling evidence and ask for warrants, to convene a grand jury, etc., the appropriate response is not, "I don't want to damage my relationship with the Ramseys." The book, in tandem with this show, has removed any minor doubts I might have had about Burke's culpability. One of the most telling aspects of the case, at least to me, is the falling out that occurred between the Ramseys and the Whites.  I don't think the fracture of the friendship was just about John Ramsey throwing Priscilla White under the bus. Based on the letter that the Whites ultimately wrote to the governor's office (I believe), it sounds very much as if somewhere along the way, the Whites began to think that the Ramseys were deliberately impeding the investigation. Even though the Whites did not flatly state that one of the Ramseys was responsible for JonBenet's death, the tone of that letter left no doubt they believed the Ramseys were at fault.

I was discussing the case a couple of days ago with a friend, who raised an interesting point: If the cover-up prevented Burke from being thrown into the legal system or a mental health institution, and he has not committed violence against anyone else, isn't it possible the Ramseys did the right thing? Presumably he would have become even more psychologically damaged in either of those settings. Against that question, I still feel their actions were reprehensible. They saved their son, but at a tremendous cost not only financially to investigate the case, but also the psychological toll on the investigators, some of whom left the force because of their frustration at being stonewalled by the DA, and the damage to reputation and so forth for the various people who came under suspicion of being the killer.  And while Burke apparently did see a psychiatrist or therapist of some sort for a year or so after JonBenet's death, who probably provided better treatment than Burke would have gotten in an institution, Burke is not someone I could ever trust. His lack of subsequent violence doesn't necessarily mean the capacity or desire to commit violence is gone; it may just mean that once he became old enough to realize how the situation played out, he figured that the parents had been able to save him once but wouldn't be able to again.  It's easy to think of this as a one-time incidence of him losing control of his temper, but the other indicators (golf club incident and smearing feces) point to some kind of underlying pathology.

I downloaded the book, too, but only just started it today. Not that I'm a slow reader. I just spend way too much time online and watching TV. :) I'm looking forward to reading what Kolar has to say, but the photos are quite disturbing. 

[SSAHotchner]

5 hours ago, ElDosEquis said:

Spot on assessment.

Nine, going on ten, is an age where you can be scared shitless, as a result of your actions?

I can see a small boy confused by what happened - how many cartoons had he watched where a character takes a mallet/hammer/2x4 to the head, shake it off and walk away?

"It was an accident, Burke......"

By the time he was looked at as a suspect - with the stipulation that no cop was to interview him - they had reinforced the idea that if he spoke/told the truth he was going to be 'taken away/go to jail'?

Here is something to ponder?

Exactly what did the interviewer ask Burke? We saw him being questioned about waking up to the commotion and being told to stay in his room, we also saw the 'pineapple' questions. He was asked how JBR died but was he asked who he thought did it?

------------

@SSAhotchner...

GREAT CATCH on the photos.

Is it me or does this case make you feel like Colombo?

You see something that doesn't         quite         make        sense         and      you     can't      put     your finger on it, then someone says, "that's not a hen, it's a rooster!"

I saw what you saw, but never thought about lipstick - I can see Patsy's "toddler and tiara" side coming out during a photo shoot like that?

I LOVE Columbo!! Yeah. I've been reading mysteries since I was a kid and true crime most of my adult life. You just start to pick up on things. Let's hope we never have to use these acquired skills in our real lives. 

[SSAHotchner]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

I agree. When looking at everything in totality, it's no wonder why the cops were laser focused on the Ramseys. The kidnapping is obviously staged. No ransom call ever came. John isn't talking. Patsy isn't talking. They won't allow access to Burke. John's first wife is lawyered up. Their inner circle is refusing to assist in the investigation. If I was a detective red flags would be flying everywhere that those closest to a murdered six year-old don't seem to want the case solved. I'm not saying the Boulder PD did a bang-up job, but I understand their frustration.

I started reading the Kolar book today. There was mention of Patsy being too distraught to be questioned by the police and I thought to myself, "If anyone took or harmed my child, I would want to not only tell the police every single thing I knew, but I would want to hear about everything they were doing to find the perpetrator as well." When someone close to you dies, you kind of go on auto pilot at least until after the funeral. You're in shock, and you're doing the things that have to be done and then collapse and grieve later. My cousin lost his oldest daughter when her school bus was hit by a commuter train. There were 7 kids killed in that accident and many more injured. The parents, and most of the town, went to every single funeral and wake. It was only after they buried their daughter and most of the guests left that my cousin and his wife broke down. I'm not saying this is always the case, but in the Ramsey's situation, I feel that Patsy was using the "collapsed by grief" excuse to get out of being interviewed by the police or FBI. 

[ElDosEquis]

12 hours ago, SSAHotchner said:

I LOVE Columbo!! Yeah. I've been reading mysteries since I was a kid and true crime most of my adult life. You just start to pick up on things. Let's hope we never have to use these acquired skills in our real lives. 

No, never want to have to, either.

 

That is the 'attraction' to this case. You see things and they don't sit right with you, you cannot put your finger on just what is 'wrong'.

Then someone points out a very simple fact that makes you go, "AHA!!!" I think that most of us aren't chasing Big Foot, unicorns or honest politicians? We are interested because of the mystery, we don't want to relive the grisly details for sport, but to know what happened to this child and to have the satisfaction to see someone held responsible for the crime?

[ghoulina]

14 hours ago, OSM Mom said:

But the Ramseys social standing would have been ruined.  Patsy was very concerned with appearances and her social status.  It was better to be thought of as victims of a kidnapping and murder of their daughter than to have their son be labeled a murderer.  

It also might have caused the state to look more into the family and their background - to find out WHY the kid did this? What was wrong with him? If enough was uncovered, they might have lost Burke too. To CPS. Who can say for sure what their motivations were, but they were definitely a family who cared about keeping up appearances. 

[jaync]

Quote

I agree with you there but I believe it was more than an accidental whack in the head.  Patsy and Jon knew that and that's why they covered it up. 

Agreed. That boy had already used his sister's head as a tee, and he wanted her to literally eat and sleep in shit. He HATED her.

Quote

Every time you read, "I woke up and he/she wasn't there" you find yourself waiting for the child to be found and the news story announcing that a parent or significant other of one of the parents were arrested to follow.

This reminds me of one of the televised interviews the Ramseys gave (I think the clip was shown on the A&E special). In it, John says [paraphrasing], "Imagine going to bed, thinking your family is safe, but then you wake up to find your child murdered." Well, they woke up to find her kidnapped/missing, not murdered. Freudian slip?

[pamplemousse]

15 hours ago, SSAHotchner said:

My cousin lost his oldest daughter when her school bus was hit by a commuter train. There were 7 kids killed in that accident and many more injured. The parents, and most of the town, went to every single funeral and wake. It was only after they buried their daughter and most of the guests left that my cousin and his wife broke down. I'm not saying this is always the case, but in the Ramsey's situation, I feel that Patsy was using the "collapsed by grief" excuse to get out of being interviewed by the police or FBI. 

It seemed like the Ramseys wanted to get the hell out of Dodge as soon as possible (and avoid law enforcement). They wanted to leave for Atlanta right away and I think the Whites talked to them and told them that it would look bad and would be better for the investigation if they stayed for a while to assist the police. Then when they did go to Atlanta, the Whites advised them that maybe it would be better if they returned to Boulder to help in the investigation. And then the Ramseys severed their relationship with the Whites because, I guess, the Whites seemed to show more concern about finding Jonbenet's killer than they did and kept trying to meddle by advising them on how not to appear guilty as sin and tone-deaf to boot (such as talking Patsy out of wearing her diamonds and fur coat for the tv interview). The Ramseys, other than their television appearance, seemed to have no interest in finding out who killed their daughter -- they just wanted to distance themselves from the whole thing as quickly and completely as possible. They point to how they spent money in hiring their own investigative team as evidence of their commitment to getting justice for Jonbenet, but when all your other actions make it look as though you want the murder investigation of your child buried along with her, hiring your own investigative team who are all on your payroll looks less like a search for justice and more like a means to control the narrative and have investigators for hire craft a narrative that makes you look better than the evidence would otherwise suggest.

Aside from the totality of the evidence not fitting the intruder theory, the main reason why I don't believe in it is that much of it was crafted and propagated by the Ramseys themselves and Lou Smit who decided they couldn't have done it because they went to church every week (Lou Smit was super Christian) and looked like such a nice upper-class white family and he joined their payroll as well (I'm sure they paid better than what the Boulder PD was offering him as a consulting fee). Sorry but when suspects tell me some random did it and then point the finger to everyone else who have already been cleared and have zero ties to it, I'm going to have to view that theory with some suspicion as just being deflection and a transparent attempt to muddy the waters.

Didn't Kolar also say in Foreign Faction that although Patsy was acting distraught and covering her face with her hands, he kept catching her peeking through her fingers at him as though to gauge his reactions to her distraught-ness? Or was that in a different book?

Edited September 29, 2016 by pamplemousse

[SSAHotchner]

Yeah, Pamplemousse, leaving town was really suspicious and another instance where you have to ask yourself, "would I have done that?" No, because you'd want to do everything in your power to find out who killed your kid. If you just look at them from a distance, you'd think, "Oh, those poor parents. What a tragedy. No wonder they need to get away from all this stress." But if you put yourself in their place, you know you wouldn't be able to rest until you found out what happened. The fact that John was arranging the flight out that day and said he had a business meeting he couldn't get out of, who would do that when their child had just been murdered? Even if she had been struck by a car or died from a serious illness, you wouldn't leave town on the day she died for a business meeting!