Jump to content

S01.E02: Part Two 2016.09.19

Quote

Conclusion. The unsolved JonBenét Ramsey murder is investigated by original investigators and new experts, who re-examine evidence and offer new theories as to who may have killed the 6-year-old girl in her family's Boulder, Colo., home on Dec. 26, 1996.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I can't believe they basically came out and said Burke did it. Those interviews with him were creepy.

The Kolar theory is very plausible.

I really want to see the missing two hours.

8

Share Post


Link to post

Regarding the DNA on the underwear - do we know if JonBenet's undies were brand new?  And is anyone else grossed out at the thought of putting new underwear on without washing it first?  Or new clothes of any kind - except coats, jackets, etc.  

9

Share Post


Link to post

I'm not sure what to think when it comes to this case, but what I do know is Burke Ramsey was creepy as fuck as a kid. I did find it interesting that he had no fear over what had happened. I mean, I know kids can be resilient when it comes to traumatic events, but I think a kid his age would be scared of someone coming for him after his sister had been murdered in their home, jumping to conclusions a bit, it was almost as though he knew he had no reason to be scared.

22

Share Post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, WhitneyWhit said:

I'm not sure what to think when it comes to this case, but what I do know is Burke Ramsey was creepy as fuck as a kid. I did find it interesting that he had no fear over what had happened. I mean, I know kids can be resilient when it comes to traumatic events, but I think a kid his age would be scared of someone coming for him after his sister had been murdered in their home, jumping to conclusions a bit, it was almost as though he knew he had no reason to be scared.

I also thought his reaction to the pineapple was telling in the interview that was held when he was 11.  I thought Clemente and Laura (I'm blanking on her last name) were extremely credible, and they pointed out that he was avoiding identifying what was in the bowl as pineapple.  It's a simple question, and he was an 11-year-old kid.  His hesitation was out of place and was a huge red flag for me.

22

Share Post


Link to post

I can't believe none of the experts made mention of Burke possibly having Aspbergers or some kind of social/emotional disorder.  They talked about the feces smearing and his odd affect, but no one makes any suggestions at to what might cause that.  Yet they are willing to label him a murderer.

8

Share Post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, LittleCabbage said:

And before I forget to mention it... who eats pineapple in MILK?! Gah! That's a crime in itself!

It might have been cream or sweetened condensed milk. A friend of mine used to eat fruit this way - by adding some sugar and cream and smushing it around in a bowl. Great way to make fruit unhealthy, lol.

Edited by ExplainItAgain.
3

Share Post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Mittengirl said:

 Yet they are willing to label him a murderer.

They didn't label him a murderer.  They specifically talked about how they could not know his intent.  What they did label him is responsible for what happened, be it accidental or intentional.

13

Share Post


Link to post

Or perhaps Burke was smearing feces as a way of getting any attention from his parents. He was jealous of her and it does appear that's where his parents main focus was. 

Or he was sexually assaulted? 

I wouldn't be surprised if he does have some kind of disorder. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. But I really struggle with that. 

Edited by Court.
3

Share Post


Link to post

I'm sorry, but the scenario that they came up with (and all agreed to) that Burke killed JonBenet because she took a piece of his pineapple was laughable. Except it's not funny for Burke that they stated pretty definitively on national television that he was the killer. Here's what doesn't seem right to me:

1. I love how they immediately said that the DNA belonging to someone outside the family, on two separate articles of her clothing, were unimportant and could be dismissed. Yeah, right, just ignore any evidence that contradicts your theory.

2. So Burke struck JonBenet with the flashlight and John and Patsy created an elaborate kidnapping story to cover it up. Except they leave the flashlight, the murder weapon, on the kitchen counter. Really? If you're going to cover up a crime, it seems to me that the first thing you are going to do is get rid of the murder weapon, or at least put it someplace else in the house where the police were less likely to find it or connect it to the murder if they did find it.

3. It's completely reasonable that JonBenet would snatch a piece of pineapple from Burke's bowl because one of the investigators has grandchildren and they would totally do that. That's definitive evidence right there. Also, they said the pineapple was found in JonBenet's small intestine. If Burke killed JonBenet very shortly after she took his pineapple, shouldn't it have been found still in her stomach rather than having already moved through her stomach into her small intestine?

And again, if the pineapple was the trigger for Burke hitting JonBenet, why didn't Jon & Patsy dispose of the pineapple (I'm sure they had a garbage disposal) and wash the bowl so that the question of the pineapple bowl never even came up? They claimed that Burke wouldn't say that it was pineapple in the bowl to the police because he knew it was related to the crime. If Burke had been instructed by the parents not to discuss the pineapple, why did he readily say that pineapple was one of his favorite foods?

4. I had read that Burke had previously hit JonBenet with a golf club but that it was accidental. But that "friend" tonight said it was in anger. Has anyone else ever corroborated that they were told by John or Patsy that it was in anger? The friend seemed a bit disgruntled to me and if these investigators had indicated to her that they thought Burke did it, it's possible she come up with this to insert herself into the investigation.

IMO, this "investigation" was embarrassingly shoddy and ignored any evidence that didn't conform to their pre-conceived theory that Burke did it. I feel really bad for Burke. Not fair to him to be tried and convicted on national television. Yeah, he seems like a bit of an oddball both as a kid and as an adult, but there are a lot of oddballs in the world, most of whom never commit any crimes.

Edited by absolutelyido.
22

Share Post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, WhitneyWhit said:

I'm not sure what to think when it comes to this case, but what I do know is Burke Ramsey was creepy as fuck as a kid. I did find it interesting that he had no fear over what had happened. I mean, I know kids can be resilient when it comes to traumatic events, but I think a kid his age would be scared of someone coming for him after his sister had been murdered in their home, jumping to conclusions a bit, it was almost as though he knew he had no reason to be scared.

He's STILL creepy as fuck (I saw him on Dr. Phil).  I think he's a psychopath.  If the parents would cover up him killing (accidentally or not) his sister, can you imagine what else he had done through the years that they also kept hidden?

9 minutes ago, ExplainItAgain said:

It might have been cream or sweetened condensed milk. A friend of mine used to eat fruit this way - by adding some sugar and cream and smushing it around in a bowl.

I still eat strawberries and peaches that way.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I thought it was interesting that Burke claimed he had slept through the night ("a heavy sleeper" by his own admission) but in that Dr Phil interview he claimed he had gotten up during the night to go play with this toys. It's amazing he could "remember" that now but not when he was 9 and 11. 

Also interesting was the point the Colorado defense attorney made about reading those indictments as a way of saying that Burke was responsible for the murder as well. It makes sense (to me) now why Burke gave that interview to Phil - damage control. 

I also never heard that Steve Thomas story about the DA's office refusal to subpoena the phone and credit card records. If that's true, then I reserve the right to side eye the constant drumbeat of the critics who lay all the blame for this unsolved crime at the feet of the police; the DA's office most certainly had a hand in this as well.

I was never a believer of the "Burke did it" theory - but have come around to believing it's the only one that makes total sense. 

Oh, and I noticed two things missing from this show that were in the preview: the claim that climbing through the window was impossible and the investigators calling out to Burke to come talk to them. I wonder what else they omitted after cutting out the third episode. 

6

Share Post


Link to post

It was refreshing to see a program that concluded with RDI theory after seeing all the Intruder theory programs over the years. I thought the last 90 minutes were the most interesting to me.  To me the most damming thing is the Grand Jury indictments which is the only reason I believe the BDI.

When I first heard about the case I thought it was an intruder. After watching Perfect Murder Perfect Town and reading up on the case I thought it Patsy. After the grand jury stuff came out I thought the charges were interesting. I wish the whole Grand Jury report would come out.

Quote

Oh, and I noticed two things missing from this show that were in the preview: the claim that climbing through the window was impossible and the investigators calling out to Burke to come talk to them. I wonder what else they omitted after cutting out the third episode. 

There was a female voice that said "Never call me again". I was wondering if it was one of Patsy's sisters.

Edited by choclatechip45.
2

Share Post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Court said:

I wouldn't be surprised if he does have some kind of disorder. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. But I really struggle with that.

I think it's human nature to struggle with the idea that a child could do another child serious harm, but I again think of all of the adults who have committed heinous acts.  They weren't hatched as adults.  They were also once disturbed children, and I do think it's very likely Burke Ramsey was a disturbed child as well.

One thing that always bugged me about the "intruder" theory (but was not discussed during this show) was that there was never any description of this intruder, even an incorrect one.  Patay obviously didn't give one, but no one else at any time ever gave one either.

3

Share Post


Link to post

The stun gun reenactment was interesting as well. The gun didn't leave perfect holes on that poor guy's body - but instead, left long burn marks. How does that square with other stun gun reenactments? 

I just never could understand the stun gun involvement -- so, she was basically super murdered? Stun gunned, garrote-d, and hit in the head and then fake kidnapped? That's some overkill there. 

13

Share Post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I also never heard that Steve Thomas story about the DA's office refusal to subpoena the phone and credit card records. If that's true, then I reserve the right to side eye the constant drumbeat of the critics who lay all the blame for this unsolved crime at the feet of the police; the DA's office most certainly had a hand in this as well.

I honestly didn't understand this part. Why does the DA's office have to subpoena the records? If the police want a subpoena don't they just have to go to a judge to get one (without necessarily even involving the DA)?

2

Share Post


Link to post

According to the experts on tonight's show, the 'stun gun' marks were not from a stun gun at all but possibly from a toy train track. 

My husband, who watched the episode with me, had the same kind of train set as Burke, which apparently is an older one and quite expensive. (Hubby was, and is, a model train geek.) He verified that the prongs in the connecting ends could leave a burn mark if it was plugged in, much like the marks that appeared on JonBenet. 

Edited by LittleCabbage.
8

Share Post


Link to post

- The the moment when Burke said "oh" when looking at the picture of the pineapple. He recognized what he was looking at and then got really antsy.

- They did a great job of destroying the idea that an intruder could have gotten through that window (twice!) without breaking the spiderweb. 

- It's largely a somantic argument, but I have the same objection that Werner Spitz had to calling this an accident. If Burke (or whoever) swung the object with intent to harm, then that doesn't qualify as an accident in my book. He didn't intend to kill? Fine, but it's still not an accident.

- I didn't care for their "It was a fight over the pineapple" scenario. It could have been over that, but it could also have been over a million other things. 

- I read James Kolar's book and one thing he said during the final roundtable contradicted what he said in the book. During the roundtable, he said that the elements of the ransom note suggested both John and Patsy were responsible for composing it, but in his book he says he thinks that Patsy alone was responsible for the note/staging and that John walked down the stairs that morning with no knowledge of what had happened the night before. (That may sound far-fetched at first, but the more I've thought about it, the more John Ramsey being involved in the staging seems out of character to me.)

I'd be interested to hear if Kolar changed his theory, if the editing of the discussion was misleading (as to his position on the issue) or if the show pressured him to agree to the consensus.

1

Share Post


Link to post

If this is what happened, the why in the hell did they leave that pineapple out on the damn table?! A three-page note and a crazy staging but no flushing pineapple down a toilet? Oh, this Macbook is about to run out of (pineapple) juice...but I will be back in here tomorrow, that's for damn sure!

Edited by TattleTeeny.
5

Share Post


Link to post

I'd not seen the "pineapple" portion of the interview with Burke before.  Wow.  That kid was in a major state of avoidance.  I think it's possible that JB did grab a piece of pineapple out of the bowl, and Mommy and Daddy weren't around to protect her, so Burke went off on her.  

2

Share Post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, absolutelyido said:

I'm sorry, but the scenario that they came up with (and all agreed to) that Burke killed JonBenet because she took a piece of his pineapple was laughable. Except it's not funny for Burke that they stated pretty definitively on national television that he was the killer. Here's what doesn't seem right to me:

1. I love how they immediately said that the DNA belonging to someone outside the family, on two separate articles of her clothing, were unimportant and could be dismissed. Yeah, right, just ignore any evidence that contradicts your theory.

2. So Burke struck JonBenet with the flashlight and John and Patsy created an elaborate kidnapping story to cover it up. Except they leave the flashlight, the murder weapon, on the kitchen counter. Really? If you're going to cover up a crime, it seems to me that the first thing you are going to do is get rid of the murder weapon, or at least put it someplace else in the house where the police were less likely to find it or connect it to the murder if they did find it.

3. It's completely reasonable that JonBenet would snatch a piece of pineapple from Burke's bowl because one of the investigators has grandchildren and they would totally do that. That's definitive evidence right there. Also, they said the pineapple was found in JonBenet's small intestine. If Burke killed JonBenet very shortly after she took his pineapple, shouldn't it have been found still in her stomach rather than having already moved through her stomach into her small intestine?

And again, if the pineapple was the trigger for Burke hitting JonBenet, why didn't Jon & Patsy dispose of the pineapple (I'm sure they had a garbage disposal) and wash the bowl so that the question of the pineapple bowl never even came up? They claimed that Burke wouldn't say that it was pineapple in the bowl to the police because he knew it was related to the crime. If Burke had been instructed by the parents not to discuss the pineapple, why did he readily say that pineapple was one of his favorite foods?

4. I had read that Burke had previously hit JonBenet with a golf club but that it was accidental. But that "friend" tonight said it was in anger. Has anyone else ever corroborated that they were told by John or Patsy that it was in anger? The friend seemed a bit disgruntled to me and if these investigators had indicated to her that they thought Burke did it, it's possible she come up with this to insert herself into the investigation.

IMO, this "investigation" was embarrassingly shoddy and ignored any evidence that didn't conform to their pre-conceived theory that Burke did it. I feel really bad for Burke. Not fair to him to be tried and convicted on national television. Yeah, he seems like a bit of an oddball both as a kid and as an adult, but there are a lot of oddballs in the world, most of whom never commit any crimes.

(applause)

They also didn't grapple with the DNA/skin found under Jon Benet's fingernails (unmatched to any family member). And somebody needs to pro tip these so-called experts that kids can go deep into total denial after trauma, pretending everything is a-okay. 

5

Share Post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

If this is what happened, the why in the hell did they leave that pineapple out on the damn table?! A three-page note and a crazy staging but no flushing pineapple down a toilet? Oh, this Macbook is about to run out of (pineapple) juice...but I will be back in here tomorrow, that's for damn sure!

Going off what AZChristian mentions above, Patsy and Jon may not have known that the pineapple was what set off the situation (if that was the catalyst).  The bowl was full, and they might not have known about the pineapple until the autopsy had been completed.  At the time, Jon and Patsy may have only known that Burke had done something to JonBenet but not the details of what happened.  Therefore, they wouldn't have thought to dump the bowl.

Also, I have been told that I have pretty good hearing, but I couldn't make out any of the "enhanced" sentences on the 911 call.

13

Share Post


Link to post

After all the different specials on this event that I've watched in the past month, I'm left even more uncertain about everything. Almost every version had a side they were trying to sell - someone in the house did it, it was someone from outside, a family member or close friend, a stranger... All I'm left with at this point is that it's a true tragedy that this young girl's life was cut short, and that I've been sucked into a vortex of watching shows about her death. I do not think we'll ever know the truth of what happened - the crime scene was mishandled, the family did things which seem unexplainable, but having had some family situations that did involve law enforcement, and watching how various family members reacted (including myself), I can honestly say that sometimes, in the heat of a crazed situation, you do not react the way you truly think you should or would.

So I'm just left with a huge sadness for the victim at this point. May she rest in peace.

17

Share Post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Going off what AZChristian mentions above, Patsy and Jon may not have known that the pineapple was what set off the situation (if that was the catalyst).  The bowl was full, and they might not have known about the pineapple until the autopsy had been completed.  At the time, Jon and Patsy may have only known that Burke had done something to JonBenet but not the details of what happened.  Therefore, they wouldn't have thought to dump the bowl.

Also, I have been told that I have pretty good hearing, but I couldn't make out any of the "enhanced" sentences on the 911 call.

But if the Ramseys were covering up for Burke, they'd NEED to get all the details to successfully cover his tracks, so they'd make Burke walk them through everything -- and once told, they'd understand they had to ditch the bowl, and tell the police Jon Benet had a late snack of pineapple, to cover all their asses.  

Edited by film noire.
1

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

Regarding the DNA on the underwear - do we know if JonBenet's undies were brand new?  And is anyone else grossed out at the thought of putting new underwear on without washing it first?  Or new clothes of any kind - except coats, jackets, etc.  

This was my first thought, were her panties new? I haven't heard anything about how new the clothes she was wearing were, does anybody know? 

2 hours ago, LittleCabbage said:

Much as I hate to bring up the pineapple thing again...I let out a gasp when the 'roundtable' folks posited the theory that JonBenet might have snatched a piece of pineapple out of Burke's bowl and sparked a fight that way.  I have always wondered why the family was so cagey about that damned pineapple. The only explanation for it is if the pineapple played into the narrative directly leading to the child's death.  The scenario seemed plausible to me.  I know I get mildly homicidal when someone tries to steal a french fry from my plate, and I'm a grown-ass woman, and sane for the most part. 

IMO this was the first viable explanation of the pineapple that anyone has come up with. It's reasonable, it's not some bizarre explanation that stretches the imagination, & it also explains why everyone denies giving her the pineapple, because nobody did, she just took a piece. As for the rest of the scenario, it's plausible, but they're just guessing.

In other stuff, I found their work on the window to be convincing. They were absolutely right about the spiderwebs & now I don't see how anybody could have come in & gotten out through that window. On the other hand, pretend testing all that fake evidence was just stupid & proved absolutely nothing except Henry Lee know how to get publicity for his forensic laboratory.

The neighbor is really getting on my nerves, she just keeps inserting herself into this case.

I hadn't heard about the grapefruit size ball of poop in her bed before, that's just disgusting.

4

Share Post


Link to post

Edited because I forgot it was male DNA on the underwear. Nothing to see here...

Edited by Jeebus Cripes.
0

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GaT said:

In other stuff, I found their work on the window to be convincing. They were absolutely right about the spiderwebs & now I don't see how anybody could have come in & gotten out through that window. On the other hand, pretend testing all that fake evidence was just stupid & proved absolutely nothing except Henry Lee know how to get publicity for his forensic laboratory.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read in one of the books on the murder (I think it was the Schiller book?) that some spider expert -I assume that's a real thing and ewwww!- said that the type of spider that made that web could easily rebuild a damaged web in a short amount of time or that it didn't take a long amount of time for said spider to build the web. I know, dust and debris in the web, but isn't it possible that it wasn't as torn up as the re-enactment and it was rebuilt with the dust and debris remaining?

I've thought far too much about spiders now. My legs are having phantom itches. Ugh.

4

Share Post


Link to post

The DNA "tests" on this episode raise some questions.  We know that in JB's clothing (underwear and tights/leggings) there were 2 samples of unknown male DNA.  I'm not sure if it was from two visible sources (i.e., small blood drops) or one (transferring by touch from Point A to Point B) but either way, the DNA was apparently excluded from lab cross contamination by workers and from the Ramseys.  Tonight's 'test' of the store bought underwear demonstrated that new, straight from the package underpants can contain DNA from the manufacturing process.  HOWEVER, this is not what was on JB.  They weren't brand new, out of the package pants.  They'd been used and laundered before.  So, a test demonstrating that new, out of the package, pants have DNA on them proves nothing in this case.  If they'd laundered them a handful of times and the DNA was still there, that might be probative.  But this waste of time test result does nothing for any one.

Second, the flashlight test. So we learn that DNA (the classic touch DNA) can be detected after someone just handles the flashlight and batteries.  That's all well & good & within common understanding of touch DNA.  Everyone at the table seemed hunky dory with that result.  My hang up is this: last night Old German Doc told Lee that there likely would be no touch DNA from the victim (essentially skin cells) on the flashlight after someone used it to crack a skull because the skull skin is pliable and bends with the blow.  I'm sorry, but if just casually handling a flashlight picks up enough epithelial cells for a positive 14 point DNA match, smacking it down on someone's head would suffice as well to transfer some skin cells.  I'm aware that a perp could clean the flashlight and remove the DNA, but that's not what Old German Doc argued; he argued that the DNA simply would not be there because the skull skin didn't break.  I'm not saying the flashlight wasn't the weapon used, just that the reasoning used to dismiss lack of DNA on the flashlight is faulty.

I find it absurd that this team didn't address the neck injuries from the strangulation and the self defensive scratch marks on the neck and DNA under the fingernails.  If this were a better production, I'd chalk it up to the cut down from 6 to 4 hours, but given how much time they wasted on utter BS in the first episode, it seems more like cherry picking to fit their theory of the crime.

8

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lizzing said:

The DNA "tests" on this episode raise some questions.  We know that in JB's clothing (underwear and tights/leggings) there were 2 samples of unknown male DNA.  I'm not sure if it was from two visible sources (i.e., small blood drops) or one (transferring by touch from Point A to Point B) but either way, the DNA was apparently excluded from lab cross contamination by workers and from the Ramseys.  Tonight's 'test' of the store bought underwear demonstrated that new, straight from the package underpants can contain DNA from the manufacturing process.  HOWEVER, this is not what was on JB.  They weren't brand new, out of the package pants.  They'd been used and laundered before.  So, a test demonstrating that new, out of the package, pants have DNA on them proves nothing in this case.  If they'd laundered them a handful of times and the DNA was still there, that might be probative.  But this waste of time test result does nothing for any one.

Second, the flashlight test. So we learn that DNA (the classic touch DNA) can be detected after someone just handles the flashlight and batteries.  That's all well & good & within common understanding of touch DNA.  Everyone at the table seemed hunky dory with that result.  My hang up is this: last night Old German Doc told Lee that there likely would be no touch DNA from the victim (essentially skin cells) on the flashlight after someone used it to crack a skull because the skull skin is pliable and bends with the blow.  I'm sorry, but if just casually handling a flashlight picks up enough epithelial cells for a positive 14 point DNA match, smacking it down on someone's head would suffice as well to transfer some skin cells.  I'm aware that a perp could clean the flashlight and remove the DNA, but that's not what Old German Doc argued; he argued that the DNA simply would not be there because the skull skin didn't break.  I'm not saying the flashlight wasn't the weapon used, just that the reasoning used to dismiss lack of DNA on the flashlight is faulty.

I find it absurd that this team didn't address the neck injuries from the strangulation and the self defensive scratch marks on the neck and DNA under the fingernails.  If this were a better production, I'd chalk it up to the cut down from 6 to 4 hours, but given how much time they wasted on utter BS in the first episode, it seems more like cherry picking to fit their theory of the crime.

The underwear was oversized it was meant to be a present for someone else Google JonBenet Bloomingdales underwear.

I have a question for everyone who thinks an intruder did this crime why did the grand jury indict the parents? I asked my dad who is a lawyer and he said he never heard of a DA not filing charges on an indictment. To me this is the strongest piece of evidence they heard everything they were able to get most of the witnesses under oath.

Edited by choclatechip45.
3

Share Post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Ohmo said:

They didn't label him a murderer.  They specifically talked about how they could not know his intent.  What they did label him is responsible for what happened, be it accidental or intentional.

Yes, it seemed almost unanimous that they thought it was an accident. Only Werner Spitz seemed to want to label it intentional. Although, that might have been a semantics issue. I do think he might have wanted to hurt her, out of anger. He had hurt her before and nothing horrible happened, so he likely didn't realize how seriously he could hurt her when he was upset. 

I have NEVER heard about the train tracks being a match for those marks on her back. I've read a lot about this case of the years, and this was the first I heard about that. I could totally see him poking her body with those, to see why she wasn't moving. 

8 hours ago, Court said:

Or perhaps Burke was smearing feces as a way of getting any attention from his parents. He was jealous of her and it does appear that's where his parents main focus was. 

It definitely could be attention getting. But, with regards to her chocolate box, I see that more as tainting it so she couldn't have it. I bet that kid had a lot of jealously and bitterness inside of him. 

 

8 hours ago, absolutelyido said:

1. I love how they immediately said that the DNA belonging to someone outside the family, on two separate articles of her clothing, were unimportant and could be dismissed. Yeah, right, just ignore any evidence that contradicts your theory.

But it was touch DNA. Which is easily transferred, as evidenced by the demonstration on the brand new pack of underwear - which had several examples of DNA on it. It was also only tested with 4 markers, instead of the standard - which I believe is 13? Finally, that crime scene was so damn contaminated, all the people moving in and out. I never agreed with the DA ruling ANYONE out over not being a match to that DNA. 

 

8 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Oh, and I noticed two things missing from this show that were in the preview: the claim that climbing through the window was impossible

Well, two people climbed through that window successfully. So it clearly CAN be done. But I think it would have to be someone very small. The gal who did it last night is petite, and Lou Smit was a slight man himself. I don't see the Santa guy being able to do that. 

 

7 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

If this is what happened, the why in the hell did they leave that pineapple out on the damn table?! A three-page note and a crazy staging but no flushing pineapple down a toilet? Oh, this Macbook is about to run out of (pineapple) juice...but I will be back in here tomorrow, that's for damn sure!

Good questions. I think, possibly, they just ran out of time. They were brainstorming - how do we do this? Coming up with all these ideas, making these elaborate distractions from what really happened and then realized...."shit, we better call the police, we should be up by now". Or Patsy may have been upstairs at the time and not even realized what started it. I tend to believe that she found Burke and the lifeless Jon Benet and immediately sent him to his room with discussing anything. That might explain why Burke asked his father, "What DID you find?" on the 911 tape. No one had really discussed it with him yet. 

 

4 hours ago, Callaphera said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I read in one of the books on the murder (I think it was the Schiller book?) that some spider expert -I assume that's a real thing and ewwww!- said that the type of spider that made that web could easily rebuild a damaged web in a short amount of time or that it didn't take a long amount of time for said spider to build the web. I know, dust and debris in the web, but isn't it possible that it wasn't as torn up as the re-enactment and it was rebuilt with the dust and debris remaining?

They showed the actual crime scene footage, though, and that web looks really old and dirty to me. 

 

2 hours ago, Lizzing said:

Second, the flashlight test. So we learn that DNA (the classic touch DNA) can be detected after someone just handles the flashlight and batteries.  That's all well & good & within common understanding of touch DNA.  Everyone at the table seemed hunky dory with that result.  My hang up is this: last night Old German Doc told Lee that there likely would be no touch DNA from the victim (essentially skin cells) on the flashlight after someone used it to crack a skull because the skull skin is pliable and bends with the blow.  I'm sorry, but if just casually handling a flashlight picks up enough epithelial cells for a positive 14 point DNA match, smacking it down on someone's head would suffice as well to transfer some skin cells.  I'm aware that a perp could clean the flashlight and remove the DNA, but that's not what Old German Doc argued; he argued that the DNA simply would not be there because the skull skin didn't break.  I'm not saying the flashlight wasn't the weapon used, just that the reasoning used to dismiss lack of DNA on the flashlight is faulty.

That was the point of them testing the flashlight, though. There was NO DNA on it. No fingerprints. The flashlight had been wiped down. There weren't even fingerprints on the batteries, which is odd. That, to me, shows that someone cleaned the entire thing off. So there wouldn't be any victim or killer DNA. 

 

1 hour ago, choclatechip45 said:

The underwear was oversized it was meant to be a present for someone else Google JonBenet Bloomingdales underwear.

Yes. It was supposed to be for a niece? Wasn't it true that the entire pack was never found, though? Only that one large pair? I'd guess that Patsy grabbed it in the spur of the moment and then they somehow disposed of the rest of the pack. Still not sure why, though. 

 

2 hours ago, Lizzing said:

I find it absurd that this team didn't address the neck injuries from the strangulation and the self defensive scratch marks on the neck and DNA under the fingernails.  If this were a better production, I'd chalk it up to the cut down from 6 to 4 hours, but given how much time they wasted on utter BS in the first episode, it seems more like cherry picking to fit their theory of the crime.

Yes, that was something that was missing for sure. I don't necessarily think that shuts down the BDI theory either. It's quite possible that Burke's blow didn't actually kill her, but appeared to. And she started to stir during the staging itself? 

3

Share Post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, LittleCabbage said:

According to the experts on tonight's show, the 'stun gun' marks were not from a stun gun at all but possibly from a toy train track. 

I have a hard time with the train tracks theory because one of the two marks on her face really looks like a burn mark, I even thought at first it was a cigarette burn. Maybe I missed it but they didn't adresse the mark in her face, we saw the photo from the one of the back each time.
PLEASE BEWARE, THOSE PHOTOS ARE EVEN MORE HORRIBLE LIKE THAT THAN ON TV. I don't even know why because we don't see much, maybe it's because the "rythm" of the pictures is steady, but really, each time I look at them I cry.
General link for the autopsy and crime scene photos:
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f237/jonben-t-ramsey-autopsy-crime-scene-photos-8219/

Specific link for the mark I'm referring to and again please if you're a kind and tender heart like I am, think before clicking, it could hurt your sleep for tonight : http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/18214d1213070520-jonben-t-ramsey-autopsy-crime-scene-photos-0jonbenetfaceop.jpg

The only good thing was the reconstitution of the experience with the spider web, which on the video looked like the old one I can find in my home sometimes in our garage. Because it was asked : a spider take less than an hour to make a small web. http://topics.info.com/_2288
But really, to me, this web seems old and abandonned by its maker.

Besides that, I'm happy to know not to buy a taser, since it seems it would energize my assaillant if I tried to use it. I'm appalled Taser doesn't sell it like it is: adderall for rapists.

Anyway... the theory in that documentary is Burke did it and the parents covered it.

FIRST PART OF THE CRIME: 
* JonBenét wakes up because she wet her bed ; 
* she doesn't change but she goes to the kitchen where Burke is taking a late snack while playing with his train ;
* Burke tries to stab her with the train tracks because the golf club in the face earlier in their life didn't do the job properly ;
* he then hits her with the flashlight he got from.... well, we can assume he got it because he likes to sneek downstairs at night and it's more discreet, seems logical and not farfetched I think ;
* the blow to the head didn't kill her instantly if we are to assume, and it seems safe, the skull fracture and the subdural hemorrhage that ensued killed her ; so because he was bored, he watched her die while she cries and bleeds from the mouth (saliva and blood were found on the duct tape) because he's creepy like that ;
* he calls for help or one parent finds her dead, thinks "yeah, Burke totally did it because our child is creepy like that, after all, he plays with poop and I'm going to save him from himself" ;

SECOND PART OF THE CRIME:
* then said parents cover up this and proceed like that ?
- attach her on her bed or in her bedroom (fibers from the cord were found on the bed) ;
- put her in the basement ; (even if we don't know definitively where she was killed, the basement is most likely where most of the "action" took place with the evidences of urine just outside the room, the shuffle inside the room and the tiny bits of the paintbrush suggesting the garrote was made there)
- simulate the rape of their favorite child with a paintbrush ; (spec of wood from it was found in her vagina ; )
or she wasn't sexually assaulted and a piece of wood went into her vagina when the father moved the body ; (not gonna lie, this one would be a relief)
- made a garrote and strangle her with it ; (same wood) 
- evidences aren't conclusive for any side but either they simulated that she struggled to take off the garotte or they didn't. Your choice at that point, some believe there are scratch marks around the neck, some don't. I can't read an autopsy report to save my life but Judge Carnes thought there was indeed signs of struggles ;
- but they did put some DNA of an unknown male under one nail ;
- tape her mouth ;
- put animal hairs (probably a beaver) on the duct tape, making sure it wasn't matchable with anything in the house. And because they had spare beaver hairs, put some on her hands to be thorough ;
- cover her with a blanket ;
- put one pubic hair and one long hair of a unknown man on that blanket ;
- clean her with a brown thingy, putting brown fibers on her, unmatched with anything in their house ;
- put touch DNA from an unknown male on TWO separate pieces of her clothes, in an amount that assure confusion (if I remember well, it's 10 times more than the amount of touch DNA found on new clothes coming from the usuals "touchers" : workers, factory, deliverer etc...) ;
- put a suitcase with random things...
- ...under a broken window, put a mark on the wall and some shoeprints to suggest an intruder ;
or they got lucky with that idea because all of that could have just been done when John Ramsey broke into his own home as he admitted freely and immediately when asked about the window (but the grass was still green indicating a fresh disturbance) ;
or they lied about the window being broken before that night and broke it then too, shuffle the grass outside the window to make believe of an intruder but forgot the spiderweb.
- put fibers of a carpet from the basement on the baseball bat found outside the house to further confusion ; (that one still confuses me, it doesn't seem relevant but I put it there because that evidence exists so...) ;
- made some of the evidences disappear : the shoes used to make the footprints, the rest of the ducktape, the brown thingy, the beaver, the rest of the cord used for the garrotte, the end of the paintbrush (but the brush part was left on the tray)  ;
- if you believe she was tasered, it also disappeared. If you believe the train tracks theory, they just left the rest of it (or even the one used) here to be found ;
- forget the flashlight, with which their son killed their daughter on the kitchen counter BUT erase all prints inside and out ; 
- forget or don't know enough of the details to realize that the pineapple is relevant so they just let the bowl where it was ;
- wrote a ridiculous ransom note using their own stationnary, inspired by all the movies they've watched ; 
- writing in a manner and with the ideal pen, a broad fiber-tip pen, to hide the caracteristics of an handwriting which preclude any expert to positively identify said handwriting or match it ;
- make the scene of Burke's crime disappear. What is the kitchen? The bedroom? Did he strike her in the basement? They really got lucky with police incompetence if it's in the kitchen ; no way to find the blood she bled through the mouth or traces of the saliva that runned down the side of her face ;
- call the police but managed to fuck up that part too because Patsy didn't hang up correctly and John Ramsey adresses the culprit in such manner it raises furthermore suspicions.

Okey then©Fargo. I'm conviced! Burke killed her! Did the parents even bother to check if she was indeed dead when they found her "the first time" before putting in place that charade? 
*sigh*
I really want to believe Burke did it and the parents covered it up. I swear, the more I read and watch, the more I want to! It would suck because I don't like to think of people capable of doing that to a child but at least, I'd know a 9 years old little sociopath and his enabling parents (at least the one still alive) wouldn't get away with it even 20 years later but could this assertion be made with an explanation of the evidences (instead of declaring irrelevant the unfitting and unsexy ones) and behavioural speculations?

2

Share Post


Link to post

Was the feces smeared on the candy box ever submitted to DNA testing?  

Whether there was an intruder or not, why did they have to come in through the window anyway?  I thought I've read that the Ramseys weren't so great about locking their doors and one was found unlocked?

To me, the BDI theory makes the most sense, except when I get to the garroting and paintbrush in the vagina.  What parent would do that even to cover up for another child?  And would a 9-year-old know how to make one or to wear gloves to keep DNA off of it? 

3

Share Post


Link to post

I have no real opinion on what happened, but it strikes me as odd that the first thing used to support a theory of Ramsey culpability is that they wanted communications with police to go through their lawyer.   And a lot of those critical voices (podcasters, commentators) are those who railed against the improper interrogation techniques in other cases like Avery/Dassey, Syed/Wilds, WM3, and how those persons would have been better served by asking for a lawyer.  It just seems inconsistent. The Ramsey lawyer had to have known that the family would have been primary suspects, given statistics and confirmation bias.  I'm also a little skeptical of claims by law enforcement when suspects/defendants "aren't cooperating," as we've learned from other high profile wrongful prosecutions that can be inaccurate -- it's certainly very subjective.

Edited by annlaw78.
6

Share Post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, annlaw78 said:

 

I have no real opinion on what happened, but it strikes me as odd that the first thing used to support a theory of Ramsey culpability is that they wanted communications with police to go through their lawyer.   And a lot of those critical voices (podcasters, commentators) are those who railed against the improper interrogation techniques in other cases like Avery/Dassey, Syed/Wilds, and how those persons would have been better served by asking for a lawyer.  It just seems inconsistent.

 

If you're suspected of a crime, you absolutely should get a lawyer. I have no issue with that. But I think the different with Avery, Dassey, etc. is that the victim in the Ramsey's case was their own daughter. SO yea, get a lawyer for your protection, but if you're truly innocent - help the police solve this case! The police fucked up a lot, for sure, but I never really felt like the Ramseys were interested in helping them in any way. 

7

Share Post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, annlaw78 said:

I have no real opinion on what happened, but it strikes me as odd that the first thing used to support a theory of Ramsey culpability is that they wanted communications with police to go through their lawyer.   And a lot of those critical voices (podcasters, commentators) are those who railed against the improper interrogation techniques in other cases like Avery/Dassey, Syed/Wilds, and how those persons would have been better served by asking for a lawyer.  It just seems inconsistent. The Ramsey lawyer had to have known that the family would have been primary suspects, given statistics and confirmation bias.  I'm also a little skeptical of claims by law enforcement when suspects/defendants "aren't cooperating," as we've learned from other high profile wrongful prosecutions that can be inaccurate -- it's certainly very subjective.

I agree I think the Ramsey's should have had a lawyer right away. My whole issue is why not cooperate with police? Why wait until April to be questioned that part never made sense to me.

9

Share Post


Link to post

I have no issue with them retaining a lawyer. However, saying you'll only answer written question submitted through your lawyer and he'll return them does bother me.

You don't really know who wrote the questions. They can take as long as they want to answer.

If you read up on touch DNA, it's not as foolproof as it seems. The sample was old and had decayed. 13 is standard, the DA changed it to 4. Also, scene was contaminated. Are we really saying the chain of custody was handled perfectly when the police never secured the scene? Innocent people have been convicted on DNA evidence and then when DNA was retested it wasn't a match.  Remember, that she was placed on the floor when carried up. They had a Christmas tour and weren't very tidy people. Friends and victims advocates were also there.  

Who put that underwear on her? Did JonBenet when she went to bed? Or did she change into it after having the accident?

4

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

have NEVER heard about the train tracks being a match for those marks on her back. I've read a lot about this case of the years, and this was the first I heard about that. I could totally see him poking her body with those, to see why she wasn't moving. 

They talked about the train tracks in one of the other recent shows about the case.  I think that show discounted it as not being probable for some reason I can't recall.  Maybe someone else can remember.

I don't know if a stun gun was used or not, but why the heck do the police use them if they make people jumpy and energized?

If I were faking a ransom note, I would keep it simple.  Especially if I'm writing it by hand.  I'd probably use block letters, too. One thing I noticed about the ransom note was the mention of John Ramsey's southern [sic] charm.  That's a bit odd since he was raised in Michigan.  Yes, I know he had lived in Atlanta for almost two decades previously by this time, but still. 

Edited by Josette. Reason: grammar
3

Share Post


Link to post

Patsy was from the South but it was a family joke that John was the true Southerner. Whoever wrote it was close to the Ramsey's.

6

Share Post


Link to post

While watching about four of these shows, I've gone from theory to theory and it's been a real lesson in how professionals can pick one and dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit.

Still my final believe is that Burke did it simply for this reason: What are the odds that the same night Burke was angry enough at his sister to put fecal matter in her bed and on her candy, another person would come in the house wanting to kill her?  I think the police probably saw the state of her bed and came to the same conclusion, but there have always been two suspects in the cover-up and they weren't about to turn on each other.  Burke himself has probably buried the memory too deeply for even hypnosis to recover it.  I hope time and brain development have straightened out the worst of his problems. 

Jon Benet is so totally innocent in all this, just a little girl wanting to paly in the leaves and stay out of her brother's way.  I hope I can forget the whole thing now.

9

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

Going off what AZChristian mentions above, Patsy and Jon may not have known that the pineapple was what set off the situation (if that was the catalyst).  The bowl was full, and they might not have known about the pineapple until the autopsy had been completed.  At the time, Jon and Patsy may have only known that Burke had done something to JonBenet but not the details of what happened.  Therefore, they wouldn't have thought to dump the bowl.

Haha, it's also probably me yet again assuming that everyone knows about what gets done at autopsies and crime scenes and the like. When TV crime shows--fiction and nonfiction--"over"explain stuff, my BF always has to remind me that, no, not everyone knows this and to quit being so snobby about it.

4

Share Post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Oh, and I noticed two things missing from this show that were in the preview: the claim that climbing through the window was impossible and the investigators calling out to Burke to come talk to them. I wonder what else they omitted after cutting out the third episode. 

I think the preview was just misleading. They were saying it's impossible for someone to get through the window...without messing up that cobweb and leaving debris inside and out of the window. They just edited the preview leaving the back part of the sentence off.

Interesting that they tried to talk to Burke. Now we know why he went on Dr. Phil - trying to get ahead of this show. Too bad they didn't get Fleet White either.

I would love to see the missing two hours. They showed a quick graphic of the possible motives implied in the letter and I think part of that discussion was cut out.

3

Share Post


Link to post

Same here. I think overall it's better at 4 hours than 6 but if they ever release the original cut, I'll be watching to get some more questions answered.

6

Share Post


Link to post

This was the first time I had heard about the feces on the candy box and the softball sized (!) piece in JBs bed.   Ick.  That is one screwed up kid, that Burke was.  The interviews were creepy as hell.  And was I the only one who was yelling at him to sit up straight, be still and stop wallowing around?? Gah! 

Also, some of the family pictures of Patsy and the kids were creepy as hell too.  Inappropriate almost.  There was one I saw on one of the JB shows of late that shows JB resting her head on Burkes back.  Yuck.  It looks creepy to me. 

I've always been in the  "Patsy did it and John helped her cover it up" category.  But after watching this, maybe Burke did do it.  I wish we could see the missing two hours.  

And is there anywhere online where I can watch the Dr Phil interview with Burke? 

1

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

If you're suspected of a crime, you absolutely should get a lawyer. I have no issue with that. But I think the different with Avery, Dassey, etc. is that the victim in the Ramsey's case was their own daughter. SO yea, get a lawyer for your protection, but if you're truly innocent - help the police solve this case!

I get that idea, but in this case, there's no way to separate being the grieving family and also the prime suspects (as acknowledged by the first FBI guy on scene).  I think the Ramseys were subject to a lot of "well, if this were my daughter, I'd be doing X" speculation that wasn't fair, or legally advisable.  As we've seen, arrests, prosecutions, and convictions can be wrongful.  Hence, the cottage industry of Serial/Paradise Lost-esque programming.

4

Share Post


Link to post

The idea that, after all this time and investigation, Burke did it is ridiculous. I followed this case really closely on the internet in the few years after the crime, and there are many, many details that these two Bozos ignored. When the Ramseys flew to Atlanta to bury JonBenet, they asked Burke's best friend in Boulder to come with them, so that Burke would have companionship during the days ahead. The friend's parents agreed to that. 

If your child is a murderer, and you know it, and you are covering up for him, then I would think that you would be really worried that your kid is going to tell his friend what happened. You wouldn't be concerned with setting up a comfortable environment for your son, you'd be completely stressed out that he'd tell someone, and you'd keep him close. Also, you probably wouldn't be inviting what could be Burke's next victim along with you. 

I hope Burke sues these two Bozos and CBS. 

Edited by TheFinalRose.
8

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now