CBS The Case Of JonBenét Ramsey

[Steven]

ah shit, I think that's mislabeled as the first ep has just started on CBS and it's different.

I think you're right, this looks different from the trailer, still some interesting details though.

Looks like some canny cunt re-uploaded The Investigation Discovery series JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery under the other name.

[thugler]

Ended up watching it live on a cbs stream. Quite good, but so many ads!

Suspect it'll be out elsewhere soon.

Also:

Spoiler alert

it seems to be pointing to Burke doing it with a torch and the parents covering it up

[close]

[Steven]

Suspect it'll be out elsewhere soon.

It's on there but mixed up with links to the fake uploads.

[biggytitbo]

It's the season of Jonbenet as there was another doc about his last week which pretty comprehensively sided with the parents. Made a pretty convincing debunki of the son did it theory anyway, which I know has become quite popular.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

PBS: The Central Park Five

"'Wilding' Teens Held in Rape." That was the headline spread across newspapers in 1989 New York. Five black and latino teenagers were accused and convicted of raping and assaulting a young, white woman. After much coercion, the men eventually confessed for the murder and were imprisoned for it. Twelve years later, authorities began to reexamine the evidence to find that they incarcerated the wrong people. This documentary looks at racism at its worst, and how fear of different colors motivated a city to convict the innocent.

Already the subject of a famous essay by Joan Didion, and probably the inspiration for at least 1 episode each of CSI:NY and Law And Order and every other show in that vein.

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

It's now over 30 years since Fatal Vision was broadcast on UK TV, and I won't trust any crime docu-drama since I found out how questionable the case is. What we have there is an actual example of a "narrative" constructed to suit agendas about what the world should be like.

[thugler]

It's the season of Jonbenet as there was another doc about his last week which pretty comprehensively sided with the parents. Made a pretty convincing debunki of the son did it theory anyway, which I know has become quite popular.

There's actually 3! that one (A&E) with the father being interviewed (no surprise they come down on the family being innocent, the CBS one (the case of) and the Investigation discovery - Jonbenet, an american murder mystery, the last one I've not watched yet. I think they both come down on the family being involved to some extent.

Will be interesting to see the second part of the CBS one since I think they will be covering some of the debunking stuff that was in the A&E one (the taser marks, dna on the body etc.)

I'm still convinced that the family were involved, the letter seems too far fetched and the son doing it by accident is the only thing that could provoke the parents to do that level of cover up without being genuine maniacs.

What side do you come down on Biggy?

[biggytitbo]

I had sided with the family involvement theory, but this made that evidence look quite questionable.


Of course the problem as always is how agenda driven these documentaries are, and what they distort and leave out. I'll have to give the others a watch.


Of course Inspector Cluefarter offered to fart on the child's remains a few years ago and somehow solve the case, but was turned down, which is suspicious in itself. What are they trying to hide?

[DrGreggles]

Ended up watching it live on a cbs stream. Quite good, but so many ads!

Suspect it'll be out elsewhere soon.

Also:

Spoiler alert

it seems to be pointing to Burke doing it with a torch and the parents covering it up

[close]

It would be a bit shit if all these 'new' investigations just led back to the theory that most people already think most likely.
Just make up something nuts for a laugh.

[biggytitbo]

I'm watching this but not sure I'm going to stick with it, its shit. Supposed forensic 'experts' making inane and half baked analysis with a very obvious prior conclusion fixed in mind. That was obvious from the point they started hearing things to fit their theory in the telephone call. Henry Lee is also on there which is a bad sign, he'll say any old shit for money.


"I think the ransom note is one of the most important pieces of forensic evidence in the whole case" - Sherlock fucking Holmes on the case there.

[thugler]

I'm watching this but not sure I'm going to stick with it, its shit. Supposed forensic 'experts' making inane and half baked analysis with a very obvious prior conclusion fixed in mind. That was obvious from the point they started hearing things to fit their theory in the telephone call. Henry Lee is also on there which is a bad sign, he'll say any old shit for money.


"I think the ransom note is one of the most important pieces of forensic evidence in the whole case" - Sherlock fucking Holmes on the case there.

Bit harsh I think. There are really only 2 options as to who did it, an intruder or one of the family. It's hardly unexpected that they had this in mind beforehand. Did you hear none of those phrases in the phonecall? 1 or 2 were a bit dubious but one 'we're not talking to you' seemed quite likely, besides it's not like their hold case rested on that.

How are they 'supposed' experts? Most of them seemed to have decent credentials (I'm presuming that one you mention doesn't like the JFK conspiracy stuff or something?).

Also lines like the one you point out are for the viewers, the constant repeating of prior scenes for the same reason.

Personally I think what I definitely believe is that the note was made by the parents, it just seems completely ridiculous that an intruder would bother with such an extensive note. The brother bashing his sister on the head somehow, whether by accident or on purpose seems the most reasonable explanation for the death.

They cover pretty much everything I saw in the docs that point to the intruder theory, and come up with decent rebuttals to it, (dna in the pants, the 'taser wound') The only one they didn't mention is the footprint, which is difficult to prove either way since the family claimed none of them owned that brand of shoe, but could easily have chucked said shoes away.

I'm not a huge expert so would welcome it if you could point out what you feel is phony about their version of events?

There's another episode of this next Sunday so I'm expecting them to have something major to finish it off, probably one of the family's close friends coming forward about a confession.

[biggytitbo]

I'm just not impressed by their forensic experts, surely the most dismal of sciences, even more so than economics. People like Spitz and Lee are renowned for been catastrophically wrong, often for large sums of money. Check out Spitz's completly insane claims regarding Casey Anthony and Phil Spector for instance - he'll say absolutely anything for money. How much were these people payed to be on this program? They are advocates not scientists. And it was little more than a steam of tendentious speculation and half baked assertions.


Agree that the combo of the weird ransom note and the body been found inside the house must be unique in criminal history, but trying to infer guilt from the way the parents behave is the way of madness. Who knows how weirdly people behave in the weirdest of circumstances, it's little more than staring at tea leaves.


As for the bit with the tape, if you overlay subtitles over something that's completly unclear then obviously it's possible you'll then be able to hear those words in the sounds, the same would be true over just random noise.

[Noodle Lizard]

Someone should've told CBS that Inspector Biggy was available to investigate!

[biggytitbo]

Cluefarter already offered to fart on the child's corpse and they said no so I think they're not interested in really solving the case.

[Noodle Lizard]

I've made it about 5 minutes into the first one.  Is it really going to be like this the whole way through?  This shit detective duo writing things on boards and doing some Joey Tribiani "smell-the-fart" reacting to photographs?  Tell me now, so I can just get the Cliff Notes.

[biggytitbo]

I've made it about 5 minutes into the first one.  Is it really going to be like this the whole way through?  This shit detective duo writing things on boards and doing some Joey Tribiani "smell-the-fart" reacting to photographs?  Tell me now, so I can just get the Cliff Notes.

It's pretty much that bad all the way through.

[Steven]

It's like Mythbusters or Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory in presentation, except with a load of experts acting, rather than a load of actors experting.

[biggytitbo]

They fact they are all been paid to appear on a program that has a very obvious agenda from the beginning is the problem. Obviously some of them have expertise but its the kind of expertise thats quite flexible and based on payment.


In most murder trials forensic experts will testify on both sides with opposite points of view. They're both experts but they're definitely not both right.

[DrGreggles]

They fact they are all been paid to appear on a program that has a very obvious agenda from the beginning is the problem.

I'm not sure that they had an agenda.
They looked at the evidence and concluded that the intruder theory was unlikely and the Burke + cover up theory was far more plausible.

That said, I think there may be a series in the child-twats-pig-head-with-a-torch format.

[biggytitbo]

No, they definitely started with the theory that the parents/burke did it, they didn't objectively end up on that line of investigation due to their findings. The so-called experts here were pure advocates.

[DrGreggles]

No, they definitely started with the theory that the parents/burke did it

That must have been cut from the version I saw.

[thugler]

I'm just not impressed by their forensic experts, surely the most dismal of sciences, even more so than economics. People like Spitz and Lee are renowned for been catastrophically wrong, often for large sums of money. Check out Spitz's completly insane claims regarding Casey Anthony and Phil Spector for instance - he'll say absolutely anything for money. How much were these people payed to be on this program? They are advocates not scientists. And it was little more than a steam of tendentious speculation and half baked assertions.


Agree that the combo of the weird ransom note and the body been found inside the house must be unique in criminal history, but trying to infer guilt from the way the parents behave is the way of madness. Who knows how weirdly people behave in the weirdest of circumstances, it's little more than staring at tea leaves.


As for the bit with the tape, if you overlay subtitles over something that's completly unclear then obviously it's possible you'll then be able to hear those words in the sounds, the same would be true over just random noise.

I get you don't like the experts because of some baggage from other cases, but what about their theories/evidence do you dispute?

You've given the example of the phone call and analysis of footage of the parents, I agree these things are quite speculative but that was hardly all their case was hanging on.

The stuff on the note was quite decent on the many things odd about it and why that makes intruders seem unlikely, the torch stuff seemed a decent explanation for the head wound, and the dna stuff / taser / pineapple / train tracks stuff seemed reasonable.

I find the letter a huge obvious sign of a cover up.

Also I don't get the idea that they started with this theory, you are right that these sort of experts testify on either side of cases based on who's paying them, but a TV company is paying them so I don't see why they'd have a bias as to the perpetrator?

[Viero_Berlotti]

but a TV company is paying them so I don't see why they'd have a bias as to the perpetrator?

It's in the TV companies interests that the parents and brother are implicated though, because that outcome generates a lot more attention and interest than an unknown intruder.

This just looks to me like a cynical cash in by CBS to resurrect this case with 'new' evidence on the back of the recent popularity of true-crime docs spearheaded by the likes of 'Making A Murderer'. The Jonbenet Ramsey case is old enough now for a new generation not to have heard of it so they were probably hoping for a viral explosion of social media attention with this.

Personally I do think there's something very suspect about this case, but TV shows like this aren't objective analysis. They're entertainment and only seem to muddy the waters further. I'm not trying to act the Saint here either, I've sat through more than my fair share of gratuitous true-crime docs. They're just entertainment though and the narrative will be moulded in a way that will tell the best story.

[biggytitbo]

I get you don't like the experts because of some baggage from other cases, but what about their theories/evidence do you dispute?

You've given the example of the phone call and analysis of footage of the parents, I agree these things are quite speculative but that was hardly all their case was hanging on.

The stuff on the note was quite decent on the many things odd about it and why that makes intruders seem unlikely, the torch stuff seemed a decent explanation for the head wound, and the dna stuff / taser / pineapple / train tracks stuff seemed reasonable.

I find the letter a huge obvious sign of a cover up.

Yeah almost everyone has concluded that the letter is iffy, and every single thing the program 'uncovered' had already been discovered by the police 20 years ago eg it was the police who found all the matching phrases from the letter in films that had just aired on local TV.


The whole program was like that, it didn't actually uncover anything new at all, it was a rehash packaged as an exciting new investigation.

[Steven]

JonBenet Ramsey's brother Burke to sue CBS after murder claims

[biggytitbo]

Burke was extensively interviewed straight afterwards and on several other occasions and never suspected by anyone. I think its also pretty unlikely JonBenets injuries were inflicted by a child, much more likely as is almost always the case it was an adult.

[Steven]

Burke was extensively interviewed straight afterwards and on several other occasions and never suspected by anyone.

[biggytitbo]

The Burke theory seems to exist mainly to avoid directing blaming the parents, rather than on its intrinsic merits. Its an easy get out to say it was just an accident by a kid that escalated to a coverup. I think the police and the FBI who interviewed Burke would have pounce don any opportunity to go down that avenue, but there just wasn't any good reason to do so.


It's also vanishingly unlikely Burke would sue CBS now if he actually did it, as the case against him would then be tested in court under slightly more rigorous scrutiny than a TV special.

[Steven]

The Burke theory seems to exist mainly to avoid directing blaming the parents, rather than on its intrinsic merits. Its an easy get out to say it was just an accident by a kid that escalated to a coverup. I think the police and the FBI who interviewed Burke would have pounce don any opportunity to go down that avenue, but there just wasn't any good reason to do so.

PR disaster.

It's also vanishingly unlikely Burke would sue CBS now if he actually did it, as the case against him would then be tested in court under slightly more rigorous scrutiny than a TV special.

Burke Ramsey's lawyer L. Lin Wood said they plan to sue CBS after the network aired a special hypothesizing that he killed his sister JonBenet

What's the bet he drops off the map shortly after this finishes airing?

[biggytitbo]

Maybe. If he did it though I doubt he'd have popped up at all, rather than maintaining a 'dignified silence'.