CBS The Case Of JonBenét Ramsey

[Steven]

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

[biggytitbo]

Aren't the Ramsey family already extremely wealthy?

[Steven]

Aren't the Ramsey family already extremely wealthy?

John Bennett Ramsey is, yes.

If Burke did do it, I'd imagine he's not exactly in his good books.

[thugler]

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.

Not by detectives though, only in that weird interview where they play a game with him, which doesn't seem extensive. It took a really long time before they even managed to interview the parents properly.

Is inaccurate that no one suspected him.

Why can't he have wacked his sister with the torch or other blunt object? The parents doing this in a rage seems massive overkill. There's evidence that the kids didn't get on to some extent and had hit each other in the past even if accidentally. Plus all the shit smearing  stuff.

What means they can't have been inflicted by a child. And I'm talking about the head wound as it seems likely the main cause of death.

[Steven]

The bit of him previously smashing her in the head and routinely shitting on her bed and toys made him out a bit of a ne'erdowell, also.

[DrGreggles]

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

Not sure he has grounds to sue, as they didn't say he'd murder her - just that the evidence supported the theory that he could have.
Plus the disclaimer at the end.

My guess is that CBS' lawyers went through the potential shitshorm before broadcast.

[daf]

John Bennett Ramsey is, yes.

He named his daughter after himself - what a big 'ead!

Mrs : How about Mary? Or Dolores?
Mr : No, it's got to be John or nowt!

[Steven]

Not sure he has grounds to sue, as they didn't say he'd murder her - just that the evidence supported the theory that he could have.
Plus the disclaimer at the end.

My guess is that CBS' lawyers went through the potential shitshorm before broadcast.

Which is why Burke has only threatened to sue, gets him some cushy gigs doing sympathetic interviews in response while looking like he's still confident in his absolute innocence which he never has to legally back up. Meanwhile we find out he smashed JonBenét in the head with a golfclub, used to shit all over her bed and candy, knew a blow to the head had killed her despite it not being apparent to the naked eye over the strangulation, never asked about his sister or manner of her death after she was found etc.

[biggytitbo]

There's not really any strong evidence Burke killed her though is there? He'd hit her in the past? Siblings hitting each other is hardly out of the ordinary. And this speculation he had some kind of scat problem, even if it's true, doesn't make him a murderer. How are the two things connected?

[Steven]

I dunno about you, but if a sibling hit me over the head with a golf club and kept smearing my bed and stuff with shit I'd imagine they weren't keen. Piece that together with his attitude to his sister during and after her disappearence and subsequent death, he didn't think of her at all, in any way other than an obstacle.

It's not evidence, but it's motive. That plus the circumstancial evidence and the lack of there being any outside party entering the property tells me as with the documentary, Burke is the most likely suspect. What he doesn't say and his bodylanguage in the 'interviews' which are nothing more than people handling him with kid gloves shows that he's holding back a lot.

[thugler]

There's not really any strong evidence Burke killed her though is there? He'd hit her in the past? Siblings hitting each other is hardly out of the ordinary. And this speculation he had some kind of scat problem, even if it's true, doesn't make him a murderer. How are the two things connected?

The motive makes the most sense, insane violence crazed parents makes less.

It doesn't require him to actively want to kill her either, an accident or non murderous scuffle could have been enough for him go swing the torch it other blunt object, I don't think kids always realise the damage they can do, my pal whacked me with a cricket bat jokingly when I was a kid and absolutely bruised my legs to fuck. 6 year Olds skulls are very fragile.

The problem with evidence connecting him to murdering her is that presuming the family had time to stage the whole thing they definitely had time to make sure Burke wouldn't be connected to it. The pineapple is probably the best evidence that they had contact after going to bed, and gives a possible source of the scuffle.

He does come across as a proper weird guy in that new interview, but that doesn't make him a murderer. I just think he's the most likely suspect and there should have been a trial of the parents and or him and more investigation.

Not convinced by any of the intruder theories as the letter is so obviously fake

[Steven]

Not convinced by any of the intruder theories as the letter is so obviously fake

But maybe the real ransom note told them to fake one to hide their tracks?

Aaaaaaaaah...

[biggytitbo]

If it was just Burke accidentally hitting her a bit harder than he intended why exactly was she brutally garroted and (possibly) tasered aswell[nb]Depends which TV experts you believe[/nb]? That's not Burke is it? And are otherwise innocent parents really going to do something so vicious to their own daughter?

It doesn't checkout out as a very plausible scenario, even though its obviously possible. Likewise the ransom note is completely implausible as a genuine thing, but also possible[nb]Although its worth pointing out no handwriting analyst has ever managed to match the writing in the letter to anyone in the house.[/nb]

It's interesting watching the 2 competing documentaries back to back. The A&E forensic experts are pretty adamant that the garotting must have happened before the blow to the head (because of obvious defenses wounds), which completely contradicts the CBS experts theory and effectively exonerates Burke and the parents.

Likewise the CBS doc dismisses the idea an intruder could have gotten into the basement, yet the A&E doc films a 6ft grown man easily slipping into the grill and through the window with very little effort.

The CBS thing wheeled out Henry 'say anything for money' Lee to dismiss the DNA evidence that exonerated the Ramseys and Burke because foreign DNA could be found in any pair of shop bought panties. Only problem with that is Lee doesn't mention that the same foreign DNA profile was found on two completely separate pieces of clothing, which makes that theory effectively impossible.

[Steven]

If it was just Burke accidentally hitting her a bit harder than he intended why exactly was she brutally garroted and (possibly) tasered aswell[nb]Depends which TV experts you believe[/nb]? That's not Burke is it? And are otherwise innocent parents really going to do something so vicious to their own daughter?

It is if she's dead and they're trying to protect their only alive son.

It doesn't checkout out as a very plausible scenario, even though its obviously possible. Likewise the ransom note is completely implausible as a genuine thing, but also possible[nb]Although its worth pointing out no handwriting analyst has ever managed to match the writing in the letter to anyone in the house.[/nb]

Cos I reckon she obfuscated her writing style cos she's doing a ransom note?

It's interesting watching the 2 competing documentaries back to back. The A&E forensic experts are pretty adamant that the garotting must have happened before the blow to the head (because of obvious defenses wounds), which completely contradicts the CBS experts theory and effectively exonerates Burke and the parents.

Defense wounds as in skin under the fingernails? I dunno what that means? She could have had skin under the fingernails from fighting with Burke, what does the DNA ever say about the skin under the fingernails?

Likewise the CBS doc dismisses the idea an intruder could have gotten into the basement, yet the A&E doc films a 6ft grown man easily slipping into the grill and through the window with very little effort.

Because it was possible. But the point was the photos show various distrubances like spiderwebs that would have had to have been removed if someone passed through the apature, these were still apparent though.

The CBS thing wheeled out Henry 'say anything for money' Lee to dismiss the DNA evidence that exonerated the Ramseys and Burke because foreign DNA could be found in any pair of shop bought panties. Only problem with that is Lee doesn't mention that the same foreign DNA profile was found on two completely separate pieces of clothing, which makes that theory effectively impossible.

Not really, the crimescene was a hive of cunts unnoted milling about cos the Ramsey's invited every cunt they knew round and the body was moved multiple times and it and various things that came in to contact with it were touched by all and sundry completely distrubing the crime scene. Odd move from the freshly grieving parents there..

[thugler]

If it was just Burke accidentally hitting her a bit harder than he intended why exactly was she brutally garroted and (possibly) tasered aswell[nb]Depends which TV experts you believe[/nb]? That's not Burke is it? And are otherwise innocent parents really going to do something so vicious to their own daughter?

It doesn't checkout out as a very plausible scenario, even though its obviously possible. Likewise the ransom note is completely implausible as a genuine thing, but also possible[nb]Although its worth pointing out no handwriting analyst has ever managed to match the writing in the letter to anyone in the house.[/nb]

It's interesting watching the 2 competing documentaries back to back. The A&E forensic experts are pretty adamant that the garotting must have happened before the blow to the head (because of obvious defenses wounds), which completely contradicts the CBS experts theory and effectively exonerates Burke and the parents.

Likewise the CBS doc dismisses the idea an intruder could have gotten into the basement, yet the A&E doc films a 6ft grown man easily slipping into the grill and through the window with very little effort.

The CBS thing wheeled out Henry 'say anything for money' Lee to dismiss the DNA evidence that exonerated the Ramseys and Burke because foreign DNA could be found in any pair of shop bought panties. Only problem with that is Lee doesn't mention that the same foreign DNA profile was found on two completely separate pieces of clothing, which makes that theory effectively impossible.

Re: The Tasering - No it isn't really. The makers of the taser themselves said the wound didn't match, and the distance between the two marks doesn't match up either (the train track does, I've seen a picture to show).

Re: the Garroting? I think it could have been something done afterwards to make it look more like a maniac did it. It seems pretty egregious otherwise. The fact that other aspects like her hand being tied are not done properly points to this being another aspect of the cover up. Perhaps thinking she is dead they thought pulling the garrote to make it look real wouldn't be so impossible to save their son?

The CBS doc doesn't dismiss the idea that someone could have got through the grate/window at all, it simply says the fact that there are cobwebs and undisturbed debris around the area made it highly unlikely.

The A&E doc features interviews with the father so it's not surprising they point this way, the autopsy lists both as causes of death. It's certainly possible that following the wound the garrote could have been applied without the realization that the child was dead. Is it likely that Burke could make such an implement? not really, but despite this it still doesn't point to the intruder having done it. I very much doubt the idea that a 6 year old girl was able to fight back in any sense against an adult garroting/bashing her skull. The garrote was again, made from supplies in the house. This seems unnecessary for an intruder as it wouldn't be difficult to strangle a 6 year old by hand.   

It's pretty obvious that noone trying to fake a ransom note is going to write in their normal writing. There are handwriting experts who have found similarities with Patsy's handwriting. But handwriting experts are not exactly gospel proof. I still have little doubt that the note was written by the parents either alone or in some combination. I see no circumstance in which an intruder, regardless of motive, writes such an insane note, the marks of cover up are all over it. The materials were in the house, and the idea that an intruder wrote the thing with said materials at the time seems nonsensical.

They weren't 2 'entirely seperate' pieces of clothing either, they were both on the body so transfer from one to the other isn't surprising. It was even pointed out that this could happen in the wash. It's not even as if the body was kept in the same location either, there is a huge amount of dna contamination possible due the the moving of the body.

[Viero_Berlotti]

Guys, he was called Burke by his parents for a reason. Burke, Berk, Berkshire Hunt, Cunt. The parents are trying to tell us something, it's gotta be him.

[biggytitbo]

Re: The Tasering - No it isn't really. The makers of the taser themselves said the wound didn't match, and the distance between the two marks doesn't match up either (the train track does, I've seen a picture to show).

Battle of the experts really isn't it? The A&E experts ought they were taser wounds and that the didn't match toy train tracks.

Re: the Garroting? I think it could have been something done afterwards to make it look more like a maniac did it. It seems pretty egregious otherwise. The fact that other aspects like her hand being tied are not done properly points to this being another aspect of the cover up. Perhaps thinking she is dead they thought pulling the garrote to make it look real wouldn't be so impossible to save their son?

I think it was the sign of defence wounds that was the problem. If she tried to prevent herself from been strangled then obviously the head wound wasn't what killed her.

The CBS doc doesn't dismiss the idea that someone could have got through the grate/window at all, it simply says the fact that there are cobwebs and undisturbed debris around the area made it highly unlikely.

But where did the cobwebs claim come from? It's was something the police came up with later to protect their pet theory wasn't it? You can't see any in the crime scene photos

It's pretty obvious that noone trying to fake a ransom note is going to write in their normal writing. There are handwriting experts who have found similarities with Patsy's handwriting. But handwriting experts are not exactly gospel proof. I still have little doubt that the note was written by the parents either alone or in some combination. I see no circumstance in which an intruder, regardless of motive, writes such an insane note, the marks of cover up are all over it. The materials were in the house, and the idea that an intruder wrote the thing with said materials at the time seems nonsensical.

It seems very unlikely I agree, but the note is very long and presumably concocted in great haste. Is it really possible to completely disguise your writing for such a prolonged amount of text? If they faked up the note why make it so long at all and increase the likelihood of the fake been detected?

They weren't 2 'entirely seperate' pieces of clothing either, they were both on the body so transfer from one to the other isn't surprising. It was even pointed out that this could happen in the wash. It's not even as if the body was kept in the same location either, there is a huge amount of dna contamination possible due the the moving of the body.

The A&E doc's experts thought that was ridiculous for what it's worth. That's the problem with forensic experts though isn't it, at least 1 set of them here is wrong...

[Viero_Berlotti]

Fucking hell we need some new crimes to play amateur detectives with. Just got an email from Netflix announcing a new Amanda Knox documentary, so we can go around in circles with that one again soon. What's next in the true-crime greatest hits parade?

[MjjW]

I've not watched any of this, but do listen to Real Crime Profiles podcast with 2 of the smug experts that had input on the new documentary banging on about it. The English Clarice Starling and Burt Reynolds whatever their names are. It's jarring when they flip from discussing whether someone's throat was cut before or after death and why to "bluebox delivers quality meals for a fraction of the price etc etc"

[thugler]

Battle of the experts really isn't it? The A&E experts ought they were taser wounds and that the didn't match toy train tracks.


I think it was the sign of defence wounds that was the problem. If she tried to prevent herself from been strangled then obviously the head wound wasn't what killed her.


But where did the cobwebs claim come from? It's was something the police came up with later to protect their pet theory wasn't it? You can't see any in the crime scene photos


It seems very unlikely I agree, but the note is very long and presumably concocted in great haste. Is it really possible to completely disguise your writing for such a prolonged amount of text? If they faked up the note why make it so long at all and increase the likelihood of the fake been detected?


The A&E doc's experts thought that was ridiculous for what it's worth. That's the problem with forensic experts though isn't it, at least 1 set of them here is wrong...

Can't find the link but the makers of the taser themselves said the wounds weren't consistent with those on jon Benet, or the right distance apart. There are pictures of the train track matching up with the wound online. Neither of those are expert reliant as far as I can tell.

I'm dubious that a 6 year old would put up any sort of a fight, did she have skin of the murders under her fingernails or anything?

The cobwebs came from the original police photos of the window, and it's not just the cobwebs but the undisturbed surrounding area.

I don't think it could be described as 'completely disguised' the police had suspicions that patsy wrote it due to similarities in certain letters and such. The idea that someone broke in and spent ages writing it on stationery in the house makes no sense. It's certainly a battle of the experts on how well the writing was disguised. Why write it so long? I'd suspect to try and sell the intruder story, it's not like they're master criminals and it was a huge mistake obviously.

With the dna, again that's an expert battle, but without an alternative suspect I still don't feel it's hugely likely to be the killers.

[DrGreggles]

Having now seen both, the A&E show had far more of an agenda than the CBS one.
But that had the Ramseys on board, so it's hardly surprising.

[Steven]

I'm dubious that a 6 year old would put up any sort of a fight, did she have skin of the murders under her fingernails or anything?

Male DNA Under Fingernails
Findings. "The coroner took nail clippings from JonBenet. Male DNA was found under JonBenet's right hand fingernail that does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 174; PSMF P 174.) Defendants also assert that male DNA was found under JonBenet's left hand fingernail, which also does not match that of any Ramsey. (SMF P 173.)" (Carnes 2003:22). This is consistent with Internet poster Margoo's screen capture showing a "mix" of DNA only 3 of the 13 DNA samples submitted: #7 Bloodstains from panties; #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey.

"Defensive Flesh." Internet poster Mame has asserted that Lou Smit told her there was "defensive flesh" found under JBR's fingernails (his term). Internet poster Evening2 disagrees and believes that "When Lou Smit referred to JonBenet "getting a piece of her killer", he wasn't talking about flesh, just that "his" DNA was there, that's all."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA%20Evidence

[thugler]

Thanks that has quite a good summary of the evidence and various views on it

[Dropshadow]

Having just watched both episodes I'm a firm believer in the "an intruder did it, the bastard" scenario. It makes so much sense. Intruder crawls in through a small window, spends 20 or so minutes handwriting a 3-page ransom note (after having to look for a pen), goes to JonBenet's bedroom, kidnaps her, changes his mind and kills her instead, carries the body to the basement and leaves it there, removes all proof he was there (except, of course, for the ransom note), goes back to the small window, crawls out and removes any evidence he may have left outside the house. Case solved.

[Steven]

Burke OFFERS to take lie-detectoer test to PROVE he didn't kill his sister.

Keep feebly implying you're going to do something mate, that's the ticket!

[Noodle Lizard]

Ok look I did it alright, can we just drop this?  It was a long time ago.

[Steven]

A&E have another murder porn series examining the unsolved Long Island Serial Killer case, called The Killing Season:

Trailer

Clip 1 Clip 2

Looks a bit exploitative and style-over-substance to me.

[Steven]

HBO also have a forthcoming documentary Beware The Slenderman examining the 2014 Slenderman stabbing case:

Trailer

[Ambient Sheep]

I've just become aware that on December 18th at 10pm there's going to be something called Who Killed JonBenét (2016) which is being shown "brand new and exclusive to Lifetime".

Couldn't give much of a toss myself, but thought those on this thread might be interested. :-)

[Ambient Sheep]

Not quite sure why I'm doing this when I have little interest in the subject myself, but just a reminder for those of you who are, that the above is on TONIGHT (Sunday) at 10pm Lifetime as earlier mentioned.