CBS The Case Of JonBenét Ramsey

[Steven]

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.

It was introduced as a 6 or so part series, but what we got was 2 episodes as I recall with only the Burke angle being explored? I agree that's the most probable conclusion, but it was a little left wanting.

[Ambient Sheep]

?

[Steven]

?

Read the first post, which was in the original trailers, 6 parts, but then removed maybe due to legal issues?

[Johnny Caramel]

Who the fuck's JonBenét Ramsey?

[Ambient Sheep]

Read the first post, which was in the original trailers, 6 parts, but then removed maybe due to legal issues?

Why would I want to read the first post, which is about the CBS documentary show "The Case of JonBenét Ramsey", when I was talking about a new TV movie dramatisation called "Who Killed JonBenét" (2016) that I thought might be of interest to those who had been discussing the former show?

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

Yeah that one was a big nothingy letdown. You wait and wait for some huge reveal or missing piece of evidence that changes everything but it never comes, you know as much at the end as you do after half an hour. Avoid!

It's just like real life!

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

Henry Lee is also on there which is a bad sign, he'll say any old shit for money.

How shit do you have to be to get dissed by biggytitbo?

[Mark Steels Stockbroker]

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.

It's even worse when it's the same "expert" for both sides, complete slag.

[Steven]

Why would I want to read the first post, which is about the CBS documentary show "The Case of JonBenét Ramsey", when I was talking about a new TV movie dramatisation called "Who Killed JonBenét" (2016) that I thought might be of interest to those who had been discussing the former show?

My mistake, a 'TV movie dramitisation'?

Ugh.

[Ambient Sheep]

Yeah I know.

Unfortunately it seems that I may end up being subjected to it at some point. :-/

[Steven]

Yeah I know.

Unfortunately it seems that I may end up being subjected to it at some point. :-/

Well, let me know it if takes the 'Burke did it' angle, as that's popular at the moment. But I also think fits most of the evidence, sadly, so it's the one I take too.

[imitationleather]

My girlfriend made me watch the two part one the other night even though I really, really didn't want to because it seemed like such clear bandwagon jumping after the recent success of Making a Murderer and The Jinx. I suppose relationships are about compromise.

Anyway, it was okay as entertainment goes. I am someone who watches a lot of ropey true crime documentaries though, so any hint of production values above total zero and I tend towards being impressed. It's obviously nowhere near as good as the two shows I already mentioned, because the case is a lot more well known and less interesting. They could have at least not made it clear what conclusion they were going to draw right from the start, it kind of killed any tension. Also everything about the communication between the investigators seemed so set-up and scripted, especially the bit where they're cleaning up the audio which leads to the revelation that there's three voices in the white noise at the end of the call. Now, I'm no audio expert but I imagine cleaning up that sound must have taken hours and hours and hours, and not just involved the presenters sat with some guy at a sound desk and going "Slow that down for me!" and "Play that bit again... Oh shit... There's another voice there!" in about three minutes.

Overall: What was really missing was a barbershop quartet singing songs relating to what was happening in the story. "Herman... Webster... Mudgetttttttttttt."

[Lee Van Cleef]

Watching those interviews with Burke his behaviour/answers came across in a way that made it appear he is on the autistic spectrum.

[biggytitbo]

Stephen Singular's work on this is really good. He proposes a 3rd option - she wasn't killed by anyone in the family or by an intruder, but by a child sex ring operating in Colorado. Might sound outlandish but according to Singular the area has a terrible reputation for child exploitation and porn and with the Ramsey's involvement in the child pageant scene the two worlds collided. Worth a listen and, i think, pretty credible - https://porkinspolicyreview.com/2016/11/16/porkins-policy-radio-episode-68-presumed-guilty-stephen-singular-on-jonbenet-ramsey-murder/


Certainly a lot more likely than the bullshit about Burke Ramsey.

[DrGreggles]

Interesting theory, but there are too many holes in it.
The Burke theory is the only one that makes complete sense IMHO, so I'm not sure why you consider it to be bullshit.

[Steven]

The Burke theory is the only one that makes complete sense IMHO, so I'm not sure why you consider it to be bullshit.

Because it's the main one most sensible people go with these days, and biggy has to be a bit of a maverick.

[MjjW]

The intro to that Porkins Policy Review show sounds so much like a radio station you'd get in GTA

[biggytitbo]

There's no convincing evidence for the Burke theory and it entails the nonsense improbability of the entirely innocent parents violently attacking and binding their own dead daughters body as part of the elbaorate coverup they devised for something that wasn't even a crime, since Burke was below the age of criminal responsibility.

[biggytitbo]

The intro to that Porkins Policy Review show sounds so much like a radio station you'd get in GTA

Porkins is great, the guy behind it Pearse Redmond also does series on there with Tom Secker called the CIA and Hollywood which is pretty interesting too.

[Dex Sawash]

Is Porkins a pizza and games restaurant?

[Steven]

There's no convincing evidence for the Burke theory

Convincing evidence? You mean evidence, right? You've got a locked room mystery since nobody broke into the house, unless the parents let them in and then kept schtum about it, which again means they were complicit in a cover-up.

and it entails the nonsense improbability of the entirely innocent parents violently attacking and binding their own dead daughters body as part of the elbaorate coverup

Who ever suggested they violently attacked the body? The bindings are nonsensical as binding someone actually alive, they're more like Christmas tree dressing, for ornamental purposes only. They come off as being tied by someone who DIDN'T want to mark the body, why?

they devised for something that wasn't even a crime, since Burke was below the age of criminal responsibility

Right. So they report Burke killed his sister and the cops chide him for being a bit of a scallywag and send him on his way?

Again, which criminal breaks into a house and then spends a couple of hours in situ writing a nonsense ransom note using materials from (and then tidying them away conscientiously) the house concerning a child that they know is already dead?

[DrGreggles]

There's no convincing evidence for the Burke theory

There's no convincing evidence at all, but what evidence there is can convincingly fit the narrative that suggests Burke killed his sister.

[Steven]

Now Netflix are getting in on the act with a quasi-documentary titled Casting JonBenet.

[PlanktonSideburns]

Now Netflix are getting in on the act with a quasi-documentary titled Casting JonBenet.

anyone watched this? thought it was really good, - a bit of a challenge to the usual tru crime way of reporting these things