JonBenet Ramsey

Gern Blansten

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

The story is 20 years old! If you perceive that as condescension, you're wrong. It's a damn fact!

The thread is actually based on the news special airing yesterday and today... Kinda current?

A new special that has to do with the story from… 20 years ago.

Like I said... Maybe this thread isn't for you. You have lots of doom and gloom to spread.

Gern Blansten

ledvedderman said:

I honestly will never understand posting in a thread you have zero interest in.

I watched one of the ID specials today where they mentioned the family Santa, the guy obsessed with her and the guy who allegedly killed himself in his trailer. I found it very fascinating and had forgotten many of those details over the years. Each one of the guys mentioned gave me the creeps but something always cleared them and brought the attention back to the Ramsey's. I don't want to think it was them because of the sexual molestation and everything...but they sure didn't help their case with their actions right after the murder.

True but the specials I've seen don't focus on WHY the Ramsay's were slow to talk to police. Their attorney had some influence and they were initially put off by some of the questions the crime scene detectives were asking.

Go Beavers

ledvedderman said:

I honestly will never understand posting in a thread you have zero interest in.

I watched one of the ID specials today where they mentioned the family Santa, the guy obsessed with her and the guy who allegedly killed himself in his trailer. I found it very fascinating and had forgotten many of those details over the years. Each one of the guys mentioned gave me the creeps but something always cleared them and brought the attention back to the Ramsey's. I don't want to think it was them because of the sexual molestation and everything...but they sure didn't help their case with their actions right after the murder.

I have a friend who lives in Boulder and she brought up the Creepy Santa possibility at the time.

Free

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

The story is 20 years old! If you perceive that as condescension, you're wrong. It's a damn fact!

The thread is actually based on the news special airing yesterday and today... Kinda current?

A new special that has to do with the story from… 20 years ago.

Like I said... Maybe this thread isn't for you. You have lots of doom and gloom to spread.

What is it? Why can't we talk about an issue w/out many here taking things personally and then making personal comments? I say bringing this story out of the dust from 20 years ago into the limelight again sounds fishy. And those who don't agree make personal comments because....WHY ?

PJ_Soul

Because it remains unsolved. It's still a mystery. This special is an attempt to solve a famous cold case.

ledvedderman

I don't know if you pay attention to any form of media, but with an anniversary of twenty years in a couple of months, there will be specials and news article about it. It's like that no matter where you look.
Hell, look at music. A couple of weeks ago was the 25th anniversary of Smells Like Teen Spirit and what happens? Articles, videos, etc. about the song, Nirvana, grunge, the video, etc. were all over music sites and blogs. It's the nature of the beast.

hedonist

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

The story is 20 years old! If you perceive that as condescension, you're wrong. It's a damn fact!

The thread is actually based on the news special airing yesterday and today... Kinda current?

A new special that has to do with the story from… 20 years ago.

Like I said... Maybe this thread isn't for you. You have lots of doom and gloom to spread.

What is it? Why can't we talk about an issue w/out many here taking things personally and then making personal comments? I say bringing this story out of the dust from 20 years ago into the limelight again sounds fishy. And those who don't agree make personal comments because....WHY ?

Jesus, you and crying about personal comments. Look to mirror, boy!

PJ_Soul

Watched the first part, and it's a pretty interesting show just because it is focused on the very detailed forensic analysis and investigation of all the evidence and finding relevant meaning in it, done by true experts working together. Whatever the crime, this is a good premise for a show. Cool to see how they puzzle through evidence and interpret it.

Degeneratefk

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

ledvedderman

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

My heart says no but my brain says yes on that one, my friend.

Gern Blansten

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

Et tu?

Gern Blansten

I should add that I agree with that conclusion along with several well respected forensic experts.

ledvedderman

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

That's far from a tinfoil hat theory. I can see where that theory comes from. There are some holes to it that don't quite add up.

Gern Blansten

Dr. Henry Lee doesn't believe that the DNA evidence should have been relied upon.

The fruit bowl had Patsy and Burke's fingerprints on it. Puncture wound on JonBenet likely came from a piece of railroad track rather than a stun gun.

Drowned Out

I have zero opinion on this case. I intentionally ignored every shred of media at the time, because I agree that it was sickeningly sensationalized.

I think you know what I was saying...
The toddlers and tiaras crowd would have motive and means to pull off a coverup of the murder of a little girl, but.....Nah.

Guess this thread isn't for me

Drowned Out

ledvedderman said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

That's far from a tinfoil hat theory. I can see where that theory comes from. There are some holes to it that don't quite add up.

I and millions of others, including experts in many pertinent fields, feel the same way about 9/11. So there's that...
It was a playful shot at gern (and others) for their fondness of shutting down debate on such topics (including anything negative / speculative about Clinton, that too..), with that tired old trope...

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

ledvedderman said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Degeneratefk said:

Even though the parents and brother were cleared, does anyone still think they were involved?

Actually yes...I think the brother may have done it and the parents covered it up.

That's far from a tinfoil hat theory. I can see where that theory comes from. There are some holes to it that don't quite add up.

I and millions of others, including experts in many pertinent fields, feel the same way about 9/11. So there's that...and anything negative / speculative about Clinton, that too...
It was a playful shot at gern (and others) for their fondness of shutting down debate with that tired old trope...

Millions? Experts? Exaggerate much?

Drowned Out

Oh come on....holes in the theory don't add up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Take the sample and extrapolate. And that's pointing to BLAME, not just the belief that the story doesn't add up.

Experts - architects, engineers, pilots, plane manufacturers, demolition peeps etc etc etc
How am I exaggerating?

Anyway....let's bump the old thread, I never did finish that damn 9754 hour doco

Free

Drowned Out said:

I have zero opinion on this case. I intentionally ignored every shred of media at the time, because I agree that it was sickeningly sensationalized.

I think you know what I was saying...
The toddlers and tiaras crowd would have motive and means to pull off a coverup of the murder of a little girl, but.....Nah.

Guess this thread isn't for me

We should know to stay out of topics that we don't agree with the consensus...

Jason P

It was Professor Plum, in the Conservatory, with the candlestick

Gern Blansten

I always believed the outside intruder theory up until last night. To see all the experts discounting the DNA evidence and the entire idea of someone coming in from the outside (John Ramsey even said that he was the one who broke the glass in the basement window) led to me changing my mind.

The interviews with Burke (both now and then) were creepy as hell.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

I remember following it a lot 20 years ago, and hearing a few new updates every now and then, but I had forgotten most of it since then. This just reminds me why the parents got so much heat. I'm not convinced its them, but if I had to take a pick I'd blame the parents. To not cooperate with investigators when your own child was killed? What parents does that? And other small details like the pineapple, everything came from within the house. The only thing that seems to not fit that theory is the use of a stun gun-but then it sounds like the idea of a stun gun didn't come up until much later based off photographs. So seems possible it could be something completely different.

DNA?

There isn't one theory that explains all the evidence. If it was an intruder, he/she mist have been familiar with the home. He broke in using the only already broken window in the house that was so hidden the father forgot that window was already broken. They were able to do so without leaving footprints in the snow, snuck into the house and finding the little girls room without waking up anyone else in the house, feed her pineapple, rape and murder her without anyone knowing. Whoever did this was in the house for 2-3 hours because the blow to the head happened something like 30 minutes to 2 hours before she was strangler, the ransom not was written on paper from the house using a pen from the house, strangled her with items all found within the house. Either this was the least prepared attacker in the world, or it wasn't an intruder. Anyone who would have been familiar enough with the house to accomplish all that was questioned. So it comes down to explaining away all the other evidence and consider just the DNA, or visa versa. I agree DNA is a big thing to ignore or explain away, but there seems more plausible explanations for that than everything else as a whole.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

I remember following it a lot 20 years ago, and hearing a few new updates every now and then, but I had forgotten most of it since then. This just reminds me why the parents got so much heat. I'm not convinced its them, but if I had to take a pick I'd blame the parents. To not cooperate with investigators when your own child was killed? What parents does that? And other small details like the pineapple, everything came from within the house. The only thing that seems to not fit that theory is the use of a stun gun-but then it sounds like the idea of a stun gun didn't come up until much later based off photographs. So seems possible it could be something completely different.

DNA?

There isn't one theory that explains all the evidence. If it was an intruder, he/she mist have been familiar with the home. He broke in using the only already broken window in the house that was so hidden the father forgot that window was already broken. They were able to do so without leaving footprints in the snow, snuck into the house and finding the little girls room without waking up anyone else in the house, feed her pineapple, rape and murder her without anyone knowing. Whoever did this was in the house for 2-3 hours because the blow to the head happened something like 30 minutes to 2 hours before she was strangler, the ransom not was written on paper from the house using a pen from the house, strangled her with items all found within the house. Either this was the least prepared attacker in the world, or it wasn't an intruder. Anyone who would have been familiar enough with the house to accomplish all that was questioned. So it comes down to explaining away all the other evidence and consider just the DNA, or visa versa. I agree DNA is a big thing to ignore or explain away, but there seems more plausible explanations for that than everything else as a whole.

Yeah I posted that before watching last nights program.

I always hung my hat on that DNA but I think I was under the impression that a sexual assault had occurred. That didn't happen.

As Dr. Lee pointed out last night, the DNA could have come from many sources. It actually could have come from the bathroom of the house that they had visited that night (assuming JonBenet had possibly used the bathroom and her panties would have touched the floor, the toilet, etc.

In the CBS special they stressed that you have to consider ALL of the evidence together. That definitely leads to the family. There really just isn't any other explanation. The crime scene photos showed the cobwebs in the basement window....it is just extremely unlikely that someone could have gone in and out of there without disturbing those.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

I remember following it a lot 20 years ago, and hearing a few new updates every now and then, but I had forgotten most of it since then. This just reminds me why the parents got so much heat. I'm not convinced its them, but if I had to take a pick I'd blame the parents. To not cooperate with investigators when your own child was killed? What parents does that? And other small details like the pineapple, everything came from within the house. The only thing that seems to not fit that theory is the use of a stun gun-but then it sounds like the idea of a stun gun didn't come up until much later based off photographs. So seems possible it could be something completely different.

DNA?

There isn't one theory that explains all the evidence. If it was an intruder, he/she mist have been familiar with the home. He broke in using the only already broken window in the house that was so hidden the father forgot that window was already broken. They were able to do so without leaving footprints in the snow, snuck into the house and finding the little girls room without waking up anyone else in the house, feed her pineapple, rape and murder her without anyone knowing. Whoever did this was in the house for 2-3 hours because the blow to the head happened something like 30 minutes to 2 hours before she was strangler, the ransom not was written on paper from the house using a pen from the house, strangled her with items all found within the house. Either this was the least prepared attacker in the world, or it wasn't an intruder. Anyone who would have been familiar enough with the house to accomplish all that was questioned. So it comes down to explaining away all the other evidence and consider just the DNA, or visa versa. I agree DNA is a big thing to ignore or explain away, but there seems more plausible explanations for that than everything else as a whole.

Yeah I posted that before watching last nights program.

I always hung my hat on that DNA but I think I was under the impression that a sexual assault had occurred. That didn't happen.

As Dr. Lee pointed out last night, the DNA could have come from many sources. It actually could have come from the bathroom of the house that they had visited that night (assuming JonBenet had possibly used the bathroom and her panties would have touched the floor, the toilet, etc.

In the CBS special they stressed that you have to consider ALL of the evidence together. That definitely leads to the family. There really just isn't any other explanation. The crime scene photos showed the cobwebs in the basement window....it is just extremely unlikely that someone could have gone in and out of there without disturbing those.

Was the CBS special different than the 3-part series on ID? I didn't see that one.
What I didn't like about the one on ID is it seemed like they focus too much on the taser, when the only evidence of a taser was months later from a photograph with 2 bruise marks that could resemble a taser (and many other things). Not to mention if it was the parents, what would stop them from disposing of the taser while setting up the scene?

Gern Blansten

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey-everything-we-learned-w440951

mace1229

It does seem the most plausible is the mom or brother, and if it was the brother then obvioulsy the parents helped with the cover-up. When I saw the Dr. Phil interview at I first couldn't get over the silly grin the brother had the entire time. I don't think he stopped smiling once during the whole 3-hour interview, even when asked if he killed his sister. And some of the early interviews with police as a kid he did have some very weird behaviors.
Then I realized this guy spent almost his entire life being known as the brother of JonBenet Ramsey, one of the most famous murder cases in history. No one remembers his name, we only know it as Burke now because of all the 20th anniversary specials going on, but in a week we'll all forget his name again-because he's only remembered as the brother of JonBenet. And has spent much of that time under a cloud of suspicion for her muder. Who knows how any of us would act if we grew up in that environment and how we would counter constant accusations, and if he is innocent of everything then I feel so incredibly bad for him.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

I remember following it a lot 20 years ago, and hearing a few new updates every now and then, but I had forgotten most of it since then. This just reminds me why the parents got so much heat. I'm not convinced its them, but if I had to take a pick I'd blame the parents. To not cooperate with investigators when your own child was killed? What parents does that? And other small details like the pineapple, everything came from within the house. The only thing that seems to not fit that theory is the use of a stun gun-but then it sounds like the idea of a stun gun didn't come up until much later based off photographs. So seems possible it could be something completely different.

DNA?

There isn't one theory that explains all the evidence. If it was an intruder, he/she mist have been familiar with the home. He broke in using the only already broken window in the house that was so hidden the father forgot that window was already broken. They were able to do so without leaving footprints in the snow, snuck into the house and finding the little girls room without waking up anyone else in the house, feed her pineapple, rape and murder her without anyone knowing. Whoever did this was in the house for 2-3 hours because the blow to the head happened something like 30 minutes to 2 hours before she was strangler, the ransom not was written on paper from the house using a pen from the house, strangled her with items all found within the house. Either this was the least prepared attacker in the world, or it wasn't an intruder. Anyone who would have been familiar enough with the house to accomplish all that was questioned. So it comes down to explaining away all the other evidence and consider just the DNA, or visa versa. I agree DNA is a big thing to ignore or explain away, but there seems more plausible explanations for that than everything else as a whole.

Yeah I posted that before watching last nights program.

I always hung my hat on that DNA but I think I was under the impression that a sexual assault had occurred. That didn't happen.

As Dr. Lee pointed out last night, the DNA could have come from many sources. It actually could have come from the bathroom of the house that they had visited that night (assuming JonBenet had possibly used the bathroom and her panties would have touched the floor, the toilet, etc.

In the CBS special they stressed that you have to consider ALL of the evidence together. That definitely leads to the family. There really just isn't any other explanation. The crime scene photos showed the cobwebs in the basement window....it is just extremely unlikely that someone could have gone in and out of there without disturbing those.

Was the CBS special different than the 3-part series on ID? I didn't see that one.
What I didn't like about the one on ID is it seemed like they focus too much on the taser, when the only evidence of a taser was months later from a photograph with 2 bruise marks that could resemble a taser (and many other things). Not to mention if it was the parents, what would stop them from disposing of the taser while setting up the scene?

Yes the CBS special was much much better. The ID special was kind of tabloidish

The theory they seemed to agree on was that JonBenet might have pissed off Burke by grabbing pineapple out of his dish. He banged her on the head with a flashlight and basically killed her. They weren't suggesting the killing was intentional....but then the parents covered it up to protect the boy.

It does seem like a stretch in the sense that a normal parent would take the kid to the hospital....or call 911 for an ambulance. But maybe she died before the parents even saw her and came up with that story....crazy shit

Gern Blansten

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/09/20/the-case-of-jonbent-ramsey-death-brother-burke/90726252/

A team of investigators, who assembled for the two-part CBS docu-series The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, believes the beauty queen's brother is responsible for her death in December of 1996.

With retired FBI profiler Jim Clemente and criminal behavioral analyst Laura Richards at the helm, the team reexamined evidence from the nearly two-decade old case which seemed to indicate JonBenét was killed by someone in her immediate family.

The team dissected a lengthy three-page ransom note that they said contained an extremely extraneous amount of words, not common of ransom notes since speed and brevity are usually key. It was also written on stationary and with a pen found in the home.

Using sound reduction, Clemente and Richards believed they could identify three voices from the 911 call Patsy made after she thought she'd hung up the phone. The investigators thought they heard John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey who was 9 at the time and said to be asleep.

"We're not speaking to you," the team believed John said with Patsy possibly saying, "What did you do?" The pair also thought they heard Burke say, "What did you find?"

For the investigation, a life-size replica of the Ramsey house was built. Using the model, they explored the intruder theory which they ultimately felt did not hold up.

They also concluded that the foreign DNA found on JonBenét's clothing, which led people to believe the Ramseys were innocent, could've been transferred in the manufacturing process.

Clemente and Richards also talked to a former member of the Boulder Police Department, Gretchen Smith, who believes that Boulder's former District Attorney, Alex Hunter, didn't want to prosecute the Ramseys because of their clout.

"The parents of the child, they have money," Smith said. "The District Attorney's office and some of administration did not want to hear that an affluent member of the community was guilty of a crime like this ... I don't think they wanted to solve this crime, and if they had to go down a different path that might not have been the truth, I think they were willing to do that."

Clemente and Richards also chatted with Steve Thomas, a former Boulder Police co-lead investigator, who stated in his resignation letter that, "Attempts to gather evidence were met with refusals and instead it was suggested that we ask for permission from the Ramseys before proceeding."

Thomas believes Patsy wrote the ransom note, and said Hunter was extremely uncooperative. Despite a grand jury voting to indict John and Patsy, Hunter said he did not have enough evidence to prosecute the Ramseys. Hunter also did not comply to be interviewed for the docu-series, because he said it would be too difficult to do without getting into grand jury information which he cannot discuss.

So who in the home could've committed the crime? John was the one who found his daughter's body and then moved it upstairs, compromising the crime scene and the forensic evidence. But was he a key component of his daughter's death or the cover-up?

In a video-taped interview administered by a child interview specialist, Burke was playful and light-hearted though the timestamp indicates it is Jan. 8, approximately two weeks after his sister was killed. He had no concern about his security and told the specialist, "I'm basically just going on with my life."

But does that mean he's a murderer? A family photographer said that Burke had a temper and once hit JonBenét in the face with a golf club. Burke admitted in a subsequent interview that even though he heard his mom going "psycho" he didn't feel the need to get out bed to see what was wrong. Also, the team believed a piece of a toy train track, like the ones found in Burke's room, could've caused an injury on JonBenét's back.

The investigators surmise that JonBenét made her brother mad — perhaps by stealing a piece of pineapple he was snacking on. Then, in retaliation, Burke hit her on the head with a flashlight. Some members of the team did not think he had an intent to kill, but believed John and Patsy had an intent to mislead and cover up.

"I think in the end this was about two parents (who) deeply cared for the daughter they lost," Clemente said, "and wanted to protect the child they had remaining."