MovieChat Forums > Dr. Phil (2002) Discussion > If you believe the CBS special...

If you believe the CBS special...

posted 8 years ago by pdbrat
87 replies | jump to latest

They said John disappeared for an hour and a half the morning the body was found. Dr. Phil didn't mention that. "Where were you, John?"

[–] queendrae 8 years ago

Personally I'm looking very forward to seeing the 2nd half of the CBS special.

All this time and effort put into proving the Ramsey family innocence could be better spent looking for a killer. They certainly had the means to hire outside help since the police were against them...That is if they were actually innocent and all.

There's only one snag, and it's big, where did the DNA found on her waist band and panties come from?? Lastly, was that collection of DNA evidence botched like the crime scene.

Cheers!

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

There's only one snag, and it's big, where did the DNA found on her waist band and panties come from?? Lastly, was that collection of DNA evidence botched like the crime scene.

The crime scene was contaminated. It could have been anyone in the house AFTER John brought her body up from the basement. I've heard it was a small amount of DNA. One theory is John and Patsy purposefully put a hair in her underwear belonging to someone else.

[–] detataandrea 8 years ago

How could she put hair from another person in her underwear???? It was the middle of the night!!!!

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

How could she put hair from another person in her underwear???? It was the middle of the night!!!!

The theory is John left the house in the middle of the night (3 am?), drove to a gas station or public restroom, disposed of some evidence and looked for hairs/DNA to plant.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

I don't think Ramsey was that smart or cunning to drive somewhere to look for hairs to plant. The family just really lucked out that the Boulder PD did such a bad job of investigating that first day, allowing all that foot traffic, not searching the entire house themselves, and then sending daddy with a friend to look for her body.

The Boulder PD helped the family get away with covering up for Burke by doing such a crappy job themselves.

[–] MycroftHolmes 8 years ago

John wasn't smart enough??? Michigan State grad, John? Owner of a Billion dollar company, John? Naval Civil Engineer, John? "Entrepreneur of the Year" , John? Trained pilot and sailor, John?

What we got here is... failure to communicate!



[–] jomccallister 8 years ago

I completely believe the CBS documentary. It is the only thing that makes sense and almost all facts point in that direction.
And I also wouldn't put anything past the Ramsey's. And honestly, in believing this theory, their reasons were understandable.
I actually feel very sorry for them now. Even a bigger nightmare than we ever realized.
Don't know how they have dealt with knowing what really happened. How heartwrenching!!

[–] MycroftHolmes 8 years ago

He took the clothes with him to a strip club or bar and got the DNA.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!



[–] starline 8 years ago

The theory is John left the house in the middle of the night (3 am?), drove to a gas station or public restroom, disposed of some evidence and looked for hairs/DNA to plant.

I've never heard that before...but that doesn't make any sense. I really don't think these distraught parents came up with an elaborate cover up in the middle of the night. Thinking clearly enough to even drive to a gas station for a hair.

But if so...what did john supposedly dispose of? Because if the ramsey's were guilty and going to dispose of things...wouldn't they get rid of the flashlight, the pineapple, the note pad and the ink pen... and pitch all the train stuff. If they didn't get rid of ANY of that stuff... what could they have possibly... supposedly... disposed of?

Speaking of the train tracks... how did burke... by just poking jonbenet... make blood marks? And why would burke leave the dining room/kitchen and go down to the basement to get a piece of the train track...just to come back upstairs to poke her. Why not just poke her with his finger...or the flash light?

The stun gun made much more sense. As another expert showed... by using a pig... the marks on jonbenet matched a pig's marks... that was shocked with a stun gun. Plus...I don't know how energizing a stun gun is... especially when it's a small child being shocked with such force. I've seen criminals (on the news, youtube) go limp from being shocked with a stun gun. Why would cops stun unruly criminals...if it's just gonna make the criminals MORE energized? They stun them to make them immobile. Plus... I've seen where people get shocked from electric wiring... and go limp... they don't get energized either. So not sure I'm believing these so-called experts' experiment.

And what a silly story about the dna being from a chinese factory worker. That doesn't make any sense either... because even if they were new undies...moms always wash things like that before their children wear them. But who decided they were new? They could have been washed many many times. I don't think dna from a chinese worker would still be there. Plus the dna was discovered and tested immediately. So the cops knew that dna didn't match the family as early as 2 weeks after the murder. And if the chinese worker only 'touched' the undies...well, the 'touch' dna was only tested as recently as 2008...and still didn't match the family.

Other things didn't make sense... like the story from the 911 operator. We heard the recorded message... and we heard the static that the 'experts' thought was a conversation between patsy, john and burke. So...where was the part that the 911 operator said she heard patsy say...right after patsy supposedly hung up... where patsy said... "well, we called 911, now what do we do?" If patsy had said that...WE would have heard it on the recorded message....before the static stuff the 'experts' played for us. If that statement was there...the experts would have definitely played that for us too. So...that kinda makes the 911 person a liar.

The whole story doesn't make any sense at all... because even if burke had hit jonbenet...his parents would have called for an ambulance...or rushed her to a hospital themselves. She was not dead at the time. Other experts said she was alive for another 20 minutes before she was strangled. Patsy and John would have done everything they could possibly do to save her. They would have not thought...'oh well, I guess we'll have to finish her off... strangle the life out of her'. If they were gonna lie about anything... they might have lied about how she hit her head...NOT lied about killing her. They might have said jonbenet fell and hit her head on the bathroom sink or something. (woke up and stumbled into the bathroom in the middle of the night...and fell) They loved jonbenet... so they wouldn't have said... 'we have a choice...try to save her... or murder her'. They would have never made the choice to eliminate their daughter from their lives for forever. We see how much patsy adored her daughter... how much joy jonbenet brought to patsy's life.

And even if burke had hit jonbenet... he was 9. He wasn't gonna go to prison... or get the death penalty or anything extreme. He would have probably just gotten some counseling. And the ramsey's could have afforded the best lawyers and therapist for him. So no need for the parents to kill their only little girl to help burke. Again...they would not have made the choice to murder jonbenet with their own hands.

I did see that burke is now suing cbs. Good for him.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

You make some good points, starline. However, there are just as many questions if it was an intruder and not the family. For example, why would an intruder, after killing JonBenet, take the time to write a ransom note? And not just a simple note, but 2 practice notes AND then a 3 page note? That's a lot of time to risk getting caught. I mean, can you imagine an intruder taking the time to sit down and write those notes after killing a child? Because he sure as heck didn't write it first and then kill her.

The train tracks, there could have been parts of it everywhere throughout the house, so Burke wouldn't have had to go to the basement to get it. Or it could have happened earlier in the day unrelated to the murder. Stun gun? Maybe it wouldn't energize the victim, but they sure would yell and scream!

The 911 operator wasn't a liar... she reported what she THOUGHT she heard. And what she thought they said wasn't incriminating. "We called 911, now what do we do" could mean something as innocent as "should we call our parents and let them know JonBenet has been kidnapped?"

I highly doubt that John and Patsy knew the law regarding child homicide and that Burke couldn't have gone to trial for killing her, accident or not. Furthermore, they probably didn't want him to have the stigma of killing his sister, accident or not.

Burke Ramsay is not suing CBS... he's threatening to, but he hasn't done it yet. And I bet he won't, because the more people investigate the case, the greater the chance he'll be found out to have been the killer. Trust me, his dad will talk him out of suing, because then Burke would have to testify, and that's something he and his dad have successfully avoided all these years.

My point is, EVERY theory about the killer seems to have big holes.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Eveything you said was spot on.

And to add to starline's post: about the trace DNA, Lee (and the others) were not saying it came from the factory from where JonBenet's underwear came. The point was, trace DNA is so easy to transfer, it is not an acceptable form of evidence. Their example was a new set still had trace DNA from the manufacturer. You're making the leap they claimed JonBenet's was, but trace DNA could come from all the people traipsing through the house or even a mistakes in a lab.

You've made a few leaps. Why would you be so sure new underwear would be washed before use? How do you know it wasn't sent to a cleaner's where trace DNA then happens as well? Plus, even if it wasn't new and had been washed in the Ramsey home, again trace DNA comes from all places. It does not meet the standard in forensics.

Then you did make leaps that the dispatcher was lying or the train equipment had to be in the basement only. engle already explained well those issues and others.

Also, asking "the whys" of not disposing of other evidence such as the notepad or pineapple: even the most cunning of criminals make mistakes, and the Ramseys certainly were not masterminds. Covering for a son when the daughter could have been taken to the hospital does seem to defy logic, but we're dealing with people that maybe really did justify the coverup to "not lose their son" or cause them embarrassment. They may have even assumed JonBenet really was dead by then, not knowing the strangulation coverup actually did contribute to the COD.

So yes, everything you debunked could have happened. This is already a "case of zebras" anyway. The indruder theory makes even less sense than the eleborate coverup, but one of the two is the answer. Your post could have just as well attempted to poke holes in the intruder theory. (However then, it would be difficult for anyone to come in and add validity to debunking it...)

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

Covering for a son when the daughter could have been taken to the hospital does seem to defy logic, but we're dealing with people that maybe really did justify the coverup to "not lose their son" or cause them embarrassment. They may have even assumed JonBenet really was dead by then, not knowing the strangulation coverup actually did contribute to the COD.

The Ramseys may have thought JonBenet was dead when she was still alive. I've heard that the blow to the head may have caused her to be brain dead or she would have died eventually. I think a rational parent would call 911, but if they truly believed she was dead with no help of resuscitation and that one of the parents or Burke killed her, then I supposed that would give them motive to cover it up.

Personally, I do think one of the 3 family members killed JonBenet, perhaps accidentally. Even if Burke did hit JonBenet with the flashlight, he may not have intended to kill her, only hurt her. He probably hit her before. The neighbor testified that Patsy confided in her that the golf club incident was not an accident and Burke hit JonBenet on purpose. I tend to believe that.

I think the Ramseys were a F'd up family. They tried to portray themselves as perfect or ideal, but Burke had scatalogical problems, which could indicate sexual abuse. There may have been physical and sexual abuse going on in the home and that may be the real truth the Ramseys tried to hide.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

I agree with all of this. It's not unreasonable to theorize the Ramseys thought she was dead when discovering her, and the head injury was catastrophic.

They were an absolutely dysfunctional family, and there are plenty of secrets they're all taking to the grave.

[–] pdbrat 8 years ago

Re the panties' DNA, did the Ramseys have a housekeeper? Maybe he/she did the laundry. I would think they would've tested that person, but ...

[–] dakowill11 8 years ago

That's just one oddity among a litany of oddities in this sad and sordid case🙄

I watched Dr. Phil's 3 part special on "The JonBenet Ramsey Murder: Brother Burke Breaks His 20-Year Silence" and the CBS investigative documentary The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey and found the latter to be far more informative than Dr. Phil, which, tbh, I found quite superficial. And it was totally misleading imo that Dr. Phil emphasized Burke would be speaking without his lawyer present and yet as Cloudslovestarscolors pointed out in another thread the family lawyer was present with his father John and added his commentary throughout the 3 part special. So it wasn't like Burke couldn't have been coached beforehand by his lawyer to answer Dr. Phil's questions in such an evasive and vague manner to ensure nothing significant was revealed.

Besides this I found Burke’s entire demeanor quite odd. He was definitely nervous and that was obvious throughout the interview. My impressions of him was he came across as effeminate and/or was possibly ASD or had such tendencies. His occupation in IT and even photos/videos of him as a child imo support this theory. And I know others have conjectured likewise about this too. I noted he would avert his eyes and not look directly at Dr. Phil when he was answering Dr. Phil’s questions, especially concerning his presence when Patsy made the 911 call; and the question regarding the bowl of milk and pineapple—YUK!😖—which indicate to me he was possibly withholding information and wasn’t as forthcoming as we’d have liked him to be. Then again he's had 20 years to get his story straight if he is guilty of the crime.

In the CBS documentary I found it highly significant that in the video of Burke’s interview when, I believe, the child psychologist shows him a photo of the bowl of milk and pineapple and queries him about it Burke nigh curls up into a fetal position, looks totally uncomfortable, and cannot even answer that simple question. So I don’t doubt the investigators assessment that Burke knew more than what he was saying from that piece of evidence alone.

And like Radrobd referenced, the CBS documentary highlighted the scatological aspects of Burke’s character, which might be indicative of abuse or his underlying resentment towards JonBenet. But, I also wonder if it’s symptomatic of ASD/OCD?

Iae I cannot say for sure who murdered JonBenet. I don’t know if it was an intruder, a friend or family member. I don’t know if it was an accident or deliberate. But, from what I know I believe the crime scene was most definitely contaminated from the get-go and the Ramsey’s, their friends and community all closed ranks in a “conspiracy of silence” hindering the investigation and apprehension of the real killer(s) and ensuring his/her/their escape. And, although D.A. Alex Hunter once declared, “There’s going to be accountability in this case I promise you” and so dismally failed to fulfill I know that there will be an accounting for her untimely death, if not in this age, then most definitely when those responsible for her murder meet their Maker—and as the apostle Paul wrote: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hb 10:31)! RIP JonBenet Ramsey.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

But, I also wonder if it’s symptomatic of ASD/OCD?

Yes, it is. There are many reasons for a child's abnormal preoccupation with feces, and it can be associated with autism.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

They said a former nanny mentioned something about one incident. She wasn't on the show saying it. Some kids who see South Park may imitate it. They could see it at a friend's house if not at home. He may have been throwing a tantrum. There are several explanations.

The show was quick to talk about transfer evidence when it suited their biased theory regarding her clothing. The though didn't mention the possibilty of transfer when it came to the feces in her room. Feces are easily found on many items. Children especially don't wash their hands very well. They've done tests on women's handbags and discovered feces on them due to taking them in restrooms. That too can then be transferred.

That show was a railroading witch hunt. They didn't care about discussing the evidence. Those so-called experts should never be trusted to work again in the field.

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

The show was quick to talk about transfer evidence when it suited their biased theory regarding her clothing. The though didn't mention the possibilty of transfer when it came to the feces in her room. Feces are easily found on many items. Children especially don't wash their hands very well. They've done tests on women's handbags and discovered feces on them due to taking them in restrooms. That too can then be transferred.

It wasn't a trace amount of feces. There was a golfball size of Burke's feces found in JonBenet's bed and he also smeared his feces on a box of chocolate JonBenet got for Christmas.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

Uh, not to be gross, but I thought it was described as the size of a grapefruit, not a golf ball. And that's even bigger.

Yuck!

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

I've heard golfball size on the side, I've heard larger on the side, I've heard a turd in her bed, I've heard all this with "apparently" in front of it. I never heard anything was smeared on the candy. I've heard heresay aout it having been smeared on a way before that Christmas Day but only that it was "found", not smeared, on the candy in her bedroom.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

A child told to go to bed and then gets up in the middle of night to have a snack would be uncomfortable telling on themselves. They also aren't yet sophisticated enough to always efficiently hide the evidence.

That show only used what they wanted and then ran with it. There was also a part of an interview of child Burke saying he expected to see his sister at their friend's house when he was taken over there. He thought "she was already there". To expect that would mean he didn't know she was dead or even hurt at that point.

They were close in age. He probably barely remembers life before she was born. Both children were loved and cared for. The family was wealthy and well known in the area.

The Ramseys would not have posed their child in that manner. They would have called 911 had they discovered she was hurt. They wouldn't have just excepted she was already dead like some have claimed. There was DNA found on two separate garments of hers. Some want it to be transfer DNA. There was some found under her fingernails. I doubt that was transfer DNA. Two separate stun gun, most likely, marks also. A 6 year old girl could have been held down when it was used on her. A grown man, in the CBS show, knowing what to expect wouldn't have the same marks because he was moving away as soon as they came near him. The anesthetized pig in the Lou Smit experiment had similar marks to those on her body. The pig wasn't moving away.

A 6 year old girl was sexually assaulted not long after and in a nearby neighborhood. The police though lied and say no other similar incident happened afterwards when they were asked. They also planted the story about their being no footprints in the snow. The pathways were clear of snow. If there was though snow then the family, their friends, and investigators would have left footprints.

The grand jury only heard the police side. Their police wasn't used to dealing with such crimes. Thank goodness things like this are rare in some places. Lou Smit had been hired by the police but they turned on him when he wasn't solely focused on her family. He tried to get his side presented to the grand jurt. The DA knew the police side was only part of the story and that the Ramseys would not be convicted if the entire body of evidence was presented in court. He then chose not to indict.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (28128673) 8 years ago

Icing, wasn't the other little girl who was assaulted in JonBenet's dance class? There was a gallery in the dance studio where people could watch lessons. At one time there was a theory that JonBenet's killer was the same man who assaulted the other little girl.

I don't know why this isn't discussed any more. It was some years ago.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

There were thousands of theories out there but none of them held up. I know if my kid was abducted and murdered I would give the police everything they wanted and not lawyer up and refuse to cooperate. To me that is the first sign that someone is hiding something. Anyone who saw the CNN interview they did (before they spoke to police) could see right through them, unless you are naive.

The only theory that makes sense and holds up to the facts is the CBS documentary.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Most wouldn't if they knew the police weren't looking for the killer but solely focusing on the family. They've spoken to other investigators.
It was the police that hired Lou Smit. They too trusted him as an investigator. They just didn't like his findings and that he didn't jump on their bandwagon.
The truth should be more important than wanting to be right.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

Lou smit claimed the intruder came in through the broken window. The CBS special disproved that due to the untouched spider webs. The taser was disproven as well because ithe spacing of the wounds didn't line up with the wounds, whereas the train track lined up perfectly.

Try again.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

The window opens so the broken part is irrelevant. At least the show admitted it had been already broken and didn't try to say there was glass on the outside.
The cobwebs are in a small corner. It is possible not to have disturbed them within the corner.

There were two separate marks of a pair of dots and not train track impressions.
The stun gun was not disproved. That CBS show was blatantly bias. They used a grown man who knew what was coming. He then moved away as he was being stunned so there were lines instead of the circles. A 6 year old girl could easily have been held while stunned so no squirming and thus the dots formed. It could also have knocked her out due to such low body weight.
Lou Smit's demonstration on an anesthetized pig showed dot similar to what was on her body.

She could have been stunned and then begun to come to and claw and then was stunned again. There was DNA not belonging to any Ramsey family member found underneath her fingernails.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

The spider webs were quite large and it was demonstrated that they would have to be disturbed if anyone tried to enter throu the window.

The pig dots were similar but not the same separation as the track. The track fit perfectly, which is better than similar.

I suggest you watch the CBS special, it appears you haven't and have some kind of bias for the Murderers.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

They were in the corner. I could go through a window and not disturb the corner. Lou Smit would have seen a large cob web across a window. He was a seasoned detective and first hired, thus trusted, by the police.

No, the pig dots looked like the marks found on her body.

I watched it and laughed. It played out like a drama show. It seemed like they were competing with TV serials. The sad thing is that this case deals with real people. The show was bias from the start. I believe in keeping an open mind and viewing all of the evidence as a whole.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

They were in the corner and pretty large considering how narrow the window was. They would have been disturbed.

The distance on the marks from the taser had different spacing than what jonbenet had.

Maybe you rewatch it and pay attention instead of laughing.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

I saw it and saw the Lou Smit demonstration and more. It could have been done. Try watching and reading his findings with an open mind this time.

The spacing seemed the same. Remember that a pig isn't exactly the same as a 6 year old human. It would be unethical to use a child fo such.

I could never watch it without laughing. It was a witch hunt but played out like a bad soap opera.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

i think you may be too wrapped up in General Hospital, according to your other posts.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

No, I see it as a soap opera. I don't see real life like that. I don't deny I watch that show. I began watching it as a child when the Luke & Laura story took off for the first time.
There's another poster on this board who also watches GH and posts on that board but believes the family was involved. Is it then okay to watch a fictional program?
This is an entertainment website. Most members do watch TV and or films.

I also post on the food & drink board. I guess it's okay that I eat.

[–] crazygreen1126 8 years ago

If the police were too solely focussed on the family, then why did it appear that the Ramsey's were protected? It was even said that they weren't allowed to focus on them. The entire investigation was a joke starting with John basically tampering with evidence by moving the body. That's the whole process of a police investigation. You interview the people closest to the victim, aka the Ramsey's & try to get all the info & clear everyone else to go from there. It's common sense to know that the police would have a million questions for the parents of the victim. If they had nothing to hide or cover up, it should've been a smooth investigation with nothing but help from Patsy & John. The intruder theory is bogus. I agree with one of the CBS experts. This should've been an easy investigation. It was so shady.

And not once do they genuinely appear to be grieving parents. And Burke's reaction to his sister being murdered in the home were odd to say the least. He never seemed to care that his sister was murdered & his age is not an excuse. 9 yr olds are not emotionless. They would actually be the exact opposite of how Burke acted. Scared.

Even when I heard about this when I was younger, I thought something was off about that family even before the special come out with the evidence I never even knew about. I definitely think there was an accidental death involving Patsy, John or Burke. Almost every shred of "evidence" appeared to be staged & badly staged. There's a reason why the grand jury voted to indict the Ramsey's.

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

The police were focused on them and that group that were part of the department during that time were and still are. They weren't protected. If the family was then that group wouldn't have been so diligent all of these years. The evidence isn't there to convict anyone. The police may just be inexperienced in such cases. That's not a bad thing for the area. They should have and still could turn it over to the FBI. They are better equipped for these types of cases.

We didn't see Burke right after it happened. The tapes were of later interviews. It seemed obvious that he had been talked to by adults since he used terms about going on with his life, the body, etc. Interviewers for children are trained on how to approach children. They played games during one. He did seem nervous as expected. He probably grieved away from strangers.

Why would you think there was anything "off" about the family? Pictures and videos show a happy family. Did it have anything to do with media gossip?
The grand jury only heard the police side of the evidence. The DA knew about the rest and that a conviction wouldn't then likely happen.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

I heard that the dancer was older. That was yet another case whether or not it had anything to do with it.
The police though shouldn't say that nothing similar happened afterwards. It makes them seem bias. The evidence should speak for itself one way or another.

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

Icing, I would love to understand why you believe it had to have been an intruder and how you think it went down. Seriously. You are so convinced the crime scene couldn't have been staged by John and Patsy, so you must have guesses as to the suicide note, for example. Do you believe that was genuine and written before, and that she was killed by accident so the intruder panicked and fled? Do you think there really was a "small foreign faction" going around kidnapping children then? If she was killed by accident, why didn't the intruder(s) still take the body and still try to get the ransom money? Do you really think an intruder would take the time to sit down and write 3 ransom notes in the house while the parents were upstairs? Why would an intruder bother to write practice notes? If you mess up, just cross out the word or line and keep going. According to the CBS special, it took the experts 20 minutes just to COPY the note- that doesn't include the 2 practice notes. Now imagine writing it as you go along- that would have taken several minutes more, at least.

To me, that is the most compelling evidence that it wasn't an intruder- the fact that the ransom note was written in the home. Get in and get out, not get in, spend at least 30 minutes writing a ransom note, and then get out. But I really would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

This is the problem with most is that it has to be all or nothing. It doesn't.

I believe there is insufficient evidence to say it was any specific person at this point. The police department and ridiculous CBS show have shown bias. Lou Smit was the only one who seemed to begin as impartial. He was hired by the police department. They believed in his work. They only had issue with him when he wasn't narrow minded and came to a conclusion they didn't personally like.

I am convinced that they, for one part of the evidence that is, did not pose their child and stage sexual abuse.
The rest may or may not have happened. I am keeping an open mind for most of it.

That CBS show was ridiculous. It would not take someone 20 minutes to copy those pages. Try copying a few pages yourself and you'll easily conclude that. The killer may have enjoyed writing it and may have had it already in their head due to having enjoyed role playing prior to the crime.
He may have gotten to the point when role playing just wasn't enough anymore.

No one believes the person was a foreign faction. That's just silly and what I mean by the all or nothing. A foreign faction isn't foreign to themselves and thus do not refer to themselves that way. It seems to have been written by someone who does enjoy movies, perhaps someone who lives a bit too much in the world of fantasy.

The killer may have been familiar with the home. He may have visited there or done work there on another occasion.

One theory is that the killer was inside the home while the Ramseys were out and then struck later. He then had time to write the note and yes, begin again if he messed up. Child molesters, killers, ect. do not have rational minds. He may have been living out a fantasy while in the home.
There was another investigator, other than Lou Smit, who first believed it may have been a family member and then changed his mind after taking criminal courses. One of the first things he's said is that you can't judge this person as having a rational mind and that the killer may have enjoyed taking time inside the home. I don't have his name at this moment.

Some believe the note was written and then they planned to get her out using the suitcase but had trouble and then finished the job inside that basement room.

Why keep the pad and not the pen? Why keep the flashlight, if it was used in the crime, and not the other half of the paint brush? Why was there DNA of someone other than a family member found underneath her fingernails? Did she supposedly claw a friend earlier that day?

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

I am convinced that they, for one part of the evidence that is, did not pose their child and stage sexual abuse.

And why would you not believe that? There have been several cases where parents have staged crime scenes to cover up a death (accidental or purposeful) of their child, blaming it on kidnappers or someone else. What make the Ramseys so special? Because they had money? No, the criminal mind doesn't change just because you're rich.

One of the first things he's said is that you can't judge this person as having a rational mind

Exactly. The Ramseys were most likely in a panic. The death was most likely accidental. They rationally did the best they could to cover up, but they're not freaking geniuses

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

I explained it in another reply. Bringing their wealth into it makes you seem bitter. It isn't unusual for some to want despair to come to the wealthy out of envy.

You though seem to believe they were thinking well enough to worry about another child and to alter some of the evidence. You want it both ways.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

No, you want it both ways. For example, you want to believe the intruder theory thanks to touch DNA, but then you want to discount the scatology--that suggests Burke is deeply disturbed--by making it touch DNA! What? Do you realize how assinine this double-standard sounds?

By the way, yeah, the feces were not found in trace amounts anyway! You do whatever you can to make the Ramseys innocent, even claiming those who bring up DA protection thanks to wealth and status as being jealous of wealth?! WHAT (again!)?

You really need to understand touch DNA, and the folowing green text is not related to the CBS special:

But when current Boulder DA Stan Garnett was elected in 2009 and took over the case, Coombes says he became aware of a mishandling of the DNA testing, that “They had deviated and dropped down to four markers as opposed to the standard [13]” usually used in forensic analysis.
“We all shed DNA all the time within our skin cells. It can be deposited anywhere at any time for various reasons, reasons that are benign,” Coombes says. “To clear somebody just on the premise of touch DNA, especially when you have a situation where the crime scene wasn’t secure at the beginning . . . really is a stretch.”

There's a short explanation of how touch DNA is not reliable. It's a dangerous path to go down and try to legitimize it, as it could be on someone's body without meaning it originated from a perp or being victimized/fighting back. Trace DNA under fingernails does not suggest JonBenet scratched at the perp. It could be there as trace DNA gets anywhere... the police WERE ill-equipped, and the crime scene was completely compromised. (Their inexperience also explains why the snow/shoe print claim was made.)

Make no mistake, the trace DNA from nails and the ones from clothing were not all necessarily from ONE person, thus the perp. They knocked it down to four markers! Useless!

You claim the CBS show was bias. They went the way the evidence led them. That's why it played out like it did. This was not some news exposé like "48 hours" or "Dateline" where they purposefully tell "two sides," that include family or defense attorneys. The CBS special going down one road is because the evidence led these experts there.

Then you claim the Boulder PD are liars. They had competency problems, but there is no evidence they lied. You know who did lie? The DA! But you'd never admit that because their actions do nothing but protect the Ramseys.

The Boulder PD accurately said there was no evidence to link JonBenet to the alleged 14 year old "Amy" (or "Lucy") case, but you think they then lied... because it does not fit into your Ramseys = innocent bias. The DA tries to legitimize trace DNA or falsely leading the public to believe the grand jury didn't indite, and you trust in them.

Or you try to go into the Ramsey's frame of mind that night to disprove it was a coverup, yet others (accurately) give explanations for how the Ramseys may have cooked up some things but goofed up others. You think that's having it both ways? Not at all. Not even by a Long shot.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

I never stated I believed the intruder theory because of touch DNA. I stated that I'm not convinced the DNA on the garments in from touch DNA. I don't believe the DNA found underneath her fingernails was touch DNA.

Oh please, I'm not trying to make them anything. I've been pointing out that there isn't a preponderance of the evidence. If there was then someone would have already have been charged. I've been stating that I won't take part in trying them in the court of public opinion, especially based on tabloids and TV shows.

The feces stories have always been "she said" or "apparently".

Wealth can help to get better lawyers but they are wealthy people within the prison population. The wealthy can be convicted. It wasn't paying anyone off in this case. The polic department had tunnel vision from the very beginning.

I know what touch DNA is. I also know that all DNA is not touch DNA.

The DNA underneath her fingernails excluded her family.

The show was bias. They had a preconceived notion and worked to prove it. A balanced program would be people from each side and perhaps a few undecided to examine much of the evidence without manipulations.

They are liars. They had tunnel visions and then were against anything that didn't fir the Ramseys being guilty. There is eveidence they lied. They stated that nothing similar had happened afterwards but there was at least one reported case. It makes them seem like they are trying to pad their case.
It's great for the population that they were inexperienced in such a thing but bad for the Ramsey family.

Accurately? Ha, lol! You weren't there and thus don't know what really happened that night.

It's sad that some people want them to be guilty. If they are one day proven guilty then fine but until then it isn't fair to try them in the media. This isn't a movie of the week where people play guessing games of who done it. There are real people in this.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

I agree with you that there is reasonable doubt (per the law) about who really was responsible for JonBenet's death. I do believe there was enough evidence to convict John and Patsy on the lesser charges with which they were indicted. People believing the circumstantial evidence are hardly railroading them though.

Nah, you still don't understand touch DNA if you say JonBenet's fingernail DNA exonerated the Ramseys. It did not come from them, yes, but DNA under fingernails when it is touch DNA means nothing. Again, such DNA there is not signs someone clawed at their attacker. It could have landed there for many reasons from a compromised crime scene.

When I said "accurately," I meant people giving possible theories to the Ramseys' frames of mind. Theorizing such things is accurate. What is not accurate is you being so sure they'd have called 911 if an accident happened in the house or being so sure they'd never stage this.

As I said before, this is already a "case of zebras" because one way or another, the truth is very strange.

Had the CBS show bothered to "tell two sides," it would have lasted eight hours! Go watch the TLC one for that, where they even embarrassingly gave John Mark Karr an interview. The CBS show had professionals who went down the path their expertise led them. Not every special needs to devote a huge chuck to all theories.

.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

If there was enough evidence to convict on the other charges then they would have been tried. The DA knew that the grand jury had heard only the police side. Both would have had a chance to present during a trial.

It isn't circumstantial evidence though, it isn't even evidence. Some is hearsay, some was manipulated, and some was manufactured by the media.

I do understand touch DNA. I've been educated on it. I don't disclose my offline life but I will give that much.
Not all DNA is touch DNA. The fingernails doesn't yet convict or exonerate someone. It is possible and likely that she may have touched or even scratched her attacker.

That isn't accurately at all, it's speculation. Everything at this point is guesswork.

They could have edited. The CBS program had people with a preconceived notion.
This isn't a movie or even a hundred year old case in which everyone involved is now deceased. It is an ongoing investigation and news story which affects the lives of those involved. CBS and others thus have the obligation to not sensationalize. One would think they'd learned from Rathergate.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Not all DNA is touch DNA.

Whahahaha! I never said it was. That'd be ludicrous. The DNA from JonBenet's long-johns, underpants, and nails all were touch DNA though, and that is what we're freaking talking about here. If you also don't "believe" it was touch DNA, enjoy FairyTale Land. Is it nice there this time of year? My goodness, more analysts than the ones on the "evil CBS special" have confirmed... It. Is. Touch. D.N.A.

That isn't accurately at all, it's speculation. Everything at this point is guesswork.

Yah, I said it was accurate to theorize about certain things like frame of mind. When done well, it's damn good "guesswork."

You either are embarrassingly argumentative or have crtical-thinking problems. I also don't care what your profession is. It's certainly not anything that equips you for impartially examining this case, and your back-peddling and fallacies have gotten tedious.

I think we're done here.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

I can't wait to see the Ramsey's follow through on their threat to sue CBS. Now THAT will be entertaining. Their douchey lawyer will look like even more of a douche.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Haha. I really cannot imagine them being so stupid to follow through, but they do love throwing dollar bills to save their necks and help their image. Pretty hard to claim libel when the special examined things available to the public and made legally available to these experts. Their thoughts were protected by the First Amendment. What are the damages, Burkey? 

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

It's not so easy. It can be argued that they have become public people. You can legally use public people in the media. However, they may have a case for defamation. The show was obviously bias from the start. It was not a thorough examination of anything. It was sensationalism.
The hate for this family when nothing has been proven is strange.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

Boohoo. the hate started when the family refused to cooperate with the police from the get go. They brought the suspicion on themselves.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

They realized the police had tunnel vision. They cooperated with other investigators and are now in contact with the current Boulder police regime.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

its a little bit late for that. They chose CNN over cooperating with the police because they knew they didn't have their story straight. Being interviewed separately is normal procedure for all police investigations. What makes them think their case should have been different? The murderer and his accomplices that you are so fond of, created suspicion from day 1.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

The police were in their home from day one. They talked to them then. They noticed that the police were ill-equipped and had tunnel vision so they didn't trust them. I'm fond of the truth and not fabrications. I won't say someone is guilty because the tabloids have played it out for revenue.
You want them to be guilty no matter what. I want whatever the truth turns out to be. The evidence isn't currently there to convict anyone.

[–] OrangeFlowerPetal 8 years ago

Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were both on the bowl of milk-pineapple. Why did Patsy lie about not knowing why or how the bowl got there? And how did the pineapple get inside JonBenet's digestive system? I mean at what time did she eat it? According to JonBenet's parents, JonBenet was asleep and put to bed when they got home on that December 25th night. It's totally ludicrous to think an intruder made the snack for JonBenet and fed to her before stungunning her, torturing her and killing her. Plus there's no way that JonBenet would've eaten anything at that point because she would have been frightened out of her mind.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

It could be that ol' transference thing. She may have touched the bowl when putting dishes away or perhaps when getting another bowl before it. She may have touched it on the table and not remembered having been frantic about her child.

Jonbenet would have eaten some that night. She could have awakened and went downstairs and ate some. Perhaps from that bowl or another that was in the sink or wherever.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

While she sat in the intruder's lap and they fed it to her, as they wrote the 3 page letter. Good one. Too much General Hospital?

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

When did I say anyone fed her? It could have been someone she knew. She could have eaten it prior to seeing an intruder.
I've been watching GH for a few decades and my life has flourished. You're a member of an entertainment website so it's a reasonable guess that you too have watched fiction. At least I know the difference between facts and fiction.

[–] OrangeFlowerPetal 8 years ago

But how did that exact bowl of milk-pineapple get there on the table? Patsy said she did not put it there. JonBenet's fingerprints were not on the bowl. However, Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. If Burke was asleep all that time, and that is what both Patsy and John have testified to, how did Burke's fingerprints magically appear on that bowl?

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

Isn't obvious? The killer/kidnapper snuck into Burke's room and put Burke's sleeping hand on the bowl, then snuck into John and Patsy's room and put her sleeping hand on the bowl. Then, the killer/kidnapper snuck into JonBenet's room, took her quietly downstairs and fed her pineapple from the bowl. While she ate, he crafted the 3 page ransom note. Then, he took her down to the basement, hit her on the head, then staged a sexual assault, took a blanket from the dryer and covered her, went back upstairs left the note on the stairs, then went back downstairs and escaped through the window without disturbing any cobwebs.

SMH

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

...and tazed her on the way out for good luck.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Well, of course Burke had pineapple and iced tea, but he and Patsy just forgot because of the shock over JonBenet's death! And like Burke said on Dr. Phil, why remember something that happened almost 20 years ago? It's not like the night of his sister's death would be of any significance or anything. It's like remembering eating pineapple on any other random day from years ago! [/SARCASM]

And gosh, with so much to discuss, I often forget about the blanket. (I added it to my last post since it hasn't had a reply.) no sarcasm here: covering a deceased person is an act of love, not something a ransomer or sexual predator tends to care about... not to mention it was in the dryer according to Patsy. Cue in sarcasm: Intruders definitely want to run to the dryer as well as display a ransom note on stairs on the main floor after killing a child! They also have magic, spiderweb preservation skills, as well as no-disturbance skills to the area with dirt and foliage right outside the basement windows.

Heck, since supporters of the intruder theory think these things make sense, I'm surprised they don't also claim the prints on the bowl, spoon, and glass were planted by the intruder!

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

and if you don't agree with these ridiculous scenarios, you have "tunnel vision" and are jealous of the Ramsey's wealth.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

You know I haven't stated that at all. You're just being argumentative.
The cops had tunnel vision and not exploring the evidence as a whole rather than picking and choosing doesn't help the overall case no matter who is guily or not.
It should be about the truth and not about winning. There have been innocent people convicted and some lucky enough to be later exonerated. Many of them still have police and prosecutor saying they shouldn't have been released.

The wealthy, celebs, corporations, etc. are sometimes targeted. People want them to pay because they're successful or believe that they just have to be evil because of being successful.
I didn't say everyone felt this way. Some though do.

I don't mind discussing the evidence but let's please keep it at that.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago



[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Covering a person doesn't have to be an act of love. Especially if they just killed them or desecrated their body by posing them in such a manner. It could be that the killer wanted her. He may have planned to take her but couldn't get her out of the house or was too rough playing out his fantasy and she died. He may have regrets, hopefully.

It isn't unusual for a child to get up on Christmas night. They'd spend much of the evening with friends. Kids are excited and want time to play with their gifts. It being Christmas then isn't surprising that both children got up some time during the night.
Maybe Burke first and then returned to bed. Maybe she then did and saw the bowl and had some. One doesn't always leave usable prints or had used her fingers. She may have encountered someone. She may have been familiar with him or still didn't think anything of it because they'd had strangers in the home before. She may not have known he wasn't supposed to be there.

Most likely, If Burke hit her even just a brother and sister fighting type of reaction, they would have called 911. They wouldn't have thought that she was already dead so oh well. They wouldn't have posed their daughter like that. They could have just better hidden her if they planned on faking a kidnapping. They could have left a murder note instead if just leaving the body. They then would have turned their attention to the boy stating that it was a tragic incident and that he shouldn't then be punished.
There's nothing in their background to suggest otherwise. The pictures and videos show happy children and no pediatrician reports were ever filed.

How likely is it that DNA from the same factory worker would survive on two separate garments through the was cycle, wear, etc.? The DNA underneath her fingernails could also be more than touch DNA.
There needs to be a better registry. If they find the DNA contributor then they could investigate whether or not they were involved.

You're being ridiculous. There's no need for any sarcasm. Watch Lou Smit's explanation about the window. It wasn't that no foliage was disturbed.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

You're being ridiculous.

I think you meant to put a negative in there: "you're not being ridiculous. Electronic editing is easy. This isn't Patsy's fake ransom note where she had to awkwardly insert "don't" in the sentence, "we don't particularly like you, John."

There is nothing ridiculous about our posts or in using sarcasm. Sexual sadists aren't likely to act out their fantasies in an unfamiliar home where detection is a huge risk. They're not motivated by that thrill. They want to have privacy and control on their own turf. They aren't likely to go looking around in places like a dryer, hoping to find a blankey. They aren't likely to make it about a ransom and a sex crime. The ransom was moot anyway, so they aren't likely to go through with laying the papers on the stairs where there was another risk of getting caught. (Also, like my other long post mentioned, not leaving it, would have delayed the Ramseys knowing JonBenet was gone, which is good for people trying to get as far away as possible.)

The police erroneously claimed there should be snow prints, but there was dirt and growth in front of the window that was undisturbed. a well-established cobweb in the cramped window was also undisturbed. They aren't likely to leave things intact.

How many "aren't likelys" in this case does it take for you to realize the intuder theory probability is in the billions?

Patsy's prints certainly could have been on the bowl from something like unloading the dishwasher. I mentioned that in my long post at the bottom of this thread. Burke denied eating pineapple though, and he certainly wouldn't forget his last snack he had before his sister's death, especially when reminded of the pineapple by interviewers. For as normal of an almost 10-year-old boy you intruder theorists claim he was, forgetting his last snack before his sister died (but recall playing with his new train set) makes no sense.

Had he happened to not cross paths with JonBenet even though they both ate pineapple, it's amazing the intruders just happened to never be spotted by Burke but were able to snatch JonBenet. Oh, I'm sorry, did they just wait in he basement, hoping only she would come down, or did they venture upstairs and caught JonBenet while not being spotted by Burke? Either amazing Spidy senses or impossible luck. More luck would occur when placing the pages of the note on the stairs without detection!

In case you weren't sure, there should be about five more "aren't likelys" in the above text. You still do not understand touch DNA. Her long johns and underwear only matched when they knocked it down to four markers! That is not an accurate DNA profile. Are you sure you have professionally studied DNA testing? This also has been reported beyond the CBS special you loathe so much.

Lastly, well-to-do and seemingly normal people are capable of covering up such a crime for their child. JonBenet was almost deceased when they became aware, and they could have determined, it is impossible to save her; let's "save Burke." It sounds crazy, but it has happened before. It's never been quite as convoluted as the Ramseys' coverup, but it's part of why this case still captivates two decades later.

This has got to be my last lengthy post to you. You aren't likely to change your mind. You're still buckling at the proven touch DNA and some ofher clear-cut things. As I said once before, intruder theorists would have more credibility to say "the touch DNA can't exclude anyone, including previous persons of interest." However, credibility is pretty lost when the mountain of evidence is ignored. It's not a couple of little things where there is room to argue. The Ramsey's timelines, alibis, and explanations defy logic, while evidence for an intruder has enough holes to drive a truck through.

Now,that is the icing on the cake. 

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Burke most likely ate from that bowl. You'd asked about Patsy's fingerprints. It could be that ol' transference thing. She may have touched the bowl when putting dishes away or perhaps when getting another bowl before it. She may have touched it on the table and not remembered having been frantic about her child. She may have made it for him or he got up in the middle of the night and got it himself.
He could have eaten some before anything had happened to his sister or while she was in the basement with whomever.

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

blah blah blah blah blah bait and switch. Burke did it and John and Patsy covered it up.

[–] OrangeFlowerPetal 8 years ago

Patsy and Burke both said they didn't know how the bowl of milk-pineapple got there. Why would they lie about it? They have no reason to lie unless they had something to hide. You sure used lots of "maybes" in your reasoning, but I'm looking at factual evidence. Patsy and Burke lied. That's a fact. Even if Patsy's fingerprints got on the bowl when she was putting the dishes away, it doesn't explain how Burke's fingerprints got on the bowl. If he made the snack himself, he lied about it when he said that he did not. Why would he lie? He lied because it was the catalyst that caused him to attack and kill his sister.

Also, you say that the CBS documentary was biased. Why would it be biased? They had nothing to gain from being biased. If you look at the evidence it all points to being an inside job. Believe whatever fantasy you want. But her family killed her and covered it up.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Your rants are silly. I disagree with a witch hunt that is only supported by gut feelings and ignoring both sides of the evidence.
I visited this board because this show expressed the other side of the case. I purposely stayed away from any on that CBS special. Dr. Phil just allowed the other side to be told. I'd like a special with both sides, respectfully, discussing and debating the evidence.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Oh please, you don't know that. You're just dismissive of anything that doesn't fit the story you made up in your head.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

Patsy may not have known. There are bowls in my cabinet right now which may have fingerprints on them but others may eat from them. It's possible that Burke got up in the middle of the night and was afraid he'd get in trouble for being out of bed. Children usually won't tell on themselves. If caught later they may but the stories were already locked in. If he later changed it then some would say that he is automatically guilty. I use maybes and such because we don't know what the answers are, there are only guesses.

Burke also said in one of those interviews shown by the CBS special, though I believe they failed to show the part, that he expected to see his sister at their friend's house. The interviewer asked him about being taken there. He said he thought she had already been taken there and he would see her there.
Why would he expect to see her if he though he'd killed her? If he was coached and made it up then why not about the pineapple and more?

It was biased as the tabloids are. They have ratings to gain. The media has sensationalized this story. They've profited from targeting the Ramseys whether they are guilty or not. They had only profits to gain with Rathergate too but went with that story instead of checking and displaying all of the facts.

There isn't yet enough evidence to convict anyone. You have a right to your opinion but you can't know what happened that night. Gut feelings don't have a place in real life cases.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Your rants are silly.

1. You don't know what "rant" means.

2. It's kooky watching you act like someone hasn't covered something, so you reply to them like it was never addressed. (Ex. pretending it's not been explained how the DNA has been declared faulty beyond the CBS special; continuing to reply about Patsy's prints on the bowl even when you're replying to someone who acknowledged, yes, those prints may have been innocent!)

3. You're allowed to throw out a bunch of "maybes" but no one can theorize how the Ramseys did it--such people are "biased"--even though they are following the evidence and acknowledging the totality of it. Double standard ridiculousness!

4, Have a nice day.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

1. I do

2. It hasn't been explained faulty by the CBS special. That show was a joke. They purchased brand new underwear. It wasn't said that her clothing was new and hadn't been washed, perhaps several times. I was involved in an exchange regarding the prints on the bowl. There's nothing wrong with that.

3. That isn't true at all. This is a discussion board. We should all be using maybes and such because we weren't there and no one has been convicted of anything.

4.

[–] badnixie 8 years ago

At the moment I can't reply to this whole topic or your whole post but I feel the need to point out that Lou Smit was not hired by the police department but by the D.A.'s office, which was biased in favour of the Ramseys. D.A.s Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy both ignored police evidence so if one of them hired Lou Smit and he just happened to come to the conclusion that benefitted them that's pretty convenient. According to what I read Lou Smit was criticised for his analysis being full of misleading statements, mistakes, and "half truths." I read that his approach to this case was less like an unbiased investigator and more like that of a defense lawyer. I've also come across instances where people say he's made contradictory claims and seems to be feeding false information to the media. I will have to read up on it further, but I am posting the link to an interesting discussion thread about Lou Smit's investigation bellow.

Like I said, I'll have to continue reading up on it and other comments on the Dr. Phil interview thread at a later time.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TR5S5UNJI9CQ0N2LL

[–] IcingOnTheCake 8 years ago

The reports I'd heard was that he was hired by the police department. Anyway, the DA was not bias. They didn't ignore police evidence. They took it to the grand jury and fought to keep out both sides of the evidence. I haven't heard/read that about Lou Smit. I don't doubt statements like that though were released since they believed the opposite of his findings. They thought he was fine prior to the case.

The CBS show should have had some people on both sides and perhaps a few undetermined. They also could have then discussed each part of the evidence introduced instead of just picking parts which helped their own personal theory.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Lou Smit was the only one who seemed to begin as impartial. He was hired by the police department.

Hired by Alex Hunter, the lead DA at the time, who is hardly impartial, himself. However, I see someone already answered this, and you will fight to the bitter end about the virtues of the DA office. I don't know how you reconcile Coombes, who was also in the office and has said the others were not impartial! Yikes. (You're also making me associate icing with sadness. Thank you much! )

[–] badnixie 8 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if people who defend them like this have some kind of ulterior motive ... I don't understand having such devotion to a murder suspect unless they are related to the suspect or know them personally.

I've been told of encounters with online Ramsey defenders who simply become belligerent when confronted with evidence, and have since wondered if these defenders are paid by the Ramseys to help influence public opinion, but I know how paranoid that sounds. Still, it does make you wonder why someone would devotedly defend someone they don't know for murder when all the evidence is against that particular suspect.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Not paranoid at all. I even question things like the legitimacy of the 14-year-old sexual assault case. There has just been no evidence I've seem this girl was even hurt by an actual intruder. She must exist because it came from the PD who are not invested in covering for the Ramseys. However, at the least, they are right that there is no evidence the two cases are related. Is it possible the second case isn't even a case at all? Something made up by the complaining witnesses for the Ramseys' (and their own) benefit?

That's far more "paranoid-thinking" than you questioning seemingly random online strangers fighting for the Ramseys to the bitter end. It does take all kinds. Some probably are this narrow-minded, employing immense mental gymnastics to support the most unbelievable things. Some may have genuine ulterior motives...

[–] afterberth 8 years ago

Badnixie
I agree with you 100%. Their comments seem to defy logic. They rehash their same tired arguments as if to convince themselves and others that the Ramsey's couldn't possibly have covered things up. Meanwhile they forget the Ramsey's put the spotlight on themselves when they lawyered up and refused to be interviewed by police separately.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

YES. That's another suspicious thing; people who are desperate to find their child's killer(s), don't balk at police questioning, instead, are quick to speak to the media and hide behind lawyers. It's just one more accurate theory that they wanted to conceal the truth.

Yeah, many innocent people seek attorney counsel, but the innocent ones instinctively want to do what it takes to get justice for their daughter.

[–] missmelissa80 8 years ago

Reading over these posts/comments, I got the impression that Icing is either John or Burke Ramsey, or as you implied, someone paid off in order to attempt to paint the family in an innocent light. There's just no way a rational human being could be presented with all these facts and interviews and still believe the family had nothing to do with the murder/cover up. For many years, I believed an intruder killed her and the family was innocent. I used to feel especially sorry for Patsy because not only did she lose her daughter, but she was being accused of the unthinkable.
My opinion has since done a 180 after seeing the recent CBS special and ironically enough, the Dr Phil interview with Burke (that many believe was a PR move done to make Burke appear innocent) was the one that really hit home for me that Burke most likely killed her, and Patsy and John attempted to cover it up. I saw the Dr Phil interview first, mostly out of curiosity, and as I watched it, my blood froze because it became glaringly obvious that Burke played a major part in her murder. The CBS special only further cemented that idea from a feeling to an undeniable fact. I didn't want to just go by my intuition, I wanted to see evidence. In my mind, the CBS special presented the evidence as factually as I've ever seen, and even though there could have been several scenarios as to how it all went down, it all boils down to the same conclusion. Anyone who continues to defend these people after all that has been exposed is either highly delusional or close to the family and therefore should not be considered credible due to their bias.

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

Reading over these posts/comments, I got the impression that Icing is either John or Burke Ramsey, or as you implied, someone paid off in order to attempt to paint the family in an innocent light. There's just no way a rational human being could be presented with all these facts and interviews and still believe the family had nothing to do with the murder/cover up. For many years, I believed an intruder killed her and the family was innocent. I used to feel especially sorry for Patsy because not only did she lose her daughter, but she was being accused of the unthinkable.

I don't think Icing is John or Burke or even paid by the Ramseys. Icing has been a regular poster on the GH message board for a few years. I think Icing just has it stuck in his/her head that the Ramseys are innocent and just won't listen to rational arguments, dismissing them as implausible. Perhaps Icing is just trolling us and knows the truth but feels compelled to argue for the sake of argument?

[–] runningproduction 8 years ago

As a former detective myself (6 years working with PPD)

I would like to point out some inconsistence of the case offered by the CBS doco.

1 - The 911 call

Forget about the enhancment, what strike me most is the degree of accuracy Patsy demostrated in answering the 911 operator question. Usually in cases like this, the caller would have been disorientated and the operator would need to ask the same question multiple time to get the answer they wanted, not patsy, the operator only ever repeat a single question once. All 9 or so question was answered by patsy precisely in one or two sentence. If you just find out your daughter is missing, your mind would be more clouded than clear.

2 - The Ransom Note

The ransom note pick up a lot of idea, and almost all of them (behind the kidnapping) does not relate to the other, small foreign fraction, personal disliking, money and so on, it does not make sense as you usually only have one motive, not 3 or 4 behind a kidnapping. I mean what kipnapping have got to do with political affluence when all you ask for is money?

Another inconsistence from the ransom note is that it is too well written to be able to sell it as a "foreign fraction" You do not use words like "countermeasure", "attache", "exhaused" if you are foreign born and English is your secondary or even tertiry language (I am foreign born) you would have use words like "method", "briefcase" and "tired" instead.

And then the $118,000 ransom, you broke into someone home, potentially killed a 6 years old girl, all that for $118,000? The Ramsey is rich, and even kidnapper in columbia would not ask for 118,000 or anything that meager, kidnapper usually ask for a larger amount then bring it down in negotiation, not start with a small amount and bring it up.

3 - The Bourke Interview with the detective

Bourke have contridicting his statment to the detective basically throughtout the whole interview, first he said he heard something downstair and try to "guess" what happened, and figure "someone" will come up and tell him what happened. Then he claim when he sleep, he is a deep sleeper and he could not hear anything.

Another issue is with his interview (both with the child psychologist and detective), he show no emotion or empthy toward what's happening around him what so ever, I am not talking about his dislike of JonBenet, but rather any fear that the purposed kidnapper would comeback and try to kidnap him for another ransom, anyone have their home burglared would know the fear you have for the prep to return to the crime scene, that show psycopathic tendency.

4 - What happened after the Discovery of Ransom note.

Normally, in a case like these, you (the homeowner) would want to check if the site is secure, you would have gone thru the house top to bottom and make sure the site is secure. What if the note is fresh and the kidnapper is still somewhere inside the premises?

If the ramsey's have gone thru the whole house, they would have discover the body of her daughter immediately instead of waiting for it for 5 hours.

5 - The pineapple bowl.

The pine apple bowl only have 2 sets of fingerprint on it, Patsy and Burke. They would have been the people last touch the bowl. Fingerprint, as oppose to DNA, cannot be transfer, as you need to press your finger against something hard enough to leave you skin oil to the surface, it cannot also be left from an "eariler" incident either, if patsy print on it, it would not have been her moving the dishes becuase that fingerprint would have been "old" and something else would have been condense on top of that (Stuff like dust, water, vapour and etc), if they can capture her fingerprint, that mean the print is fresh but not when she move the dishes or bowl some hours ago.

There are quite a few plot hole for this case at an investigator stand point, however, all the point I raise is my own conjecture and circumstancial, without any detail investigation to substanciate these point, I cannot say which theory is the best out there, just that these action does not make sense at all.

[–] radrobd 8 years ago

3 - The Bourke Interview with the detective

Another issue is with his interview (both with the child psychologist and detective), he show no emotion or empthy toward what's happening around him what so ever, I am not talking about his dislike of JonBenet, but rather any fear that the purposed kidnapper would comeback and try to kidnap him for another ransom, anyone have their home burglared would know the fear you have for the prep to return to the crime scene, that show phycopathic tendency.

Wow, you make a really good home. Somebody broke into my sister's home when she and her family were away. My nephew was so freaked out about it, he had to have counseling for fear the burglar would return someday. He had nightmares about it for a while.

However, John Ramsey claims that after JonBenet died, the family left the home never to return. That could possibly explain Burke wasn't afraid of the kidnapper/killer, because they moved. However, I think the real reason is that Burke knew the truth and, thus, had nothing to fear.

[–] runningproduction 8 years ago

The feeling will and should linger even if you moved out, it's like if you crashed and totaled your car, you will have a lingering fear of crashing your car again everytime you drive.

What I am trying to say is, he have no emotion and empthy toward anything, not just about his sister, but what I meant is general feeling and emotion. Which is an indication of Psychopathic tendency.

However, being a psychopath does not necessarily mean you are guilty.

[–] GenerousEight 8 years ago

'might be indicative of abuse' .. Holy crap! This is the first I've heard of that!

[–] starline 8 years ago

Adding more...(sorry...I know this is very l-o-n-g!)

In the last two weeks...I've become fascinated with JonBenet's case. I watched Dr Phil's 4 hours on the case... CBS' 4 hours on the case...(it was suppose to be 2 hours longer...I'm curious what would have been shown)... TLC/ the ID channel 3 hours on the case... and A&E's 2 hours on the case. And read stuff on the internet. I agree with Lou Smit and others who do NOT think the family hurt or killed JonBenet.

I realize the CBS experts... (CBS' Medical Examiner Werner Spitz...the white haired old man...apparently is not a credible source)...think Burke killed Jonbenet with a flashlight because of a piece of pineapple. For many many years the Boulder police (and the media and public)...thought Patsy killed Jonbenet because of wet sheets. They were SO sure this was the situation. But that didn't even make sense...because if jonbenet had wet her bed in the past...I'm sure Patsy had put a plastic sheet-liner on the bed... so wet sheets wouldn't be a problem. Also Jonbenet had a twin bed... so Patsy could have easily said...'get in the other bed and we'll fix your bed later'. There would have been no reason to attack Jonbenet. Dr Phil even showed photos of the bed/sheets ...and pointed out there was no evidence of bed wetting that night. So now the thought is Burke attacked jonbenet because of pineapple...and so the parents had to finish her off... and strangled her to death. That seems as unlikely as the wet sheet theory.

The A&E episode quoted more than one expert who said Burke seemed like a normal kid...and the Ramsey family was a good family. One expert said when he interviewed Burke originally...(right after the death)... he didn't think burke even realized his sister was actually dead. How could good parents strangle their adored little girl to death. Even their photographer friend Judith Phillips...said John was a good father and Patsy was a good mother. And yes, CBS got it wrong... because we do know that jonbenet did not die until after being strangled. There were fingernail marks where jonbenet tried to pull the rope off her neck.

According to CBS... there were no marks or blood on jonbenet's head. You couldn't 'see' the head wound... so why wouldn't her parents call an ambulance...like normal people. I don't think it's been implied successful businessman John and social Patsy were previously NOT normal. So why wouldn't they hope jonbenet would be alright...and rush her to a hospital...instead of deciding to do the extreme of killing her? It makes NO sense. And no...not even to 'protect' Burke. IF...and that's if...Burke was involved... his parents would have simply gotten him the best therapy money could buy. They would NOT have killed one child for the sake of the other. Especially not happy, pretty little jonbenet.

I'm not sure why so many would rather believe the parents were diabolical enough to kill their own beloved daughter. And were so quick and clever to come up with a murder plot...after the shock and stress of finding their daughter hurt... in the groggy wee hours of the morn. Yet too stupid to remove or hide any of the so-called evidence. Like the flashlight, pineapple bowl, train track, note pad, ink pen and paintbrush. Why be so detailed about the murder and yet leave all that stuff right there to be found? Seriously...what makes so many think these people were capable of such evil? What in their past or present have they done to prove they're evil?

Although I don't think jonbenet was poked with a toy train track. I agree with the experts who believe the marks on Jonbenet are from a stun gun. I'm not sure how merely poking someone with the train tracks would make the blood or burn marks...(whichever they are). As far as Jonbenet screaming because of the stun gun... I'm not sure she would... because of her small size, the stun gun's power...and how long she was zapped. A person is partially paralyzed, temporarily. So Jonbenet probably just went limp. Not that I'm saying this is exactly the same... but when you get electrically shocked... I think your mouth tighten ups...so you wouldn't be able to scream. I'm thinking this because when a person gets shock treatment in the movies... they put something in their mouth...so the person wont bite their tongue.

It's been talked about how several people came to the Ramsey home after the ramseys called 911...after finding the ransom note...messing up the crime scene. I'm sure the ramseys ...who appeared to have many friends/church friends...weren't thinking straight ... and just wanted support and comfort from their friends ... as they waited for the phone call from the 'kidnappers'...(the note did say 'we'). When the phone call didn't come...it's not the Ramseys fault that all the police left... except for one inexperienced woman ... who told John and his friend to search the house. I also don't think it'd be unusual for a father's first reaction to be to pick up his baby... and bring her out of the basement. And not wanting the mother to see her child down there...like that. When the police came back...Patsy was on the floor holding Jonbenet... rocking her baby in her arms...and sobbing uncontrollably.

As far as the written letter...one theory is the killer (or 2)...came into the (7,000 sq ft...15 room) house when the family went to the neighbors house for the evening. They were gone for hours... so the intruder had plenty of time to write a long letter. I also think a person might now hear everything going on in a house that size.

Lou Smit and others were absolutely convinced the killer was an intruder. Although Smit has since died... hopefully there are people still working on the case with all the information he left behind. I believe there's like 50 to 60 people to still be investigated. According to A&E's episode... the dna from the undies and the leggings matched. They recently used the newest dna testing... and discovered the dna is from a Hispanic male. Maybe that male was the accomplice of Michael Helgoth.

Investigator Ollie Gray was investigating 26 yr old Michael Helgoth. Helgoth told a co-worker... John Kenady...that he and a partner (probably his accomplice)...were going to get about $60,000 each...(the $118,000)...shorty before Jonbenet was killed. There was an article talking about John's business success...(did it mention his bonus amount?). Helgoth told Kenady his plans for the money. Helgoth said he wondered what it would be like to crack a human's skull. He liked to shoot cats in their backs. He also had a stun gun...and hi tec boots like the footprint at the Ramsey's home...a cap/hat that had the initials SBTC...and a videotaped news story about the unsolved kidnapping and murder of a 6 yr old girl.

Helgoth was a convicted paedophile. He was imprisoned in the 1980s for a sexual assault on a child. He had an infatuation with young girls. A girlfriend said that he actually collected Barbie dolls. She eventually had to take out a restraining order on him to protect her daughter. She had come home unexpectedly one evening and found her on his bed. He was in bed naked. He said he couldn’t trust himself with her daughter. He threatened to cut one of his girlfriend’s ears off. He tried to kill his ex-wife. They were only married five or six days.

Helgoth used to stalk people at night dressed in black ninja clothing. Supposedly he used to break into people's houses just for the thrill of doing it. A girl from the same dance studio as jonbenet... had an intruder in her bedroom...and was sexually assaulted. The intruder had broken into the house while the girl and mom were at the movies...(dad was working)... and was in the house for hours. The mother turned the security system on at midnight. When the mother caught the man...he ran and jumped out a 2nd story window. The man was dressed in black ninja clothes. The father said the Boulder police were 'completely not interested' in what they were telling them. The police wouldn't even take a description of the man from the mother.

The Boulder police were completely fixated on the Ramseys. They SO badly wanted to solve the case... (sooner than later)... and blame it on the family... the didn't want to hear anything opposing their theory. Even though the police knew as quick as 2 weeks... that the dna did not match the Ramsey family...they still focused on the family only. The police even spread several lies about the case to the media and public. It was later found out...that yes they lied. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they also lied about other things pertaining to the case or people working on the case. So one can't blame the Ramseys from getting lawyers, trying to make their own case to the public... and hiring their own investigator... since the police weren't looking for the real killer.

Anyway...it is believed that helgoth may have worked in the Ramsey home shortly before the family moved in. Unidentified animal hairs were found in the basement where JonBenet’s body was left. The hairs were of two colors. An associate of Helgoth's raised wolf dogs whose hairs exactly match those colors. Helgoth had bought two of these dogs.

After Christmas, Kenady asked Helgoth about the money... and Helgoth said in a depressed way that it hadn't work out. Kenady said he heard details about the confession and said someone close to Helgoth has a tape of the confession. Two months after jonbenet's death...and 2 days after District Attorney Alex Hunter said they were narrowing in on the killer... Helgoth killed himself...or was killed to be silenced. Killed because there was no suicide note...and the 'suicide' looked suspicious. Helgoth was right-handed...but the bullet came from the left. Gray thinks if they could find out who killed Helgoth it could lead police to his accomplice in jonbenet's murder.

Kenady spoke to the Boulder police...and was told Helgoth was not their man... without even investigating him. They said they were looking for someone 'twisted'. Well, Michael seems more twisted than anyone in the Ransey family. Gray reached out to the police 20 times concerning Helgoth's information...but the police would never return Gray's phone calls. At some point they did supposedly check Helgoth's dna... but it supposedly didn't match. So maybe the dna was his partner's dna... the person who probably killed Helgoth.

[–] Katiedidd 8 years ago

Your rationale about the $50,000-60,000 times two equaling $118,000 is just as strong an argument as the one saying it matched John's bonus. Actually, the latter is stronger as ransomers always aim for more money from rich people, and the number, $118,000 is bizarre.

Even if it can be argued they had time to write such a note, it's very odd ransomers don't come prepared. It's not likely taking so long to write a note (with practice drafts) with Patsy's pen and paper is an element of excitement for a sexually motivated criminal.

One would also think the note would be eliminated, so the Ramseys wouldn't realize anything was amiss right away. They'd take time wondering, "where is JonBenet?" Then search the huge house. Intruders would think of that. No "thrill" of a note is worth the Ramseys getting to call 911 right away, but it sure makes for a good coverup if the crime is done by family members.

Kidnapping of a stranger is either sexually motivated or driven by ransom; not both. Helgoth and friend wanted to make up a ransom but still take time to commit sexual sadism in the home? Sexual sadists also psychologically have control by getting the victim on their turf, not lurk around a house, doing their crimes where they may be caught. If your argument is something unexpectedly went wrong, who sticks around to cover her with a blanket from the dryer and place the note, that even the Ramseys started to say looked like a woman wrote it? (Implicating their closest friend after Patsy was accused of writing it. Nice people, huh?)

By the way, the note said both "we" and "I," so consistency was a problem. How does its odd language, length, and writing style not make you question its legitimacy? Plus, how can you think it was Helgoth, motivated by sexual perversion AND ransom? How was he going to pursue both in his perfect plan? Also, since he admitted to his pal his big $50,000-60,000 fell through, he left the ransom note anyways...? 

There just was no evidence a sex crime actually occurred anyway, but the garrote made it look like one. (Again, a sadist wants privacy on their own turf but they made up a garrote with Ramseys' belongings??) The microscopic samples in JonBenet's genital tract also suggested trace DNA thanks to a disturbed crime scene and questionable forensic analysts.

Your post also ignores the pineapple. Hmm, no prints from JonBenet but from Burke (and Patsy, but maybe it was from putting away the dishes originally). Where are JonBenet's prints? If she ate before her attacker(s), they should be there. Patsy and Burke denied knowledge of pineapple that night. If JonBenet was supposed to be alone with her attacker(s), you really think she ate pineapple from strangers while being tortured? They wanted to feed her?? Why? It's literally in a room the family members could enter.

That DNA is useless and has already been explained why. It was knocked down to four markers, and only then did "it match." You intruder supporters would have more credibility saying it is touch DNA (it is), and therefore it does not exclude Helgoth, John Mark Karr, Santa Bob, or whomever you fixate on with your stretched theories.

As Coombes, in the DA's office said, his colleagues used evidence to fit their intruder theory, not following the evidence and the totality of it. Bad investigative work. It's bad when lay-people do it to squeeze evidence to fit their intruder theory too. But have at it. Ignore Burke admitting he was awake, heard the commotion but did not check on things. The parents think their daughter is missing, but don't run to Burke to see if he's okay or what he may have seen. Fake note matching Patsy's handwriting samples, tells with eyes and body language. Cutting out friends who didn't do what the Ramseys wanted.

I could go on and on about holes in the intruder story and evidence that points toward the Ramseys. But keep fixating on "they'd have rushed her to the hospital! No one would cover for another child!" There has already been precedent for this with other families. So it can happen.

You nay have followed this case closely for two weeks, but I have for two decades. I would want to fight the thought that it was the Ramseys. The police did make mistakes, it does seem crazy any parents would do such a coverup, but the intruder evidence is just contradicted by the evidence inside the house that points exactly to the people who live in it.