There's a 2 part series on JonBenet tonight at 8:30pm-10:30pm EST and tomorrow from 9:00pm-11:00pm EST.

Also, part 3 of Burke Ramsey on 9/19.

I'm watching it now. The early segments are unconvincing. So-called experts are trying to examine the enhanced background noise of the initial 911 tape. They are claiming specific words, phrases and tone, pulled from the garble. I don't buy it at all. IMO, it's another attempt to make current methods and technology to be far beyond their actual level, not much different than the laughable concept of crime scene reconstruction.

The EAR ONS case is a recent example of the absurdity of attempting to decipher old garbled audio. Countless posters on EAR ONS message boards tried to pick out the words, names and phrases from background noise of his infamous "kill you" phone call. They came up with all types of assertions and conclusions.

Meanwhile, eventually the actual background noise was discovered. It was a TV movie that aired on the same night. The phone call was made during the movie broadcast. When a tape of that movie was played alongside the phone call audio, the specific segment of the movie was identified. The words were not the same as the examinations claimed. They were similar, often soundalike words, but the guesses had been way off, no matter how dedicated and sincere.

I'd love to bet that the same holds true here. After all, I have every conceivable soundalike working for me, while those experts have only what their biases heard.

It is indeed bias. All of these JonBenet programs this far removed come with a certain bias, even if it differs by network. The producers select experts who fall in line with what they believe and want to hear, what they want their audience to hear. Again, that's only natural. If you had truly balanced panels there would be exponentially more arguing and far less head nodding in tame agreement.

What a load. Dr. Henry Lee was the only one who partially saved that episode.

The old forensic pathologist Dr. Spitz was desperate to solve the case, despite not setting foot on premises. This is extremely familiar. He is presented a limited set of photos from the home. Since he has to justify his involvement instead of settling for generalities, Dr. Spitz notices a long neck flashlight on a counter and announces that had to be the murder weapon. It is heavy and fits the width and type of injury. No problem.

That is exactly the type of analysis that absolutely infuriates me on so many true crime programs. Detectives and specialists love to guess. It is little more than a guess. Not all of those programs, and very few defense teams, have someone like Dr. Henry Lee, who matter of factly pointed out that any type of object with similar size and sturdiness could have caused that injury to JonBenet's skull. Dr. Lee pointed out that there should be blood and hairs and tissue on the flashlight. There were none.

That didn't prevent the program from devoting 10 more minutes in a subsequent segment to the flashlight theory. Again, as I emphasized in the prior post in this thread, it' all based on a predetermined bias. This program prefers the Ramseys as guilty so everything is slanted along those lines. They should have said this. They shouldn't have said that.

I do credit the program for splashing a disclaimer on the screen at length at episode's end. It basically shouted exactly what I have said, that this is nothing more than a guesswork version, that there are many other possibilities.

Unfortunately juries don't hear that type of concession and truth. If the Ramseys had been indicted the same flimsy plausible guesswork evidence would have been shouted in that courtroom, with fingers pointed and declarations of absolute.

They will examine the physical evidence tomorrow.

That's exactly what I want to see.

I do credit the program for splashing a disclaimer on the screen at length at episode's end. It basically shouted exactly what I have said, that this is nothing more than a guesswork version, that there are many other possibilities.

Probably mostly so the Ramseys won't sue them.

And, wow...this documentary is heavily leaning towards "Burke, in the kitchen, with the flashlight." Even had a 10-year-old boy bash a fake head, blonde wig and all, with the same type of flashlight. Despite disputes about which injury occurred first and which proved fatal, they had two forensic experts swear up, down, and sideways that the head injury was the fatal one and the strangling was later staging, and overdone staging at that.

Okay, among several others, I have seen Parts 2 and 3 of Dr. Phil (I didn't seek out Part 1 as these were quite enough) and guess I'll weigh in after Part 2 of the CBS documentary airs tonight.

Well maybe it was Burke. Their theory makes sense.

I don't think anyone has this all figured out, but Patsy Ramsey was somehow involved with this. Very likely she helped cover up the crime. The note is so messed up and it points right at her. Several things she did just scream guilt.

I read a story from People magazine online today where John Ramsey said "The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by the system." Really??? WTF is wrong with him? :confused:

Both parents have shown a lot by their behavior and lack of cooperation. They were always more worried about how they looked than solving the crime. Maybe John should get with OJ and together they can look for "the real killers."

No matter who did this, it is very disturbing. My heart goes out to that poor little girl.

this killed in the ratings. Shows there is a lot of interest in this case

The thing that bothers me is that flashlight. It's the perfect width for her brain injury. Factor in Burke hitting her recently with a golf club and it makes you wonder...

The interviews with Burke as a kid were weird, too. Like they said, there was no empathy for his sister at all. Also, if he thought a bad person had broken in and killed his sister, you'd think he'd be scared it could happen again yet he was not bothered by it. I wonder if the parents found her dead and then staged it to protect Burke but also to make him think he didn't do it.

I thought it was interesting that they found her new Christmas candy covered in his feces. That boy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

The interviews with Burke as a kid were weird, too. Like they said, there was no empathy for his sister at all. Also, if he thought a bad person had broken in and killed his sister, you'd think he'd be scared it could happen again yet he was not bothered by it. I wonder if the parents found her dead and then staged it to protect Burke but also to make him think he didn't do it.

I thought it was interesting that they found her new Christmas candy covered in his feces. That boy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal...


My roomate saw that part of the interview and said "That kid is a nut."

I read a story from People magazine online today where John Ramsey said "The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by the system." Really??? WTF is wrong with him? :confused:

He said that on Dr.Phil today, I just about fell out my chair.

And, wow...this documentary is heavily leaning towards "Burke, in the kitchen, with the flashlight." Even had a 10-year-old boy bash a fake head, blonde wig and all, with the same type of flashlight. Despite disputes about which injury occurred first and which proved fatal, they had two forensic experts swear up, down, and sideways that the head injury was the fatal one and the strangling was later staging, and overdone staging at that.

It was imbalanced, as I posted two nights ago. They needed at least expert with a counter perspective. Kind of like the cable news stations where one network dependably slants 3-1 on the panel in one direction while another network slants 3-1 along its preference.

To be fair, there are so many aspects to this case it required more time and episodes to present a balanced view while also presenting a theory with all bases covered. Their primary goal was to provide a plausible theory and scenario.

Episode two was far superior to episode one in that regard, largely because they showed the old clips of interviews with Burke, instead of non-stop guesswork.

These are some areas that troubled me:

* The series emphasizes that the Ramseys were reluctant to speak to authorities and delayed for months after JonBenet's death. Meanwhile, they sent their 9 year old son to a lengthy videotaped session with a trained specialist less than two weeks later. That makes absolutely no sense, if the Ramsey's are aware of Burke's guilt. They would not have been criticized at all for shielding Burke. Heck, nobody was suspecting Burke. John and Patsy would know they could control their own responses. There is no way a 9 year old could be coached and trusted with that type of secrecy, especially in such a short time span. Burke had some odd remarks fitting his personality. He didn't seem coached at all. There were no automated responses that he repeated over and again regardless of topic, which would be expected if he were coached

* There is a set of golf clubs prominent against the wall downstairs, much closer to where JonBenet's body was found than that flashlight. If Burke used a golf club previously as a weapon against JonBenet's head, then why is the flashlight suddenly the dominant theory? The edge of a golf iron can produce the same type of crack in a skull, and with far greater leverage given the length of shaft compared to a flashlight

* The ransom letter is bizarre in length and content. It is called a treasure trove. Other than that, we can't help you. Sorry. I've never understood why it can't be linked to someone specifically and with little debate. Patsy only had two hands to write with. A handwriting match should be automatic and quick. She had no time to figure out how to disguise her penmanship or syntax or vocabulary or anything else. I'm quite certain that if I registered here under a different name but posted along the same style the content and everything else would be recognized. Not so in Boulder 1996.

* Dr. Henry Lee used modern techniques to detect touch DNA on various items including a flashlight and pair of panties. It was an attempt to dismiss the DNA findings on JonBenet's panties as meaningless. The program went to great lengths to stress that modern DNA capability is exponentially more valid than 20 years ago. I haven't followed the case closely but since older techniques required considerably more of a sample to detect DNA, then those are the methods that should be used for a valid examination, not the current ones. Use the dated primitive DNA approach on that flashlight and those fresh out of the package panties to see if you find anything. Otherwise I'm not sure what you demonstrated. Also, I thought I remembered that DNA was found under her fingernails also.

The names of those present that night could have come from the mind of a devious fiction writer.

John = Slang for a prostitute's customer
Patsy = Slang for someone set up to take the fall for a crime
Burke = Slang for to strangle
JonBenét = Made-up name now synonymous with the horrible unsolved murder of a young innocent.
Santa Claus? = "Santa" transposed is "Satan."

JonBenet Ramsey's Family Plans to Sue Over CBS Special
by Sadie Gennis
Sep 21, 2016


A lawyer for JonBenet Ramsey's family is planning to sue CBS over claims made in the recent documentary about the 1996 murder case.

In CBS' two-part special "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey", investigators theorized that the 6-year-old pageant queen was killed by her then 9-year-old brother Burke when he struck her on the head with a heavy object.

"I will be filing a lawsuit on behalf of Burke Ramsey," L. Lin Wood, the Ramsey family's attorney, told Reuters. "CBS' false and unprofessional attacks on this young man are disgusting and revolting."





Earlier this month, Burke, now 29, sat down with Dr. Phil for his first-ever media interview. In the three-part special, Burke addressed the rumors he killed his younger sister, who was found dead in the family's basement on Christmas Day.

"Look at the evidence, or lack thereof," said Burke, who was previously cleared through DNA evidence. "There's been a few people that said that's not even physically possible for a 9-year-old to do that."



In response to Wood's proposed lawsuit, the network states that "CBS stands by the broadcast and will do so in court."

http://www.tvguide.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-special-lawsuit-burke-ramsey/

Yeah, I'm actually surprised the Ramseys didn't hire an attorney sooner on this one...

I believe the Burke theory; when I was 12 and my brother was 7 he purposely dropped a Super Nintendo on my head.

He's an adult now and normal.

You have to believe CBS ran this by their lawyers before putting it on the air. They must feel pretty confident that they won't have to pay out on this.

You have to believe CBS ran this by their lawyers before putting it on the air. They must feel pretty confident that they won't have to pay out on this.


For sure. They knew the risks involved.

So this is going to turn into a battle of my experts say this and my experts say that. While the bigger picture of a 6 year old little girl who was murdered gets glanced over. I've hung out with some weirdos in my day but this guy is a few walnuts short of a bag of trail mix.

I saw the special and thought it was very intriguing. I do believe the conclusion that the special came up with.

I agree as well but as I asked in another thread, do you think Burke was trying to KILL JonBenet when he hit her or do you think he was trying to HURT her but not kill her?

I agree as well but as I asked in another thread, do you think Burke was trying to KILL JonBenet when he hit her or do you think he was trying to HURT her but not kill her?

Personally? I believe he didn't mean to kill her, but does not seem especially sorry he did. He seemed unconcerned at the least and gleeful at the most that she was gone and now he could be the center of attention and do as he pleased, and he is almost certainly smug that all the resulting trouble came from his parents' efforts to protect him. If he wanted proof of their devotion to him and parental and public attention, well, he got it. Try reading Native Son, by Richard Wright, or see the excellent movie made of it. It is about a man who kills a woman accidentally but then tries, as the Ramseys did, to make it look like a kidnapping and when he is caught accepts responsibility as he always wanted to kill a rich white girl--sorry if that's a spoiler, but there's Burke for you IMHO except unlike the character in Native Son he is sticking to the Party Line of lies and denial. Also see The Shining--in the book, Wendy Torrance tries to say that Jack didn't really mean to hurt Danny, and Jack says he meant it and worse. Stephen King has written about wanting to kill his kids when they were at that pesky age--which is the exact age JonBenét was.

I watched the entire CBS JonBenet show again and here are some thoughts:

- One thing I did NOT like was that I felt it was over-sensationalized which took away from the credibility a tad IMHO. I wish they would have presented the evidence with less fanfare and cliffhanger endings before the commercials. The added drama made it feel less like a documentary.

- I'm actually surprised they named Burke as the killer. While I think this is a likely scenario, there was no evidence linking him to it. Yes, I think the flashlight is a likely murder weapon, but nothing shows Burke used it. I do think the scenario where he got angry and whacked JB with it could definitely happen. I've seen other little kids get angry and hit each other with stuff so I don't think it is out of the question. I'm just surprised they seem to be so definite about it.

- The more you look at the evidence, the more the intruder theory goes from improbable to impossible. The intruder would have had to be in the house for probably an hour, which is nuts. The whole ransom note almost by itself destroys this idea. Who is going to kidnap someone and they write a lengthy note in the house while people are sleeping upstairs? Only one of two things could have happened: the note was written before JB was touched (so why not write it before you get to the scene?), or it was written after she was taken... So was she dead already or subdued in the basement? This makes even less sense.

- As they said, the note is a sales job. It is unnecessarily long and has confusing themes. I do think the movie references were interesting. They were almost verbatim from "Dirty Harry" and "Speed" -- very unusual.

- John Ramsey disappeared for around 90 minutes during the very early part of the investigation. Where did he go? His daughter was just murdered in his house, so what was more import than being with your family and helping the police?

- John had his personal pilots get their airplane ready just hours into the investigation. Again, his daughter was just murdered in his house. Why would you want to just bounce and get out of town? I would want to know what was going on before getting out of town.

- It has been proven that the parents went out of their way not to talk to the police, yet they kept saying publicly they were totally cooperating.

- It is obvious the DA Alex Hunter and the local police were at odds. The police had no reason to frame the Ramseys or make them look bad. They were just following the evidence.

The only thing here that still makes me wonder is why? I can believe Burke got mad and hit her and she died. Maybe JB's parents found her right away, or maybe later. Let's assume they were worried Burke was going to get hauled off by the cops so they wanted to protect him. The amount of forethought it took to pull this off and set everything up is crazy.

But with that said, I go back to what John Ramsey said last week: "The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by [the system]." Wow...

In my opinion the biggest piece of evidence is the food in her stomach. This was a voluntarily action of swallowing the food after they got home from the party. We know Burke had a snack and more than likely Patsy served it. All of this puts holes into an intruder theory. More importantly it proves the family lying. What's the big deal if she had a snack on the night she died? Why the secrecy of her having a snack? No one has come out in the family saying they saw Jonbenet after she went to bed?

As for Jon's comment about what has been done to us by the system. I think him and Jeffrey McDonald might be friends.

I have thought for many years that her older brother did it. It's the only logical reason that both parents would cover it up. It's obvious that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note and neither parent had any reason to kill JonBenet. What convinced me now beyond any reasonable doubt was what was on the CBS show that the brother (Burke) was so resentful of JonBenet that he regularly put his feces in her bed. That's the sign of a horribly disturbed child. They also showed his interviews at the time where he seemed not to care that JonBenet was dead and said he knew what happened to her but wouldn't say what it was.

In my opinion the biggest piece of evidence is the food in her stomach. This was a voluntarily action of swallowing the food after they got home from the party. We know Burke had a snack and more than likely Patsy served it. All of this puts holes into an intruder theory. More importantly it proves the family lying. What's the big deal if she had a snack on the night she died? Why the secrecy of her having a snack? No one has come out in the family saying they saw Jonbenet after she went to bed?

As for Jon's comment about what has been done to us by the system. I think him and Jeffrey McDonald might be friends.

Exactly. That's what my mom has been saying. Much ado over pineapple. Patsy went elaborately out of her way to claim she had not seen it, would never have set it up that way, the spoon was too big for the bowl, wouldn't have left it lying out, and on and on and on.

Burke, when on the police interview tape he was shown the image from the crime scene photo, at first said, "I don't know what that is," then, "Oh," and fell suspiciously silent as he realized what he was looking at. That pineapple sure as hell had something to do with the murder. Patsy, Burke, and the pineapple were probably the last things poor JonBenét saw in this life.

A lot of rather grim pineapple jokes are going down on a Facebook True Crime group where I post. The case coming up made people so hungry for pineapple one member claimed to have eaten a whole can. I broke down and bought a can which I showed my mom. At first she was delighted and said, "Pineapple, goody!" Then she looked at me and asked, "But you won't strangle me after?" :lol:

Exactly. That's what my mom has been saying. Much ado over pineapple.

Yep... The two things the Ramseys can't explain away are the ransom note and the pineapple. The ransom note is an absurd red herring, and the pineapple completely destroys their timeline of the events.

I watched the A&E special on JonBenet yesterday online. It took the side that the evidence points away from the Ramseys. They had British forensic experts who countered everything raised in the CBS show even though it aired before the CBS show. (Oddly enough, it had clips from the CBS show. It makes me wonder if someone on the Ramsey side heavily influenced its production.)

The Ramseys and their supporters wonder why the Boulder Police have always been after them. It's because of their bizarre behavior and the evidence that shows the intruder theory makes no sense, if it is even physically possible.

It all comes back to the Ramseys either committing the crime, or covering up for who did.

Why do we think Patsy had to be the one to serve the pineapple? The kids were both old enough to come downstairs and have a snack in the night. My daughter is only 4 and she sometimes gets up early in the morning and gets a piece of fruit or a granola bar out of the cabinet. The pineapple looked like the pre-cut kind that you can buy at the store. Or maybe it was canned. But it wouldn't be that hard for a 9 year-old to put it in a bowl and hand it to his sister.

Why do we think Patsy had to be the one to serve the pineapple?

I absolutely agree with you: it doesn't have to be Patsy and Burke could easily have gotten the pineapple out. The problem is that it still doesn't support her version of events. She said the kids were both asleep while she was up packing. If both kids were up downstairs eating pineapple, it seems odd she wouldn't have known. Burke also said he never got up after they got home.

No one in that house admits to getting out the pineapple or giving any to JonBenet. So we are to believe that a killer snuck in the house, got out pineapple, gave some to JonBenet, murdered her, and then spent upwards of 30 minutes writing a crazy, non-sensical ransom note. That just doesn't pass the logic test.

I read a story from People magazine online today where John Ramsey said "The real story here is not that a child was murdered. The real story is what was done to us by the system." Really??? WTF is wrong with him? :confused:

Compare to David Dowaliby, a genuine victim of a real miscarriage of justice, who said the important thing was not anything he went through but the loss of his precious little daughter Jaclyn!