JonBenét Ramsey’s Brother Sues CBS for $750M Over Program That Pegged Him as her Killer
by Erik Pedersen
December 28, 2016


Three months after CBS aired its true-crime docuseries The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey, the slain girl’s older brother is suing the network for $750M over the program that laid blame for the killing on him.

Burke Ramsey, who was 10 when his 6-year-old beauty queen sister was found dead in the family’s Boulder, CO, home at Christmastime in 1996, also is suing production company Critical Content and a number of consultants involved with the program.

Saying his reputation was destroyed by the three-part program, he is seeking $250M in compensatory damages and twice that in punitive damages.

When contacted by Deadline, CBS had no comment on the suit, which was filed today in a Michigan court.





The lawsuit claims CBS and its team of experts planned to conduct a “sham reinvestigation” of JonBenét’s death with “the preconceived the story line” that Ramsey killed the girl and conspired with his parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, to cover it up.

“The accusation that Burke Ramsey killed his sister was based on a compilation of lies, half-truths, manufactured information, and the intentional omission and avoidance of truthful information about the murder of JonBenét Ramsey,” the lawsuit says.





In October, Burke Ramsey filed a separate $150M suit against Dr. Werner Spitz, who appeared on The Case Of giving an interview to CBS Detroit in which he said of Burke’s involvement in the killing:

“If you really, really use your free time to think about this case, you cannot come to a different conclusion.”





The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey reunited the original investigators in one of the highest-profile unsolved murders in recent history to re-examine the tragic case 20 years later.

The docuseries was among multiple TV projects this year about the infamous case, including Lifetime’s original movie Who Killed JonBenet? and Investigation Discovery’s JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery.

There also is a feature in the works titled Casting JonBenét, directed by Kitty Green and produced by James Schamus’ Symbolic Exchange.

http://deadline.com/2016/12/jonbenet-ramsey-brother-sues-cbs-over-the-case-of-docuseries-1201876593/

I mean they outright accused him of killing her and then lying/not caring about it, so I'd want to sue them too.

I think his appearance on the Dr. Phil Show was much more damaging. All the smiling gave me the creeps.

I'm not surprised he's suing, either. I didn't see the docuseries when it aired, but I've heard enough about it to know that some pretty bold conclusions were drawn.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. The only defense to a libel action that I am aware of is the truth. If CBS can somehow prove that Burke is the true killer of Jon-Benet, then I believe CBS would be absolved from liability. I don't know how you defend yourself from a claim like this otherwise. You can't just go on air, before an audience of millions, and declare someone a murderer.

I predict a settlement in an undisclosed amount...

I'm not surprised he is suing them, but I'm sure CBS and everyone else associated with the program ran it all by their legal team(s) to see what their course of action would be if and when he sued them.

I don't think Burke will want this to go to court.

I also have not seen these particular CBS shows, but I am reminded of how careful UM always seemed to be about this particular issue. I feel like they often went out of their way to point out that so and so had not been charged with any crime, or there was no proof that XYZ organization had done anything improper. Several examples come to mind right away- "Larry Monroe" in the Don Smith segment, Kemper Group in the Gene Flannes segment, and the Seafarer's Union in Nancy Manni segment.

I suppose you could argue that this was done for style as well as legal concerns, meaning to have the effect of heightening the mystery by not spelling out conclusions for the audience. Often they simply laid out a theory or two (or three) and let the viewers try to make up their own mind- Eric Tamiyasu comes to mind immediately.

It's hard for me at the moment to clearly separate UM segments from the CBS run to see if this changed much from the NBC days, but in any case, I'm certain the CBS legal department gave these JBR shows a close look before they were aired. But who knows what the outcome here will be.

I cannot say that I saw this coming, but I don't like the idea of a ten year old being pegged for his siblings death.

I'm not surprised he is suing them, but I'm sure CBS and everyone else associated with the program ran it all by their legal team(s) to see what their course of action would be if and when he sued them.

I completely agree with this. Hence my comment about the settlement. There's a really good chance the legal team said, "Yeah. We're gonna get sued, but it's gonna be worth it."

I'd be interested to see how much money CBS made off of airing that docuseries. I suspect the settlement, when reached, will be nowhere near the $750 million he's asking for. I'd guess somewhere between 1 and 10 million.

I completely agree with this. Hence my comment about the settlement. There's a really good chance the legal team said, "Yeah. We're gonna get sued, but it's gonna be worth it."

I'd be interested to see how much money CBS made off of airing that docuseries. I suspect the settlement, when reached, will be nowhere near the $750 million he's asking for. I'd guess somewhere between 1 and 10 million.

Wow. You can call me naive or any other name in the book, but my mind doesn't usually work that way. What you're suggesting does make sense, but again, wow.

So we've waded into ethical waters. The possibility of CBS intentionally committing a legal wrong knowing that the penalty for doing so will be less than the profit of doing so? It's been done before- back in the 2000's Microsoft paid a substantial daily fine to the EU for violating their anti-trust laws and kept doing so because their profits supported it.

I honestly don't know what to say, other than I'd like to think these journalistic endeavors weren't subject to the same temptations as the ordinary cut-throat businesses. But they've got to eat too, I guess.

I guess journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. The Boulder Police Department has openly stated that Burke Ramsey has never officially been a suspect. On top of that, there isn't any physical evidence that links him to his sister's death. I hope he takes CBS to the cleaners. It's time for Burke to "call Saul" on this one.

I cannot say that I saw this coming, but I don't like the idea of a ten year old being pegged for his siblings death.

Again, while I am not an expert on the Ramsey case, I still raise an eyebrow about all the speculation regarding Burke. I'm not going to rule out the possibility that he may have done it, but you have to give me more substantial than "He acts weird." As someone on the Autism Spectrum, I too, have bad social skills, tend to not know how I come off to other people and am often scripted, so I am a bit sensitive to the "He acts weird; therefore, he must be guilty," defense. Give me something more solid than that, something that puts Burke at the scene or proves that he is the only one who could have killed his sister.

Because I have a hard time believing that a kid with such bad impulse control and so much trouble managing his feelings, that he accidentally murders his sister at age ten, that he would manage to stay completely out of trouble in subsequent years, not even racking up so much as a parking ticket, seems more than just a little far-fetched.

I don't pretend to know who committed the murder, but most of the "evidence" against the Ramseys consists of "Patsy smirked during that interview: GUILTY!" or "There was a book on skinning cats in the Ramsey house and a cat was skinned in the neighborhood the year before the murder: GUILTY!" type of garbage that people appear to just make up. If the family did it, they covered it up pretty well in a short period of time and stuck to their story all these years, including a 9 year old child. That is pretty impressive.

I think his appearance on the Dr. Phil Show was much more damaging. All the smiling gave me the creeps.

http://i.imgur.com/zrdrQIT.jpg

I don't pretend to know who committed the murder, but most of the "evidence" against the Ramseys consists of "Patsy smirked during that interview: GUILTY!" or "There was a book on skinning cats in the Ramsey house and a cat was skinned in the neighborhood the year before the murder: GUILTY!" type of garbage that people appear to just make up. If the family did it, they covered it up pretty well in a short period of time and stuck to their story all these years, including a 9 year old child. That is pretty impressive.

Wasn't really that hard to cover it up considering the police incompetence & the families wealth/standing in the community meaning they had some level of immunity. Seriously, a crime scene with random people/neighbours walking around, one of the people in the house allowed to find the body & handle it/interfere with evidence.

So we've waded into ethical waters. The possibility of CBS intentionally committing a legal wrong knowing that the penalty for doing so will be less than the profit of doing so? It's been done before- back in the 2000's Microsoft paid a substantial daily fine to the EU for violating their anti-trust laws and kept doing so because their profits supported it.

It's gone far beyond that. Automobile companies used to intentionally roll out model after model that they knew were unsafe, and would lead to unnecessary fatalities. They did so because their internal investigations revealed that the cost of settling the death-related lawsuits was actually lower than the cost of altering the design, to relocate a fuel tank, for example.

A young Ralph Nader brought that atrocity to attention in his landmark book, "Unsafe at Any Speed." He found corporate memos detailing estimates of number of deaths compared to estimates of changing the design. Only at that point did people begin paying attention, and congress took action.

Every time I hear the word deregulation I have to cringe. I guarantee there are similar examples out there now and in the future. Corporate greed. I worked for enough companies to hear many backroom conversations from ownership, and specifically Jack Binion at the Horseshoe. Let's be kind and say his priorities were hardly doing the right thing or following the law. He'd get drunk in the sportsbook office and describe all the unethical actions he not only planned to take, but was excited about pursuing.

I don't pretend to know who committed the murder, but most of the "evidence" against the Ramseys consists of "Patsy smirked during that interview: GUILTY!" or "There was a book on skinning cats in the Ramsey house and a cat was skinned in the neighborhood the year before the murder: GUILTY!" type of garbage that people appear to just make up. If the family did it, they covered it up pretty well in a short period of time and stuck to their story all these years, including a 9 year old child. That is pretty impressive.

I agree with your summary. And I'm glad Burke is suing. Certainly justified.

After watching all of those programs a few months ago it was nothing more than using the pineapple tidbit to isolate Burke, and then weaving a tale to assert his guilt. Hey, everybody thinks it's the parents but we'll switch to the one remaining person in the family. Aren't we clever?

Unfortunately it too often passes for clever, instead of an absolute reach.

Then they provide the mandatory crime scene reconstruction garbage, and somehow assert their version as likely, or as proof, instead of merely plausible. That's all it is, of course. Plausible. And the plausible might not even register 2% on the actual probability monitor. Unfortunately most people aren't well schooled or instinctive on that. If it sounds logical they gobble it up. Delicious.

Burke reminds me of Nate Silver. The picture posted in this thread looks a lot like a young Nate Silver. He may be a math whiz but he is socially awkward and his occasional TV appearances contain strange moments. Like giggles at the inappropriate time.

I wouldn't put too much stock in how Burke comes across in those things. As I mentioned in another thread, the fact that his parents allowed a videotaped session with Burke not long after the murder, and when they themselves were being cautious with law enforcement, led me to believe they were not concerned with Burke's answers. He didn't appear to be coached.

Likewise I thought Patsy Ramsey was incredibly genuine in her videotaped session with authorities, and specifically when she exclaimed, "I don't give a flip..." when she was confronted with supposed physical evidence linking the family. One program used a so-called body language expert to condemn Patsy's behavior as damning and over the top. I'm convinced they see whatever they want. If that outburst didn't look real and emotional I don't know what would.

* However, I'm not asserting the Ramsey's are innocent. Difficult case, largely due to that bizarre ransom note. I have no idea how it can't be positively linked to Patsy, if she did write it. Syntax should be glaring along with handwriting analysis.

I'm not a huge believer in handwriting analysis although it certainly is light years more legit than crime scene reconstruction, the ultimate insult.



* From third grade forth I won countless writing contests in school. The teachers frequently asked me to help other students with their papers, the major writing assignments. Often it was after the fact, to sit down and go over the papers with them if they had received a poor grade. The teachers thought it was more beneficial if a student passed along advice, rather than merely a big fat failing grade atop the page.

One aspect stood out above anything else. Decades later I'm still struck by it. The girls abused exclamation points. I remember staring in disbelief, the first time the teacher handed me the stack of papers and asked me to review them before helping my fellow students. Some of the girls would use exclamation points on at least 80% of their sentences. There could be 5 or 6 exclamation points strung together after a single sentence. The opening sentence was most prone to that.

This was elementary school and early junior high. In later years the exclamation point overload from girls was still there, but not as ridiculous. Guys, in contrast, had very few exclamation points, even in elementary school. I would always try to point out that the words should speak for themselves, that an exclamation point was rarely necessary.

The trend holds up on the internet. Women use more smilies, at least on the sites I frequent. Maybe it's like makeup. Or a friendly wave. Something to attract attention.

This is what I'm getting at, in relation to this case. The first time I saw that JonBenet Ramsey ransom note one thing immediately leaped off the page, the opening sentence:

"Listen carefully!"

A woman wrote that. I stopped a long time before proceeding to the subsequent words. That's either a female author, or someone pretending to be a female. Since the later is such low percentage, I'll default to the first conclusion.

And I'll take my handicapping instinct above all the trained experts with the fancy titles.

One aspect stood out above anything else. Decades later I'm still struck by it. The girls abused exclamation points.

This is an interesting anecdote, because the authorities have always suspected that the letter writer was female, and I've always wondered what led to that conclusion.

One aspect stood out above anything else. Decades later I'm still struck by it. The girls abused exclamation points. I remember staring in disbelief, the first time the teacher handed me the stack of papers and asked me to review them before helping my fellow students. Some of the girls would use exclamation points on at least 80% of their sentences. There could be 5 or 6 exclamation points strung together after a single sentence. The opening sentence was most prone to that.

Girl-edited: One aspect stood out above anything else!!!!! Decades later I'm still struck by it!!! The girls abused exclamation points!! I remember staring!--in disbelief!--the first time the teacher handed me the stack of papers and asked me to review them before helping my fellow students!!! Some of the girls would use exclamation points on at least 80% of their sentences!!!! There could be 5 or 6 exclamation points strung together after a single sentence!!!!! The opening sentence was most prone to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is an interesting anecdote, because the authorities have always suspected that the letter writer was female, and I've always wondered what led to that conclusion.

Females also sometimes tend to ramble and not be brief and straight to the point. Also there were strange aspects such as advice to be well-rested, which no male kidnapper would write. No one steals your kid and then cares about how well-rested you are.

Lol, old crotchety men giving restaurant reviews on the internet abuse exclamation points too.

There's no scientific evidence supporting the reliability and veracity of graphology.

I wonder if they can subpoena him because he suing. In the West Memphis Three Case, Hobbs sued the Dixie Chicks cause they accused him of doing it and was subpoenaed.

I know people will castigate me for being insensitive, but honestly the Jon-Benet Ramsey case has been discussed and rediscussed so many times that the case kind of bores me a little. Every possible aspect has been debated over and over. I won't say the case will never be solved, but given how badly the police botched things, it seems unlikely. Plus, I find myself wondering if Jon-Benet wasn't such a beautiful, blonde child if the case would the case have attracted the hysteria it has.

If you’ve followed the case, and I have, there’s only one conclusion that you can reach, even if it’s not proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note. If you kidnap someone, you want the ransom note to be found as soon as possible. Next, the ransom note was written on Patsy Ramsey’s legal pad, meaning the note was written in the house. The ransom note was three pages long. Ransom notes are never three pages long. Three lines long, maybe. But never three pages. If you are a kidnapper holding a struggling girl hostage, you don’t take 20 minutes out to write a ransom note. You get out of the house as soon as possible. The ransom note asked for $118,000, an incredibly odd number. John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus received a few days before was $118,000. That’s not a coincidence and no one outside the family or his company would know that. The content of the letter is also extremely convoluted as if the writer were trying to build up the kidnapper as some sort of international terrorist. Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting was found to be similar to the ransom note.

Next, why write and leave a ransom note if you’ve already killed your victim and left her in the house? What sense does that make? If you killed her accidentally you take her body with you. No one’s going to pay a ransom for a body you leave in the house. And if you’re a kidnapper, the ransom is what you’re after. Anyone willing to kidnap a six year-old for ransom is willing to kill her.

Jonbenet had a severe skull fracture from a blow to the head but she was also strangled. Why would you do both? If you hit her in the head to kill her, hit her again. Don’t take the time to make a garrote, especially with Patsy Ramsey’s paintbrush, another ridiculous coincidence.

In addition, undigested pineapple is found in Jonbenet's stomach. Her parents claim that she was never fed pineapple, yet Burke’s fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl. Burke Ramsey also had a history of violence towards Jonbenet, including bashing her in the head with a golf club. He also regularly left his feces in her bed, the sign of a deeply disturbed child.

The ransom note was an obvious fake, the kidnapping obviously fake and staged. People have speculated that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet. But if either did it, the other would never cover for them. There’s only one logical conclusion for both parents to cover up the murder: Burke did it. He didn’t do it on purpose but he hit her in the head hard enough while in one of his tantrums for his parents to think she was dead. But she wasn’t. The strangulation finished her off; although I’m sure her parents thought she was dead from the blow to the head.

In a taped interview conducted shortly after the murder that was shown on TV recently, a psychiatrist asked Burke if he was told what happened to her and he blurted out that he knew what happened to her. He knew what happened because he did it. It’s the only possibility that makes all the other known facts fit.

If you’ve followed the case, and I have, there’s only one conclusion that you can reach, even if it’s not proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note. If you kidnap someone, you want the ransom note to be found as soon as possible. Next, the ransom note was written on Patsy Ramsey’s legal pad, meaning the note was written in the house. The ransom note was three pages long. Ransom notes are never three pages long. Three lines long, maybe. But never three pages. If you are a kidnapper holding a struggling girl hostage, you don’t take 20 minutes out to write a ransom note. You get out of the house as soon as possible. The ransom note asked for $118,000, an incredibly odd number. John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus received a few days before was $118,000. That’s not a coincidence and no one outside the family or his company would know that. The content of the letter is also extremely convoluted as if the writer were trying to build up the kidnapper as some sort of international terrorist. Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting was found to be similar to the ransom note.

Next, why write and leave a ransom note if you’ve already killed your victim and left her in the house? What sense does that make? If you killed her accidentally you take her body with you. No one’s going to pay a ransom for a body you leave in the house. And if you’re a kidnapper, the ransom is what you’re after. Anyone willing to kidnap a six year-old for ransom is willing to kill her.

Jonbenet had a severe skull fracture from a blow to the head but she was also strangled. Why would you do both? If you hit her in the head to kill her, hit her again. Don’t take the time to make a garrote, especially with Patsy Ramsey’s paintbrush, another ridiculous coincidence.

In addition, undigested pineapple is found in Jonbenet's stomach. Her parents claim that she was never fed pineapple, yet Burke’s fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl. Burke Ramsey also had a history of violence towards Jonbenet, including bashing her in the head with a golf club. He also regularly left his feces in her bed, the sign of a deeply disturbed child.

The ransom note was an obvious fake, the kidnapping obviously fake and staged. People have speculated that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet. But if either did it, the other would never cover for them. There’s only one logical conclusion for both parents to cover up the murder: Burke did it. He didn’t do it on purpose but he hit her in the head hard enough while in one of his tantrums for his parents to think she was dead. But she wasn’t. The strangulation finished her off; although I’m sure her parents thought she was dead from the blow to the head.

In a taped interview conducted shortly after the murder that was shown on TV recently, a psychiatrist asked Burke if he was told what happened to her and he blurted out that he knew what happened to her. He knew what happened because he did it. It’s the only possibility that makes all the other known facts fit.

^^^This. I completely agree with everything you mentioned. As long as the Ramseys are alive, or the officials in the Boulder police department that were there back then are still in the force, there'll never be justice for JonBenet.

Note for anybody else in the UK-tonight YourTV are showing a 2 hour documentary called Overkill: The Murder of JonBenet from 9-11 pm.

If you’ve followed the case, and I have, there’s only one conclusion that you can reach, even if it’s not proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note. If you kidnap someone, you want the ransom note to be found as soon as possible. Next, the ransom note was written on Patsy Ramsey’s legal pad, meaning the note was written in the house. The ransom note was three pages long. Ransom notes are never three pages long. Three lines long, maybe. But never three pages. If you are a kidnapper holding a struggling girl hostage, you don’t take 20 minutes out to write a ransom note. You get out of the house as soon as possible. The ransom note asked for $118,000, an incredibly odd number. John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus received a few days before was $118,000. That’s not a coincidence and no one outside the family or his company would know that. The content of the letter is also extremely convoluted as if the writer were trying to build up the kidnapper as some sort of international terrorist. Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting was found to be similar to the ransom note.

Next, why write and leave a ransom note if you’ve already killed your victim and left her in the house? What sense does that make? If you killed her accidentally you take her body with you. No one’s going to pay a ransom for a body you leave in the house. And if you’re a kidnapper, the ransom is what you’re after. Anyone willing to kidnap a six year-old for ransom is willing to kill her.

Jonbenet had a severe skull fracture from a blow to the head but she was also strangled. Why would you do both? If you hit her in the head to kill her, hit her again. Don’t take the time to make a garrote, especially with Patsy Ramsey’s paintbrush, another ridiculous coincidence.

In addition, undigested pineapple is found in Jonbenet's stomach. Her parents claim that she was never fed pineapple, yet Burke’s fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl. Burke Ramsey also had a history of violence towards Jonbenet, including bashing her in the head with a golf club. He also regularly left his feces in her bed, the sign of a deeply disturbed child.

The ransom note was an obvious fake, the kidnapping obviously fake and staged. People have speculated that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet. But if either did it, the other would never cover for them. There’s only one logical conclusion for both parents to cover up the murder: Burke did it. He didn’t do it on purpose but he hit her in the head hard enough while in one of his tantrums for his parents to think she was dead. But she wasn’t. The strangulation finished her off; although I’m sure her parents thought she was dead from the blow to the head.

In a taped interview conducted shortly after the murder that was shown on TV recently, a psychiatrist asked Burke if he was told what happened to her and he blurted out that he knew what happened to her. He knew what happened because he did it. It’s the only possibility that makes all the other known facts fit.

I couldn't agree more.

Babalu, while I admit you've constructed a good argument, I have a few quibbles. Like I've said before, one of the biggest things that keeps me from joining Team Burke Did It, is that if he was really as disturbed and screwed up as everyone paints him as, it seems unlikely that he would manage to stay completely out of trouble for twenty years, with nary a parking ticket or any kind of offense to his name. Kids with impulse control bad enough to accidentally murder his six-year-old sister in a fit of rage, tend to become worse as they get older not better, unless they are put into some seriously intensive therapy to address their issues.

And I don't find the fingerprint on the bowl evidence to be that compelling. It was a bowl from his house and fingerprints can last for a long time. It's not too far-fetched to believe that Burke might have eaten from that bowl at some point and left his fingerprint there in the process.

Though this Cracked article really illustrates my views of the case: http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-were-to-blame-all-these-jonbenet-documentaries/

Because even after twenty years, everyone remains that disturbingly obsessed with the case to the point where the fact that a little girl, someone who had a life outside all those pageant pictures everyone is obsessed with, was brutally murdered. Again, I do wonder if the victim at the center of all this, if it weren't for the pageant pictures and her being such an attractive white child, if the case would have attracted the hysteria it has.

Like I've said before, one of the biggest things that keeps me from joining Team Burke Did It, is that if he was really as disturbed and screwed up as everyone paints him as, it seems unlikely that he would manage to stay completely out of trouble for twenty years, with nary a parking ticket or any kind of offense to his name. Kids with impulse control bad enough to accidentally murder his six-year-old sister in a fit of rage, tend to become worse as they get older not better, unless they are put into some seriously intensive therapy to address their issues.

His family was insanely rich. They could've easily given him intense therapy, and medication after her death to keep him sedated. They knew Burke was a suspect with behavioral problems, wouldn't the logical thing to do, would be to keep him drugged, isolated, and in therapy to keep him in line, so he wouldn't get prosecuted? Look at his face in the new documentary, he's smiling at totally inappropriate times, something's wrong.

I totally think he did it.

His family was insanely rich. They could've easily given him intense therapy, and medication after her death to keep him sedated. They knew Burke was a suspect with behavioral problems, wouldn't the logical thing to do, would be to keep him drugged, isolated, and in therapy to keep him in line, so he wouldn't get prosecuted? Look at his face in the new documentary, he's smiling at totally inappropriate times, something's wrong.

I totally think he did it.

As someone who takes drugs to manage a mental illness, I have to respectfully disagree. While the pills I take do go a long way in managing my symptoms, they aren't, freaking magic. They do not transform me into a completely different person; they just manage my symptoms and make it easier for me to start putting my life back together. Short of major opiods, there isn't anything out there that would completely keep someone calm and sedated and I'm fairly certain someone would notice if the Ramseys were doping their kid and ask some questions. They can isolate Burke to some extent, but short of locking him in a cellar or an attic, they can't isolate him completely. Plus, since he is a legal adult, they don't have the power over him that they used to. Legally they can't make him take whatever magic drugs they were giving him or attend therapy and unless they have some seriously strong evidence that he's a danger to himself and others, trying to commit him would only lead to Burke being in a damn good position to sue whoever he can.

As for the smiling, like I keep saying, you have to give me something more solid than "He has bad social skills."

As someone who takes drugs to manage a mental illness, I have to respectfully disagree. While the pills I take do go a long way in managing my symptoms, they aren't, freaking magic. They do not transform me into a completely different person; they just manage my symptoms and make it easier for me to start putting my life back together. Short of major opiods, there isn't anything out there that would completely keep someone calm and sedated and I'm fairly certain someone would notice if the Ramseys were doping their kid and ask some questions. They can isolate Burke to some extent, but short of locking him in a cellar or an attic, they can't isolate him completely. Plus, since he is a legal adult, they don't have the power over him that they used to. Legally they can't make him take whatever magic drugs they were giving him or attend therapy and unless they have some seriously strong evidence that he's a danger to himself and others, trying to commit him would only lead to Burke being in a damn good position to sue whoever he can.

As for the smiling, like I keep saying, you have to give me something more solid than "He has bad social skills."

Sorry to hear about your mental illness, but your experiences don't speak for Burke. I've known two people who suffered from ADHD, or some other attention deficit problem, and the medication pretty much made them into zombies.

Speaking on him being a legal adult, we don't know what goes on in their house. Burke could be deemed mentally unfit to live alone, he could have orders that make him remain under supervision, we don't know that. If Burke was showing signs of violence when he was younger, I'm sure something's wrong with him now.

And who would be asking questions if Burke was doped up? The people surrounding the family could easily know Burke has mental issues, and takes medication, which would lead to him being isolated. Burke's behavioral patterns shouldn't be ignored, they obviously show something is wrong.

Fact is, a lot could be going internally with the family, and Burke that we just don't know about. Just because his issues aren't on the front page doesn't mean that they don't exist.

"His bad social skills" at his age are a huge red flag, that's why people keep bringing it up. I understand not everyone who shows quirks are murderers, but given his violent history as a child, the fact he's a suspect in his sister's death, and still show signs of a mental problem are huge red flags.

Sorry to hear about your mental illness, but your experiences don't speak for Burke. I've known two people who suffered from ADHD, or some other attention deficit problem, and the medication pretty much made them into zombies.

That's usually a sign that the medication needs to be adjusted. Because again, these drugs aren't supposed to make you mindlessly perky or a perpetual zombie; they are supposed to make you better able to function.

Speaking on him being a legal adult, we don't know what goes on in their house. Burke could be deemed mentally unfit to live alone, he could have orders that make him remain under supervision, we don't know that. If Burke was showing signs of violence when he was younger, I'm sure something's wrong with him now.

And if something was wrong with him now, then wouldn't you be able to point to a clear history of run-ins with the law?

And if Burke had been deemed unfit to live by himself or that he had to be under constant supervision, again wouldn't there be actually records documenting all this? As I recall, however wealthy the Ramseys may be, they still would have had to go through legal proceedings and those tend to be recorded and documented.


"His bad social skills" at his age are a huge red flag, that's why people keep bringing it up. I understand not everyone who shows quirks are murderers, but given his violent history as a child, the fact he's a suspect in his sister's death, and still show signs of a mental problem are huge red flags.

I keep bringing up the bad social skills bit because I am on the Autism spectrum. My social skills are atrocious and I frequently don't realize how I come off towards people unless it is spelled out in tedious detail for me. So I probably come off as weird and having a signs of a mental health problem. Yet I am a contributing member of society who doesn't have so much as a parking ticket on my record. Having a mental health problem or bad social skills is not solid proof of being a criminal.

And heck, I used to punch and hit my brother, but somehow I grew up to be a good, contributing member of society. So I feel all this talk about "Violent History," to be a bit overblown. Kids are often a-holes towards one another. Then they grow up, mature, and realize what an ass they were.

Again I am not completely opposed to Burke being a suspect. But you have to give me something more substantial to go on, something besides "he has bad social skills and is kind of weird and creepy."

Also, I am curious as to whether any reputable law enforcement official considers Burke guilty. Something besides a CNN documentary thrown together to cash in on the public's morbid curiosity or a bunch of armchair detectives; someone who actually has training and experience in the field of law and order.

And if something was wrong with him now, then wouldn't you be able to point to a clear history of run-ins with the law?

And if Burke had been deemed unfit to live by himself or that he had to be under constant supervision, again wouldn't there be actually records documenting all this? As I recall, however wealthy the Ramseys may be, they still would have had to go through legal proceedings and those tend to be recorded and documented.

You completely missed my point. If Burke was given medication, and therapy he wouldn't have a history, especially if he was under supervision.

You keep speaking on records, are you sure there are none out there? Have you checked? Money can hide a lot of things.

Not to be rude, but it's hard to discuss this case because you think people are just attacking people with mental illnesses, or trying to paint them as demons, when we're just looking at the facts, you're just too biased to discuss this rationally. We're not saying everyone who has a mental illness is a bad person, or has a record, but Burke's behavior raises some red flags plain and simple.

You keep speaking on records, are you sure there are none out there? Have you checked? Money can hide a lot of things.


The Ramseys may be rich, but they're not Jesus.

And again, I'm not opposed to Burke as a suspect, but I want something more solid than weird behavior. That's one of the most frustrating aspects of discussions on this case: it degenerates into endless nitpicking over minutiae, how the fact John or Patsy or Burke scratched their nose that one time in an interview, totally proves they did it. :rolleyes:

To be fair, the police so FUBARed the case that it will likely never be solved, so there isn't really much to discuss.

Me, I'm inclined to believe it might be someone in the family. There's just too many coincidences with the ransom note. In fact, I kind of wonder why Jon-Benet wasn't discovered until after the police showed up. Yeah if I thought my kid had been kidnapped, I'd call them, but I'd also search every square inch of the house to be sure, especially if there's no clearly visible entry or exit.

In fact, there's a piece of physical evidence that makes me go "hmm..." and wonder if Team Burke Did It is onto something. Supposedly there were marks on the back of Jon-Benet's heels that indicated she had been dragged to the cellar. Now Jon-Benet was six, so she couldn't have weighed a lot. Neither John nor Patsy would have had too much trouble carrying her, but a nine-year-old would have more trouble.

It seems bizarre that if they were trying to draw attention away from themselves that the Ramseys would stage the crime in a manner so bizarre that it was guaranteed to cause the cops to take an even closer look at them. But from what I heard, Patsy was into drama and histrionics, so maybe she didn't know that the overly long ransom note and the crudely made garrotte would draw even more attention. Were it not for how badly the police screwed up, they probably would have been caught fairly quick.

It seems bizarre that if they were trying to draw attention away from themselves that the Ramseys would stage the crime in a manner so bizarre that it was guaranteed to cause the cops to take an even closer look at them. But from what I heard, Patsy was into drama and histrionics, so maybe she didn't know that the overly long ransom note and the crudely made garrotte would draw even more attention. Were it not for how badly the police screwed up, they probably would have been caught fairly quick.


The police wanted the Ramsey's arrested. The DA's office prevented it because the Ramsey's were politically connected. The Ramsey's were in a panic because their daughter was dead and their son killed her. They had only a few hours to concoct a story that would (they thought) point people away from Burke. The irony is of course that Burke being nine years old was never going to go to jail and his parent's scheme has made his life ten times worse than if they had just told the truth.

Burke is a strange man,

Could he have done this, sure. He could have made him a bowel of pineapple's and here comes sister taken his food. Who knows they might have had a fight earlier. And he got mad and hit her....

If this is true, I cant wrap my mind around 1. why did you not call 911? Could you not tell she was still alive? Could you not try something.
2. I dont think I could hide my child's body waiting for someone to find her. (If true I guess the dad could not either)
3. I dont think I could sit there and write a letter over and over knowing my child is gone and my other child killed her.

How hard it must have been to look him in the eyes day after day....

Recently I've leaned more towards the theory that someone in the family did it. This is one case that is hard to prove one way or another. The biggest fact of the case is that she was murdered but beyond that seems awfully difficult to prove. If I had to guess who I think the most likely suspect is I'd say it would be the brother and then maybe the parents helping to cover it up. It's hard to prove the family did it and it's hard to prove they did not do it.

Burke is a strange man,

Could he have done this, sure. He could have made him a bowel of pineapple's and here comes sister taken his food. Who knows they might have had a fight earlier. And he got mad and hit her....

If this is true, I cant wrap my mind around 1. why did you not call 911? Could you not tell she was still alive? Could you not try something.
2. I dont think I could hide my child's body waiting for someone to find her. (If true I guess the dad could not either)
3. I dont think I could sit there and write a letter over and over knowing my child is gone and my other child killed her.

How hard it must have been to look him in the eyes day after day....

To me, this is the heart of this case. On one hand, you have to believe a stranger (read: non-family member) broke into the house, took JB from her room, beat and killed her, then sat down in the kitchen and took the time to write a ransom note for someone who is already dead, and then sneak back out (as Robert Stack used to say, "Motive and identity unknown").

On the other hand, you have to believe a family member killed her intentionally or not, but then one or both parents helped stage the crime scene and wrote a ransom note to cover it all up. Then they had to fake the scene with their friends and the police.

Neither of these really makes sense. I think I would honestly believe the stranger theory if it wasn't for the ransom note. The Ramsey's behavior the next day makes them appear strange, if not guilty, but I'll leave that alone for now. The note is obviously meant to throw off the investigation and everyone agrees with that. It was never meant to be a true ransom note. I think most agree with 99% certainty that it was written by Patsy. So the question is why? The only logical answer is that she did the crime or was helping to cover up for whoever did it. That would be Jon or Burke.

As to why they didn't call 911 or why they would cover it up, I think she just panicked. The only thing worse than losing your child is losing both of your children. JB may have been dead by the time Patsy realized what happened (if we believe that Burke did it). Depending on when this was realized, they would have had hours to think through their strategy. Remember, she was wearing the exact same clothes the next day that she had on the night before.

I really don't want to think the family did this. It makes me sick. But yet the evidence really shows that this is probably what did happen. Unfortunately I don't think we will ever know the truth.

I am by no means a legal expert, but I can't imagine CBS would allow this show to air and name Burke as the likely murderer if they didn't think they were in a good place legally. You have to think losing a lawsuit on this would cost far more than any profit they made from this two-part show.

One thing that leads me to believe that someone in the family did it, and covered it up is the ransom note. Someone was brazen enough to break into a rich person's house where tons of people could've been in, murder the daughter, sit down, write a long ransom note, and then disappear?

If an intruder was really that brazen then why not just rob, or steal from the family while you were there? Nothing was ransacked or missing; which is odd because you know they might have jewelry, or money stashed somewhere. I really don't buy the intruder theory. You have the balls to do all of this, but not steal while you're there? Nope.

In recent years, both the sexual assault and intruder DNA have been largely discredited. Many of the experts no longer think she had been assaulted that night or earlier. Also, the DNA may have come from anywhere and there is no single sample that is from the likely murderer.

So then we have to ask what was the motive... Thrill killing? Revenge against John or Patsy? If it was, why write the ransom note? The note doesn't help throw off the cops -- it gives them lots of evidence. The garrote is either from some truly sick person or it was another attempt to make the killing look like it was something else.

But again, who breaks in a house, steals a child from her bed, tortures and murders her, and then sits down to write a ransom note? If it was a ransom attempt gone bad, why not write the note before you get there? Seems nuts someone would just sit in a house you broke into and write a multi-page letter before or after the crime.

But again, who breaks in a house, steals a child from her bed, tortures and murders her, and then sits down to write a ransom note? If it was a ransom attempt gone bad, why not write the note before you get there? Seems nuts someone would just sit in a house you broke into and write a multi-page letter before or after the crime.

Yep. It's way too farfetched that after killing a young girl someone would have written a note, especially since if they broke in, then time is of the essence. I think it was an accident, maybe playing too rough, or perhaps the father assaulted her. The family freaks out, but decides that calling the cops would have Burke taken away, and them arrested, so they write a "ransom" note, hide her body, and then call the cops. Also you have to remember, they we're very rich with alot of political connections, if it came to light that one of the family members killed her, then their reputation, and resources are shot.

This is just like the Jaclyn Dowaliby case. Someone broke in in the middle of the night shattering a window, walked through the house, kidnap a girl without any fuss, and just disappears into the night? Yet the mother tells contradictions, and wants everyone to believe this BS? If the cops didn't arrest the father without evidence, and didn't turn an angry mob towards the cops, then I'm sure they would have been found guilty. Cops messed it up again.

Both girls we're killed by their families.

In recent years, both the sexual assault and intruder DNA have been largely discredited. Many of the experts no longer think she had been assaulted that night or earlier.

Do you have a source on the sexual assault being discredited? I don't think I've heard that before. I've always heard there were indicators that she may have been abused but no concrete proof.

Do you have a source on the sexual assault being discredited? I don't think I've heard that before. I've always heard there were indicators that she may have been abused but no concrete proof.


The supposed "proof" of sexual assault was unidentified DNA on her underwear. But it turns out it was "trace DNA" which means casual contact, such as the handling by workers in a factory while they were packaging the underwear.

Do you have a source on the sexual assault being discredited? I don't think I've heard that before. I've always heard there were indicators that she may have been abused but no concrete proof.

It was from Dr. Henry Lee and others who said while there were some marks near her private parts, there is not definitive signs of sexual abuse. Originally it was offered that JB had been a victim of long-term SA. Now most forensic experts say that can't be proven. So it's not that it didn't happen, but the theory that she was sexually assaulted in the basement has quited down.

The supposed "proof" of sexual assault was unidentified DNA on her underwear. But it turns out it was "trace DNA" which means casual contact, such as the handling by workers in a factory while they were packaging the underwear.

Faint traces of DNA from three different unknown males. Impossible for one to pull off this crime, let alone three, and leave just tiny traces of DNA only on clothing items and not huge amounts all over the place. Not to mention they reduced the usual amount of markers requiring a match, including many more people.

Not only was the body completely wiped down and then redressed, but an odd detail was that the underwear in which JonBenét was found were her usual brand but way too large. Again here is a big red arrow pointing straight back to Patsy. She was known to purchase this same brand of underwear for a niece who was older and would have worn the size or close to the size in which JonBenét was found--indicating that when Patsy redressed JonBenét after the fake assault, she grabbed a pair of underwear from a package in the basement she was saving to give this niece, and disposed of the original underwear. An intruder wouldn't have even known where to look for the other underwear--or have bothered to do so had he known. Obvious lying and coverup to protect the family.

I had not heard of that detail about the underwear, Cori. Could you point me towards a link? For the record, while I do want something more solid than "He's weird" to serve as evidence, I am totally on Team Someone in the Family Did It. Too many coincidences with that letter and everything else.

I had not heard of that detail about the underwear, Cori. Could you point me towards a link? For the record, while I do want something more solid than "He's weird" to serve as evidence, I am totally on Team Someone in the Family Did It. Too many coincidences with that letter and everything else.

It's on a number of true crime forums and seems to have originated here: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?7107-The-Huge-(Girls-Size-12-14)-quot-Bloomies-quot-Underwear-on-JonBenet-Modeled-By-Six-Year-Old/page16

My original suspicion was that the killer was Jon Ramsey's oldest son who was college age at the time and it was some twisted revenge motive towards the parents. So many years later, who knows? I don't think Burke did it. If you accuse everyone in the world who has poor social skills and looks "weird" on camera, you might as well throw nearly everyone in jail.

My original suspicion was that the killer was Jon Ramsey's oldest son who was college age at the time and it was some twisted revenge motive towards the parents. So many years later, who knows? I don't think Burke did it. If you accuse everyone in the world who has poor social skills and looks "weird" on camera, you might as well throw nearly everyone in jail.

Do all of these other weird people **** in their sisters bed?

In recent years, both the sexual assault and intruder DNA have been largely discredited. Many of the experts no longer think she had been assaulted that night or earlier. Also, the DNA may have come from anywhere and there is no single sample that is from the likely murderer.

So then we have to ask what was the motive... Thrill killing? Revenge against John or Patsy? If it was, why write the ransom note? The note doesn't help throw off the cops -- it gives them lots of evidence. The garrote is either from some truly sick person or it was another attempt to make the killing look like it was something else.

But again, who breaks in a house, steals a child from her bed, tortures and murders her, and then sits down to write a ransom note? If it was a ransom attempt gone bad, why not write the note before you get there? Seems nuts someone would just sit in a house you broke into and write a multi-page letter before or after the crime.

source?

The supposed "proof" of sexual assault was unidentified DNA on her underwear. But it turns out it was "trace DNA" which means casual contact, such as the handling by workers in a factory while they were packaging the underwear.

it's more than just that

My original suspicion was that the killer was Jon Ramsey's oldest son who was college age at the time and it was some twisted revenge motive towards the parents. So many years later, who knows? I don't think Burke did it. If you accuse everyone in the world who has poor social skills and looks "weird" on camera, you might as well throw nearly everyone in jail.

Only the general population thinks like that. You're talking about the type of people who think satanic cults are running around killing pregnant women and kidnapping kids. Same type of people who vote Trump into office claiming he's going to build a magic wall to stop Mexicans from coming into America, yet they will pick up one at Home Depot and pay them sixty bucks to build a deck.

People are stupid. The "public" sucks. In their world, weird people should be locked up.

Burke and John can sue CBS for stating facts. As long as what they said is corroborated by a source, such as in a police report, in the ME report or someone told them, they are free to report it and theorize whatever they want.

Regardless, it is an established fact that someone in that house killed Jon Benet. The Ramseys brought this all on themselves. They went from TV station to TV station peddling fiction in an attempt to deceive a very stupid general population that has half a brain. Now I no problem with people remaining private or going public. But they really pumped a lot of BS and attempted to deceive common sense.

Their child is missing, so let's host a ****ing party? Now I perfectly understand that people want to have some close friends and family to help deal with simple tasks so they can focus on the important things. I hate to miss trash day, so I'm good with my friends coming to help out. I really need the ****ing Miller family serving hors d'oeuvres while Chip the guy who painted my neighbor's house is sweeping the patio. No child abduction is complete without a helping of norco, cigars and aged Scotch. And hell, let's call some more people. Have the wife drunk dial while I host the men in the cigar room.

They have the police standing around while thirty plus people are having "a good time" supporting their friends. John and Patty were very smart and knew to contaminate the crime scene, create a diversion while John is "managing the situation".


source?

The FBI Assessment of JonBenet's autospy and available medical records demonstrated that that her vaginal trauma was "not consistent with a history of sexual abuse", and "turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police."

cbs is asking for a dismissal of the case the latest article march 20 2017

http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-murder-claim-lawsuit-burke-ramseys-lawyer-rips-cbs-call-to-dismiss-8876611

I really think he accidentally killed her and the parents (Patsy in particular) helped cover it up

My original suspicion was that the killer was Jon Ramsey's oldest son who was college age at the time and it was some twisted revenge motive towards the parents. So many years later, who knows? I don't think Burke did it. If you accuse everyone in the world who has poor social skills and looks "weird" on camera, you might as well throw nearly everyone in jail.

The whereabouts of John Ramsey's two surviving older children was one of the first questions asked at an early news conference and after their locations and other facts were established they were cleared. Actually any person alive and breathing and above the age of seven who was NOT in the Boulder area that day is lucky, as pretty much everyone else was suspected at one time or another and lives were damaged or ruined as a result.

BTW when John Ramsey's older son was asked what should be done with his sister's killer his answer was said to be, "Forgiveness." Pretty telling that he knew the killer and considered the death accidental.

I don't think Burke did it. If you accuse everyone in the world who has poor social skills and looks "weird" on camera, you might as well throw nearly everyone in jail.

In this case, it's more than just the awkward social skills and weirdness. Burke's history of major temper tantrums at the time cannot be overlooked. Especially when one of those tantrums involved him swinging a golf club at JonBenet's face the previous summer. That incident alone could have easily killed her.

I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that another incident like this happened again on Christmas Eve. Another tantrum, another striking incident, only this time he ended up killing her by accident.

Only the general population thinks like that. You're talking about the type of people who think satanic cults are running around killing pregnant women and kidnapping kids. Same type of people who vote Trump into office claiming he's going to build a magic wall to stop Mexicans from coming into America, yet they will pick up one at Home Depot and pay them sixty bucks to build a deck.

People are stupid. The "public" sucks. In their world, weird people should be locked up.

Burke and John can sue CBS for stating facts. As long as what they said is corroborated by a source, such as in a police report, in the ME report or someone told them, they are free to report it and theorize whatever they want.

Regardless, it is an established fact that someone in that house killed Jon Benet. The Ramseys brought this all on themselves. They went from TV station to TV station peddling fiction in an attempt to deceive a very stupid general population that has half a brain. Now I no problem with people remaining private or going public. But they really pumped a lot of BS and attempted to deceive common sense.

Their child is missing, so let's host a ****ing party? Now I perfectly understand that people want to have some close friends and family to help deal with simple tasks so they can focus on the important things. I hate to miss trash day, so I'm good with my friends coming to help out. I really need the ****ing Miller family serving hors d'oeuvres while Chip the guy who painted my neighbor's house is sweeping the patio. No child abduction is complete without a helping of norco, cigars and aged Scotch. And hell, let's call some more people. Have the wife drunk dial while I host the men in the cigar room.

They have the police standing around while thirty plus people are having "a good time" supporting their friends. John and Patty were very smart and knew to contaminate the crime scene, create a diversion while John is "managing the situation".




The FBI Assessment of JonBenet's autospy and available medical records demonstrated that that her vaginal trauma was "not consistent with a history of sexual abuse", and "turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police."


the FBI assesment is based on FBI profilers not medical examiners.

forensic pathologists who have examined it said her injuries are consistent with a sexual assault.

funny you talk about the public being stupid then you make such comments yourself.

scientific review of the evidence shows that the most likely theory is an intruder came in and killed Jonbenet

the FBI assesment is based on FBI profilers not medical examiners.

forensic pathologists who have examined it said her injuries are consistent with a sexual assault.

funny you talk about the public being stupid then you make such comments yourself.

scientific review of the evidence shows that the most likely theory is an intruder came in and killed Jonbenet

Nope. You need to catch up. Please read this article (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220/jonbenet-ramsey-dna-evidence) on the DNA evidence. It was most likely transfer DNA. Also, the sexual assault theory has basically been discredited too. Almost everyone who has looked at that evidence in the last few years has said there was most likely not sexual abuse involved.

Finally, if we are to believe an intruder did it, how do you explain the ransom note? That makes no sense and it absolutely points back at the family, with Patsy being the most likely author.

the FBI assesment is based on FBI profilers not medical examiners.

forensic pathologists who have examined it said her injuries are consistent with a sexual assault.

funny you talk about the public being stupid then you make such comments yourself.

scientific review of the evidence shows that the most likely theory is an intruder came in and killed Jonbenet

Let's start with the easy stuff first.

Have you even read any of the reports? Actually, have you even attempted to read the actual reports you continue to cite?

See, there is a difference between an "informed" public and an "uninformed" public. Fact is, you've been told by numerous "informed" people that the prior spin by the PR consultant was largely discredited. Some of the pathologists that were peddling drama on TV based their entire opinion from newspaper articles quoting other pathologists who "may have" read a report or two.

The FBI assessed the situation as they at one point had jurisdiction and later was brought in to assist BPD(a little too late). Because you were uninformed you made a wild and baseless claim that some FBI profilers wrote the assessment. Sadly, you fail to understand that the FBI virtually has unlimited resources when they investigate crimes. They have crime labs. Pathologists. Criminologists. Yes, they have "profilers". They have a SWAT team too.

You don't know who made the assessment. You probably thought of Silence of the Lambs and rattled off some umimpressive propaganda of your own.

Look I know this game. Informed people can cite source after source, while the uninformed rattle off about what some reporter or analyst or panel stated as "fact". They tell you how to "interpret" reports and evidence. They add colorful innuendo. They invent impressive theories. They sit and novelize one sentence from a police or medical report. They mix theories with facts. Suddenly these theories become "fact".

Suddenly the uninformed run with it and begin to propagate nonsense they heard from some panel on CNN.

Jon Benet was not sexually abused. Sadly John Ramsey's first call was to his pilot telling him to "fuel the plane and have it ready. We're heading to Atlanta". He made several calls including one to retain a Public Relations consultant. That as his daughter's lifeless body was laid by a Christmas tree.

Fortunately there are good people who wish to just get the factual information out there.

Why be ordinary? Be informed. The better informed the public is, the more likely common sense will finally enter the fray.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682527/Who%20Is%20Who%20in%20JBR%20Case

Nope. You need to catch up. Please read this article (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30514220/jonbenet-ramsey-dna-evidence) on the DNA evidence. It was most likely transfer DNA. Also, the sexual assault theory has basically been discredited too. Almost everyone who has looked at that evidence in the last few years has said there was most likely not sexual abuse involved.

Finally, if we are to believe an intruder did it, how do you explain the ransom note? That makes no sense and it absolutely points back at the family, with Patsy being the most likely author.

wrong again. Lawerence Kawlaski is a DNA expert who said that the DNA is evidence of an intruder.

if an intruder wants to write a ransom note, he does

Let's start with the easy stuff first.

Have you even read any of the reports? Actually, have you even attempted to read the actual reports you continue to cite?

See, there is a difference between an "informed" public and an "uninformed" public. Fact is, you've been told by numerous "informed" people that the prior spin by the PR consultant was largely discredited. Some of the pathologists that were peddling drama on TV based their entire opinion from newspaper articles quoting other pathologists who "may have" read a report or two.

The FBI assessed the situation as they at one point had jurisdiction and later was brought in to assist BPD(a little too late). Because you were uninformed you made a wild and baseless claim that some FBI profilers wrote the assessment. Sadly, you fail to understand that the FBI virtually has unlimited resources when they investigate crimes. They have crime labs. Pathologists. Criminologists. Yes, they have "profilers". They have a SWAT team too.

You don't know who made the assessment. You probably thought of Silence of the Lambs and rattled off some umimpressive propaganda of your own.

Look I know this game. Informed people can cite source after source, while the uninformed rattle off about what some reporter or analyst or panel stated as "fact". They tell you how to "interpret" reports and evidence. They add colorful innuendo. They invent impressive theories. They sit and novelize one sentence from a police or medical report. They mix theories with facts. Suddenly these theories become "fact".

Suddenly the uninformed run with it and begin to propagate nonsense they heard from some panel on CNN.

Jon Benet was not sexually abused. Sadly John Ramsey's first call was to his pilot telling him to "fuel the plane and have it ready. We're heading to Atlanta". He made several calls including one to retain a Public Relations consultant. That as his daughter's lifeless body was laid by a Christmas tree.

Fortunately there are good people who wish to just get the factual information out there.

Why be ordinary? Be informed. The better informed the public is, the more likely common sense will finally enter the fray.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682527/Who%20Is%20Who%20in%20JBR%20Case

wrong again.

there is zero scientific evidence in support of FBI profilers.

wrong again. Lawerence Kawlaski is a DNA expert who said that the DNA is evidence of an intruder.

if an intruder wants to write a ransom note, he does

Who is "Lawerence Kawlaski"? Can't find any such person in Google. Dr. Henry Lee and many others have said the DNA does not have to be from an intruder. It COULD be, but there is no way to prove conclusively that it was. She could have touched the toilet bowl at the house party they were at and then touched her own panties, which would be enough to transfer DNA. No one can prove conclusively that the DNA means there is an intruder. (Did you even read the article link I posted?)

As far as the ransom note, do you really think an intruder is going to break in, kill Jon Benet, then sit for 30 minutes in the kitchen and write a ransom note? D'oh-kay... We know for a fact that the note was written in the house using Patsy's paper. Why on earth would someone take the time to write a ransom note for an already-dead child? That is... unless they had no reason to fear being discovered in the house.

I'm not saying that JonBenet was killed by her family. But the evidence of an intruder is sketchy at best, and there is a whole lot of stuff that points at the Ramseys (the note, John calling for the plane right away, their odd behavior around the police, etc.) None of that makes them guilty but they sure as hell don't look innocent.

It is as ridiculous to say that this was definitely done by an intruder as it is to say this was definitely done by the Ramseys. The evidence points in both directions.

Who is "Lawerence Kawlaski"? Can't find any such person in Google. Dr. Henry Lee and many others have said the DNA does not have to be from an intruder. It COULD be, but there is no way to prove conclusively that it was. She could have touched the toilet bowl at the house party they were at and then touched her own panties, which would be enough to transfer DNA. No one can prove conclusively that the DNA means there is an intruder. (Did you even read the article link I posted?)

As far as the ransom note, do you really think an intruder is going to break in, kill Jon Benet, then sit for 30 minutes in the kitchen and write a ransom note? D'oh-kay... We know for a fact that the note was written in the house using Patsy's paper. Why on earth would someone take the time to write a ransom note for an already-dead child? That is... unless they had no reason to fear being discovered in the house.

I'm not saying that JonBenet was killed by her family. But the evidence of an intruder is sketchy at best, and there is a whole lot of stuff that points at the Ramseys (the note, John calling for the plane right away, their odd behavior around the police, etc.) None of that makes them guilty but they sure as hell don't look innocent.

It is as ridiculous to say that this was definitely done by an intruder as it is to say this was definitely done by the Ramseys. The evidence points in both directions.

the most basic fact of the case is that prior to returning home, Jonbenet and family spent 6 hours, from 4pm at the Whites for a party.

6 hours.

wrong again.

there is zero scientific evidence in support of FBI profilers.

You appear to be "factually challenged". Do you even know what it contains and who wrote it?

Regardless, I'll still keep it simple.

Two forensic pathologists with equally impressive credentials and experience examine a case and come to different conclusions, who do you believe?

Sadly the courts and media are packed with "hired guns", people with impressive credentials who are good at spinning and shaping the interpretation and assessment of evidence . They are introduced to subjects and supplied a narrative and history of the subject, which they are "hired" to support the theory. If they don't, they're simply not hired. This was quite evident in the 80s and 90s. There were PhDs who spent two years in research, then became professional "expert witnesses" and peddled whatever they needed to peddle to get paid. On the other hand, you have others who had "mail order PhDs" and became expert witnesses the day it arrived in the mail.

Innocent people went to prison. Guilty people walked free. Sometimes this was based on pure "junk science". Other times, it was pure spin and innuendo from accredited and talented individuals. In fact, the American Psychological Association spent a great deal of time dispelling myths perpetuated by none other than highly respected psychologists and psychiatrists from universities such as Stanford, who peddled myths from courtroom to courtroom about things like "repressed memories". It's not just that either, forensic sciences have a great deal of "junk science" peddlers to this very day. Sadly many of them hail from reputable institutions. But who is some judge or lawyer to challenge a mighty PhD, after all these people are experts! Go ahead, check into books or articles such as, "Malingering, Lies, and Junk Science in the Courtroom". Look into fingerprint analysis, bite mark patterns, shoe tread patterns, ballistics, etc.. etc.. Contrary to popular belief and CSI syndrome, these are very controversial "forensic sciences". Some states require very little if any governance over these sciences. Sadly, people go to prison. It works like this, they go from expert to expert find one person who says, "yep that's the gun" and they are placed on the stand and throw in the line "to the exclusion of all others" and bam, you're on death row.

That simple.

Ever wonder how two highly educated, trained and reputable "experts" can come to two very different conclusions on "forensic sciences"? If it's a science, then it deals in fact, Fact doesn't change, or does it?

Really just depends on who's peddling the BS.

The Ramseys and the media hired dozens of "hired guns" who were paid to reinforce a narrative, often with spin and innuendo on how to interpret evidence. It's pretty sad though, when you have to throw common sense out the window in order to apply their theory.

Fortunately we don't have to worry about that with the FBI too often. They are paid a salary. They assess the evidence through multiple departments, examine the case as a whole and then then present the facts based on the evidence and other case study. That's where they come in and you dismiss them as "profilers". The thing about the FBI is that they have standards when it comes to "forensic sciences". They have some of the most stringent fingerprint and ballistic protocols and procedures before they will "confirm" such. Makes you wonder why police agencies often refuse to ask for their help? FBI doesn't like to go on record unless there is nearly absolute certainty.

It's not a political organization, it's not conservative or liberal. The FBI doesn't like to have it's credibility in question. Agents are forbidden to get entangled publicly in regards to investigations both opened and closed. Take away this while James Comey incident and they are quiet. Even when city and states "botch" investigations and the FBI does some cleaning up, they rarely go on record to bash the individuals or organization. That's not their job. It's about fact finding. It's that simple.

I can assure you, the FBI assessment on Jon Benet Ramsey is not biased or influenced by money. They don't give a damn who the Ramseys are and while the Boulder Police Department and DA dropped the ball, hell, lost the game, the FBI said nothing to help or dismantle their credibility. That is not what's important. It's not about being right. It's about being right or even wrong, punctually and factually. Something the "public" and media don't understand.

Today when you have experts like Werner Spitz and Henry Lee, you don't have to worry about them trying to earn quick buck. These are men who shaped forensic science and pathology. There are institutions that have adopted their methods, approach and ideology.

But it's not just them. Forensic Science was(back in 1996) and still is in it's infancy. What is great now, is there is a better understanding of how DNA, fibers and how other forensic evidence travels and even exists. They realize that fabrics and clothing much like underwear, could have been handled by several people before it was in Jon Benet's drawer. Hell just ten years ago had your DNA been on her underwear, you could have been 500 miles away and worked at the factory it was produced, you would have still been in handcuffs at some point. If the police and prosecutor really thought it was you, there were experts to testify that in no way could it have been scant or trace DNA.

It's why today, much of the DNA and prior evidence in the case is viewed as flawed. It's also realized that the Ramsey PR team created peddled a bunch of rumors and created diversions to mislead not only the police, but the general public.

Fact is, there is not one shred of "credible" evidence that supports the intruder theory nor the sexual abuse of Jon Benet. It was a diversion. The police who were present knew there was no intruder from day one.

There was no "Foreign Faction". There was no abduction. It's pure fabrication.

All the nonsense over the years was peddled by the Ramseys themselves or their PR team. As it's been said before. The prior DNA evidence has been dispelled. Myths were peddled as facts and there is a much better understanding of forensic science today than there was twenty years ago.

While it may burst your fantasy of this elite serial killer who wonders the streets at night, it's simply not true. People looking at and reviewing the evidence today have a much better understanding and training when looking at the forensic evidence. Which is why, today largely the "intruder" and "sexual abuse' theory has been discredited.

Contrary to popular belief, while it has been peddled that she had "vaginal trauma", in reality it was minor. So minor that it could have been cause by hitting a bicycle wrong or perhaps self injury due to curiosity. At no point, did even the Ramsey team perpetuate it as "forcible rape". Had it been, it would have been in the report. But it wasn't.

The police have never been able to eliminate John, Patsy or Burke of the murder. There is not one shred of evidence that points to a third party. Even after being at a Christmas party for six hours or the subsequent party following her abduction, where Patsy had friends and family, cleaning the house.

Besides, Patsy and John never have seemed very interested in bringing their child's killer to justice. Wonder why?

We can go back and forth. Any and all credible "sources" in your eyes are dismissed. Simply because it goes against your personal opinions towards this case.

The only question i have now is, do you have an open enough mind to read up on the case and base your opinion on the established facts?

"Intruder came in, novelized a ransom demand to throw off police, kidnapped a girl, sexually assaulted her and carefully and respectfully placed her body covered back into the home"

They didn't attempt to collect the cash. Sounds to much like a Hollywood script. Only part they forgot, is that the evil villain didn't show up at the end holding Patsy at gunpoint revealing his evil plan with a "victory" speech. No hero arrived either. But it's just so much more mysterious and spooky to believe some psychopath pulled off the "perfect" murder right under the Ramsey's noses... Literally.

https://www.scenesofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wimbledon-cats.gif

the most basic fact of the case is that prior to returning home, Jonbenet and family spent 6 hours, from 4pm at the Whites for a party.

6 hours.

You've done nothing but say "no no no" but given no additional facts to refute anything. Even if an intruder had 6 hours to sneak into the house, that combined with the facts make no sense.

I wrote this 5 months ago and nothing in it has been factually or logically refuted:

If you’ve followed the case, and I have, there’s only one conclusion that you can reach, even if it’s not proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note. If you kidnap someone, you want the ransom note to be found as soon as possible. Next, the ransom note was written on Patsy Ramsey’s legal pad, meaning the note was written in the house. The ransom note was three pages long. Ransom notes are never three pages long. Three lines long, maybe. But never three pages. If you are a kidnapper holding a struggling girl hostage, you don’t take 20 minutes out to write a ransom note. You get out of the house as soon as possible. The ransom note asked for $118,000, an incredibly odd number. John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus received a few days before was $118,000. That’s not a coincidence and no one outside the family or his company would know that. The content of the letter is also extremely convoluted as if the writer were trying to build up the kidnapper as some sort of international terrorist. Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting was found to be similar to the ransom note.

Next, why write and leave a ransom note if you’ve already killed your victim and left her in the house? What sense does that make? If you killed her accidentally you take her body with you. No one’s going to pay a ransom for a body you leave in the house. And if you’re a kidnapper, the ransom is what you’re after. Anyone willing to kidnap a six year-old for ransom is willing to kill her.

Jonbenet had a severe skull fracture from a blow to the head but she was also strangled. Why would you do both? If you hit her in the head to kill her, hit her again. Don’t take the time to make a garrote, especially with Patsy Ramsey’s paintbrush, another ridiculous coincidence.

In addition, undigested pineapple is found in Jonbenet's stomach. Her parents claim that she was never fed pineapple, yet Burke’s fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl. Burke Ramsey also had a history of violence towards Jonbenet, including bashing her in the head with a golf club. He also regularly left his feces in her bed, the sign of a deeply disturbed child.

The ransom note was an obvious fake, the kidnapping obviously fake and staged. People have speculated that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet. But if either did it, the other would never cover for them. There’s only one logical conclusion for both parents to cover up the murder: Burke did it. He didn’t do it on purpose but he hit her in the head hard enough while in one of his tantrums for his parents to think she was dead. But she wasn’t. The strangulation finished her off; although I’m sure her parents thought she was dead from the blow to the head.

In a taped interview conducted shortly after the murder that was shown on TV recently, a psychiatrist asked Burke if he was told what happened to her and he blurted out that he knew what happened to her. He knew what happened because he did it. It’s the only possibility that makes all the other known facts fit.

Everyone can go back and forth on this subject but no one is still no closer to the truth. And as I said before, weirdness and poor social skills are not crimes.

https://www.scenesofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wimbledon-cats.gif


:lol: :lol: :lol:

are you a cat person?

That poor cat on the end couldn't take it!

I am glad I'm not the only one who thinks Burke did it (on accident) and his parents helped cover it up. After watching him and thinking about the facts of it I just don't think there is anything else that makes sense, other than it being someone in the family.

The ransom note part makes ZERO sense for an outside person to have done this. People who commit crimes like this want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I could go on for days on every reason how this makes no sense to be some other person who came into the house, but we all know the facts of the case. I find it very odd that Burke wasn't bothered by the police being there and stayed in his room due to fear instead of wanting to be with his parents and know what's going on. I would say this even if he didn't come across as odd on the Dr. Phil show, that has nothing to do with my opinion. I don't think they'll ever prove anything at this point but it's the only thing that makes sense. Someone in that family was involved and I don't think it was the mother or the father who killed her, but I am sure there was a lot of covering up for something that happened. Nothing else makes any sense in this case.

I am glad I'm not the only one who thinks Burke did it (on accident) and his parents helped cover it up. After watching him and thinking about the facts of it I just don't think there is anything else that makes sense, other than it being someone in the family.

The ransom note part makes ZERO sense for an outside person to have done this. People who commit crimes like this want to be in and out as quickly as possible. I could go on for days on every reason how this makes no sense to be some other person who came into the house, but we all know the facts of the case. I find it very odd that Burke wasn't bothered by the police being there and stayed in his room due to fear instead of wanting to be with his parents and know what's going on. I would say this even if he didn't come across as odd on the Dr. Phil show, that has nothing to do with my opinion. I don't think they'll ever prove anything at this point but it's the only thing that makes sense. Someone in that family was involved and I don't think it was the mother or the father who killed her, but I am sure there was a lot of covering up for something that happened. Nothing else makes any sense in this case.

Yep 100%.

But it sickens me how a parent can tie up their dead daughter and hide her, rather than show decency and respect and just call the police/ambulance. I get they were trying to protect their son, but there's no way I could do that to my daughter. That's gross.

Even having the gall to sit there and write a dumbass note knowing what happened to my daughter would make me sick. Ugh.

More likely that they did it to protect their standing in the community. Not sure why they had any standing as they dressed & paraded their young daughter around as a prostitute in contests that can only appeal to stage mothers trying to live vicariously via their daughters & pedophiles.

I am glad I'm not the only one who thinks Burke did it (on accident) and his parents helped cover it up. After watching him and thinking about the facts of it I just don't think there is anything else that makes sense, other than it being someone in the family.

The ransom note part makes ZERO sense for an outside person to have done this.

based on what?

it makes zero sense for the zodiac killer to write cryptograms yet he did it anyway

More likely that they did it to protect their standing in the community. Not sure why they had any standing as they dressed & paraded their young daughter around as a prostitute in contests that can only appeal to stage mothers trying to live vicariously via their daughters & pedophiles.

Yeah true. Still gross though. I guess their image is worth tying up their dead daughter and hiding her. Ugh ugh.

100% spot on about pageants being a hotbed for pedophiles, and mid-40 wine drinking soccer moms who are living through their kids. I don't even know how someone can be comfortable knowing you had pedophiles oogling your child up and down just for some cheap crown. Ugh ugh ugh.

based on what?

it makes zero sense for the zodiac killer to write cryptograms yet he did it anyway
the Zodiac killer (and/or his copy cats) obviously wrote those cryptograms because he got off on taunting the police and wanted the notoriety but didn't want to get caught (incidentally I think that remaining "unsolved" one was probably gibberish designed to confound the police and keep his legend alive forever) - to me that at least makes sense.

the ONLY thing we know 100% about the Jon Benet case beyond the physical evidence is that we do not have the whole story here and it does not make logical sense.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to actually prove that Burke or anyone else actually did do it, and there isn't enough to really conclusively rule him or a stranger/intruder out either.

Logical assumptions aside, we just can't be sure; the ransom note makes absolutely no sense at all - the supposition that the Ramseys created it to throw off the police is as plausible as a family insider or someone that knew them doing it just to mess with them or throw the police off - again I haven't seen actual conclusive proof that attributes it to the Ramseys. I'm not a handwriting expert or anything, but the opinions of the handwriting experts in this case did not convince me that Patsy wrote the note.

The physical details of the crime just do not make a lot of sense logically and some things are definitely conflicting, like the details of that broken window and the suitcase in the train room. I am not sure that there is really one explanation that really covers everything; I find it hard to believe (even considering how badly the police botched the initial investigation) that the Ramseys could have come up with a spur-of-the-moment plan & cover-up in the wee hours of the morning and somehow not made ANY mistakes that would have eventually come to light and given it away. Not impossible mind you, just as difficult to believe.

Personally, I'm torn - I go back-and-forth thinking that there really could have been an intruder that possibly did know the family and could have done this (with or without the ransom note), and accepting the Burke-did-it-accidentally & cover-up angle. I could believe either scenario, but it would be hard to prove it and say it was impossible for it to have happened any other way.

You've done nothing but say "no no no" but given no additional facts to refute anything. Even if an intruder had 6 hours to sneak into the house, that combined with the facts make no sense.

I wrote this 5 months ago and nothing in it has been factually or logically refuted:


Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note.

intruder left it there bc he wanted to. bc he felt like it.

you have been factually and logically refuted :eek:

intruder left it there bc he wanted to. bc he felt like it.

you have been factually and logically refuted :eek:

Really? That's the best argument you have?

Why did Patsy have on the same clothes the next day as she had on the night before? That makes no sense. Unless, of course, she had been up all night...

Really? That's the best argument you have?


can you refute it?

can you refute it?

No, but I also can't refute little green men taking JonBenet, or her deciding to run off with Resurrection Mary. :rolleyes:

We can argue our theories all day long and that is fine. But if your only "proof" to your theory is "prove it didn't happen" then there is no point to discussing this. That's like something a kindergartner would say. I have no problem if you don't agree with me, but at least try to have some valid arguments.

So what we're left with is to use logic. As I said before, nothing in this case is certain. But there is a whole lot of evidence that points to the perpetrator being someone inside the house and/or well known to the family.

There is some evidence of an intruder but there is no smoking gun. The DNA was ruled inconclusive by many experts, and it does not prove someone was in the house even if JB was assaulted. The grate near the window and the suitcase show possibility of an intruder but not proof.

Yet there is ample evidence that a family member wrote and placed the ransom note. That alone basically discredits the random intruder theory. I'm not going to re-hash those facts but if you read up on this case you will learn a lot.

No, but I also can't refute little green men taking JonBenet, or her deciding to run off with Resurrection Mary. :rolleyes:


you are comparing an intruder decision to leave the ransom note on the stairs to little green men?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you are comparing an intruder decision to leave the ransom note on the stairs to little green men?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/8e52decbb1a79f570d5dcc6e4d50f414/tumblr_inline_n1gsxznIws1s7rxwr.gif

you are comparing an intruder decision to leave the ransom note on the stairs to little green men?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What's wrong with you, son?

What's wrong with you, son?

i am amused :talk:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/8e52decbb1a79f570d5dcc6e4d50f414/tumblr_inline_n1gsxznIws1s7rxwr.gif

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

PERFECT response! I love it! :lol:

A group facepalm really is the only way to respond to that. Thank you, LookslikeCRicci, for providing that gif.

what can i say?

Did the Zodiac write them while sitting there with the people he just killed with people sleeping 20 feet away for at least 2 hours using items he just happened to find in the woods? No.

The fact is someone was not afraid of being found in that house by the owners and took all the leisure time they needed to write up a note, practice notes, etc... using items that they found in the house. That is not the work of an intruder who is worried about being caught, it's the actions of a person who knows they have time and don't have to worry about getting out of there asap.

Did the Zodiac write them while sitting there with the people he just killed with people sleeping 20 feet away for at least 2 hours using items he just happened to find in the woods? No.

The fact is someone was not afraid of being found in that house by the owners and took all the leisure time they needed to write up a note, practice notes, etc... using items that they found in the house. That is not the work of an intruder who is worried about being caught, it's the actions of a person who knows they have time and don't have to worry about getting out of there asap.

your conclusion rests on an ignorance of a very basic fact in this case

:eek:

Please do tell.

Please do tell.

timeline

:eek:

I would like to announce that I recently purchased Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey, a book about the case. Its a fascinating read! I highly recommend it ppl.

Obviously the pineapples killed her. They were a favorite of her after all.

Please be more specific, my ignorant ass doesn't get what you are getting at. I am obviously hearing different things about the timeline than you are.

the most basic fact of the case is that prior to returning home, Jonbenet and family spent 6 hours, from 4pm at the Whites for a party.

6 hours.

If your point is that the killer had 6 hours to write a ransom note, then I would offer that the killer would have to know that would be gone and stay gone for an extended period of time. That would imply he/she knew the family well or was taking a hell of a risk. After all, they could return at any time and here would be the killer sitting in the kitchen writing a ransom note...

In the intruder theory, how do you explain the pineapple? The pineapple was in plain sight in the kitchen and was in JB's stomach. Patsy has denied feeding it to her and Burke said he was in bed the whole time. That leaves us with one of three possibilities:

1. Patsy is lying.
2. Burke is lying.
3. An intruder took JB from her bed, went down to the kitchen, fed her pineapple, took her to the basement, murdered her, wrote a ransom note, and then left the house (all undetected).

So again, under the "little green men" theory, it is possible. But all of this defies logic and points right back to the occupants in the house. Patsy and Burke's fingerprints are on the pineapple container and Burke's are on the glass. Patsy could have said, "Oh, we opened that earlier in the day and it was left out" but she didn't. She has denied all knowledge of how pineapple got into JB's stomach, and obviously now Patsy can't be questioned anymore.

In my heart, I hope that the Ramseys are innocent. I hate to think they did this to their sister/daughter and then covered it up. But facts can be difficult things.

your conclusion rests on an ignorance of a very basic fact in this case

:eek:

I am going to second atomicfizz's question to you-- I think the known timeline (unless you can point me to a different one) supports the theory that the note was written in the house and that the note clearly took some time to write.

I've been an ardent defender of the Ramsey family for years-- but even I have to admit that the location of the note, the content of the note, and the length of time it would take to write that note are what we in the legal biz call "a bad fact" for the Ramseys.

So please point out where we are wrong in the known timeline. Atomicfizz's recollection of the case matches my own.

Please be more specific, my ignorant ass doesn't get what you are getting at. I am obviously hearing different things about the timeline than you are.

I am going to second atomicfizz's question to you-- I think the known timeline (unless you can point me to a different one) supports the theory that the note was written in the house and that the note clearly took some time to write.

I've been an ardent defender of the Ramsey family for years-- but even I have to admit that the location of the note, the content of the note, and the length of time it would take to write that note are what we in the legal biz call "a bad fact" for the Ramseys.

So please point out where we are wrong in the known timeline. Atomicfizz's recollection of the case matches my own.

If your point is that the killer had 6 hours to write a ransom note, then I would offer that the killer would have to know that would be gone and stay gone for an extended period of time. .

the ransom note does say he has them under constant surveillance :eek:

he would only need to watch them leave the home, and then slip in. he wouldn't need to know any additional specifics

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

todd that was a big house,,,why would the intruder (if there was one) write the note in the open like that???? good point about the note being found on stairs that the casual person wouldn't know they used.

the ransom note does say he has them under constant surveillance :eek:

he would only need to watch them leave the home, and then slip in. he wouldn't need to know any additional specifics

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

1.) If I wrote that I saw bigfoot riding a surfboard, it doesn't mean that I actually saw bigfoot riding a surfboard.

2.) You fell for their lie hook, line, and sinker. If one of the Ramsey's wrote " I have you under constant surveillance" by making it seem like a intruder wrote it, then wouldn't that work in their favor? They made up a scenario in which the note would be placed on the stairwell to seem plausible. Sometimes people lie and make things up.

I don't understand why he would kill her in the house, leave her there, and then write a note? The family did it.

1.) If I wrote that I saw bigfoot riding a surfboard, it doesn't mean that I actually saw bigfoot riding a surfboard.


that is absolutely correct.

what you saw

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cryptidz/images/c/c2/Nin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130115231403

was a NINGEN !!!

cryptid of the week

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

that is absolutely correct.

what you saw

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cryptidz/images/c/c2/Nin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130115231403

was a NINGEN !!!

cryptid of the week

:eek:
:eek:
:eek:

I don't understand why he would kill her in the house, leave her there, and then write a note? .

bc he wanted to.

So let's just say that he was there for six hours while they were gone, which is stupid because he's obviously not watching them then and how did he know they would be at the party for six hours since he wouldn't have been watching them then, they could have come home at any time while he was lollygagging around writing practice notes, etc... Then he still stayed in the house however long they were up and doing things between when they got home and all went to bed, went up and got JonBenet, accidentally killed her, took the time to find items around the house to set up the crime scene, and did all this without anyone hearing a thing.

I'm curious why you think "he" wrote the ransom note? Was he going to kidnap JB and try and get the ransom (anyone dumb enough to think that will work has another screw loose, imo) and something went wrong, or was it just to throw them off and the real motive was murder? And if his real motive as murder why didn't he bring any materials to the house an use everything he found there. I mean either way, he came in to kidnap her without a ransom note, or he came in to murder her with no weapons.

Why did he write the note in the house with their stuff? If he was so professional that he had them under surveillance and knew their comings and goings you'd think he'd be smart enough to write his note beforehand if that's what he was going for. If the note was only written after as a cover-up you're back to the fact that he felt comfortable enough to take the time to write it in the house when everyone was home, so which is it?

Nothing about the note makes sense. Nothing about a lot of things makes sense. This was either an inside job or the dumbest/luckiest criminal out there.

bc he wanted to.

Oh my God, are you three?

Because he's a freakin' moron. Or because there is no "he". You have no arguments on why he did anything stupid besides he felt like it or telling someone else to prove you wrong. Your "arguments" are so immature I am starting to think you are just a troll.

"he wouldn't need to know any specifics."

You mean he wouldn't need to know whether they would be gone for 15 minutes or 6 hours while he hung out in their house waiting for them to come home to murder or kidnap his daughter? That's stupid. You sure are giving a lot of credit to an apparently very stupid person here.

Your "arguments" are so immature I am starting to think you are just a troll.

They are. Disregard.

Sometimes you just have to know when you are wasting your time with a post.

And yes, I am probably wasting my time with this post. :rolleyes:

My book hasn't arrived yet

weirdness and poor social skills are not crimes.

No, but hitting some one over the head with a golf club is. That would normally be considered attempted murder.

Oh my God, are you three?

Because he's a freakin' moron. Or because there is no "he". You have no arguments on why he did anything stupid besides he felt like it or telling someone else to prove you wrong. Your "arguments" are so immature I am starting to think you are just a troll.

you asked a question i provided the answer

If your point is that the killer had 6 hours to write a ransom note, then I would offer that the killer would have to know that would be gone and stay gone for an extended period of time. That would imply he/she knew the family well or was taking a hell of a risk. After all, they could return at any time and here would be the killer sitting in the kitchen writing a ransom note...

In the intruder theory, how do you explain the pineapple? The pineapple was in plain sight in the kitchen and was in JB's stomach. Patsy has denied feeding it to her and Burke said he was in bed the whole time. That leaves us with one of three possibilities:

1. Patsy is lying.
2. Burke is lying.
3. An intruder took JB from her bed, went down to the kitchen, fed her pineapple, took her to the basement, murdered her, wrote a ransom note, and then left the house (all undetected).

So again, under the "little green men" theory, it is possible. But all of this defies logic and points right back to the occupants in the house. Patsy and Burke's fingerprints are on the pineapple container and Burke's are on the glass. Patsy could have said, "Oh, we opened that earlier in the day and it was left out" but she didn't. She has denied all knowledge of how pineapple got into JB's stomach, and obviously now Patsy can't be questioned anymore.

In my heart, I hope that the Ramseys are innocent. I hate to think they did this to their sister/daughter and then covered it up. But facts can be difficult things.

i'm going with #3

They are. Disregard.

you mean it's over your head? :lol:

https://media.giphy.com/media/G1fQl836pXEUo/giphy.gif

you mean it's over your head? :lol:

No. I mean you're out of yours.

It's obvious you're just trolling and looking for attention.

"Cuz they felt like it" is a clear indication that you're joking.

You insinuating that your trolling, braindead, slack-jawed assbackwards logic is over my head is an another attempt at your feeble "trolling". You don't provide any sources, or arguments other than "he felt like it".

I get it though. You thought you were brilliant with this idea. If you thought you'd say rudimentary things that don't make any sense, with no backing arguments or logic then you'd "win". Saying blank statements such as "he wanted to" can't be refuted so you thought this was brilliant and would have everyone stomped. Unfortunately for you, you're an idiot so it didn't work. Sorry.

However, if this isn't a trolling grand scheme, and you really are this dense, then I'm sorry.

No. I mean you're out of yours.

It's obvious you're just trolling and looking for attention.

"Cuz they felt like it" is a clear indication that you're joking.

You insinuating that your trolling, braindead, slack-jawed assbackwards logic is over my head is an another attempt at your feeble "trolling". You don't provide any sources, or arguments other than "he felt like it".

I get it though. You thought you were brilliant with this idea. If you thought you'd say rudimentary things that don't make any sense, with no backing arguments or logic then you'd "win". Saying blank statements such as "he wanted to" can't be refuted so you thought this was brilliant and would have everyone stomped. Unfortunately for you, you're an idiot so it didn't work. Sorry.

However, if this isn't a trolling grand scheme, and you really are this dense, then I'm sorry.

you don't take being refuted very well

you don't take being refuted very well

I don't. And I wasn't.

you don't take being refuted very well

You don't refute very well.

You don't refute very well.

an intruder wanted to write a ransom note. he does.

refute that.

an intruder wanted to write a ransom note. he does.

refute that.

her mother wanted to write a ransom now. she does.

refute it.

her mother wanted to write a ransom now. she does.

refute it.

that wasn't your original claim. your original claims were it is illogical for an intruder to write a ransom note.

it was illogical to place it on the stairs.

your claims stand refuted

that wasn't your original claim. your original claims were it is illogical for an intruder to write a ransom note.

it was illogical to place it on the stairs.

your claims stand refuted

no, refute that her mom wrote it. it was illogical for an intruder to write it, but I think her mother wrote it.

refute it.

ive been un-refuted

that wasn't your original claim. your original claims were it is illogical for an intruder to write a ransom note.

it was illogical to place it on the stairs.

your claims stand refuted

if they really wanted the money then why wouldn't they take the body with them? they obviously found the body and didn't have to pay anything.

refute it pl0x

no, refute that her mom wrote it. it was illogical for an intruder to write it, but I think her mother wrote it.

refute it.

ive been un-refuted

did ever claim it was illogical for Patsy to write it?

NO.

you are claiming it is illogical for an intruder to write it and place it on the stairs.

my reply is that an intruder wants to write a ransom note. he wants to place it on the stairs.

your claims are refuted.

you still claim it is illogical for an intruder to do this.

who is the troll now?

did ever claim it was illogical for Patsy to write it?

NO.

you are claiming it is illogical for an intruder to write it and place it on the stairs.

my reply is that an intruder wants to write a ransom note. he wants to place it on the stairs.

your claims are refuted.

you still claim it is illogical for an intruder to do this.

who is the troll now?

You :)

Read the contents of the "note". Why would an intruder write a ransom note, and then leave the ransom in the house for it to be discovered? It really seems like they didn't want the money.

And why would they waste time writing that note when they could be discovered by the family, only to not take the ransom? Waste of time and effort. Thus, this wouldn't be logical for an intruder.

refute refute refute refute refute

You :)

Read the contents of the "note". Why would an intruder write a ransom note, and then leave the ransom in the house for it to be discovered? It really seems like they didn't want the money.

And why would they waste time writing that note when they could be discovered by the family, only to not take the ransom? Waste of time and effort. Thus, this wouldn't be logical for an intruder.

refute refute refute refute refute

why would an intruder write that?

bc he wanted to.

did ever claim it was illogical for Patsy to write it?

NO.

you are claiming it is illogical for an intruder to write it and place it on the stairs.

my reply is that an intruder wants to write a ransom note. he wants to place it on the stairs.

your claims are refuted.

you still claim it is illogical for an intruder to do this.

who is the troll now?

Now to talk about your beloved stairs. Why would an intruder leave the note on a not-so-known stairwell instead of somewhere that will be easily seen so that they could collect the ransom?

This intruder seemed to do everything opposite of collecting ransom that would make sense. Not taking the body, leaving the note on a not so known stairwell that most outsiders don't know about, and sitting around in the open writing a note ISN'T logical for an intruder.

why would an intruder write that?

bc he wanted to.

why did the mother write it?

bc she wanted to.

Now to talk about your beloved stairs. Why would an intruder leave the note on a not-so-known stairwell instead of somewhere that will be easily seen so that they could collect the ransom?

This intruder seemed to do everything opposite of collecting ransom that would make sense. Not taking the body, leaving the note on a not so known stairwell that most outsiders don't know about, and sitting around in the open writing a note ISN'T logical for an intruder.

he put on in the stairs bc he felt like it.

why did the mother write it?

bc she wanted to.

i never claimed it was "illogical" for the mother to write it in her own handwriting.

you claim it was "illogical" for an intruder to do so therefore there was no intruder.

such claims are refuted

i never claimed it was "illogical" for the mother to write it in her own handwriting.

you claim it was "illogical" for an intruder to do so therefore there was no intruder.

such claims are refuted

they werent. you responded to nothing I typed above. I stated it was illogical for an intruder to do it, but I never said that I suspected the mother. I do. Also, I never said the note is the reason there wasn't an intruder, I said it didn't make sense for this intruder to do so. I win.

the "intruder feeling like it" doesn't make sense. thats the problem. the intruder can do whatever he wants. he can piss rainbows for all I care, but writing a long ransom note inside the home, without taking the ransom makes no sense. You'd think this magical intruder would come with a ransom note, not waste time writing one.

I get it. You thought you found this little loophole of "bc he felt like it" but it doesn't make sense with what's written IN the note, and the fact that he left her there. you'd think an intruder doing something this high caliber would come prepared, no?

p.s. - my dad is better than your dad.

There was thick snow on the ground, yet there were no footprints in sight. So unless Patsy randomly airlifted a guy into the chimney......who else could have murdered her?

Also the three page note. Why write a three page ransom note?

Why did it take six hours after the first call to 911?

More importantly why did the Ramseys IMMEDIATELY go to CNN instead of the police? And why so quickly hire a publicist and army of lawyers?

The garot was probably from frame packaging box. Obviously there was a broken brush of Patsy's found in her art supplies.

here is a link for that pic and there is a 2nd one showing another part of outside the house

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jonbenet-ramseys-murder-shocking-footprint-8845138



sorry but you are not correct

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8844849.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JonBenet-Ramsey-Dr-Phil.jpg


no matter which theory people go with, the info needs to be correct...people keep tossing this out that there were footprints in the snow..the above pic was taken at the crime scene

the police made that up to get the ramseys to crack

Footprints were found INSIDE not outside

dazzle, your post was not talking about footprints "inside the house"

There was thick snow on the ground, yet there were no footprints in sight. So unless Patsy randomly airlifted a guy into the chimney......who else could have murdered her?


the above is directly from your post....the footprints in the snow keeps being bandied about and it is not true, no matter who anyone thinks commited this crime

dazzle, your post was not talking about footprints "inside the house"

There was thick snow on the ground, yet there were no footprints in sight. So unless Patsy randomly airlifted a guy into the chimney......who else could have murdered her?


the above is directly from your post....the footprints in the snow keeps being bandied about and it is not true, no matter who anyone thinks commited this crime

There were footprints found in the basement, yet there were no footprints found outside in the snow.

How did the footprint get in the basement? Clearly that six hours was used to cover the scene up. The police later botched it by contaminating the crime scene of course.

you are totally missing the POINT did you look at the picture I posted... whoever left the footprints in the basement

would not have left footprints outside because there was no snow outside. how much clearer can I make this

you are totally missing the POINT did you look at the picture I posted... whoever left the footprints in the basement

would not have left footprints outside because there was no snow outside. how much clearer can I make this

Actually they confirmed there was patchy snow on the ground

that snow in the picture looks pretty patchy.

Is that a confirmed picture of the outside of the Ramsey household on the day of the murder? Because there's NO snow. And it's Christmas. In Boulder-freaking-Colorado.

I would be SHOCKED if there was no snow on the ground. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but Colorado isn't exactly Florida in December...

Is that a confirmed picture of the outside of the Ramsey household on the day of the murder? Because there's NO snow. And it's Christmas. In Boulder-freaking-Colorado.

I would be SHOCKED if there was no snow on the ground. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but Colorado isn't exactly Florida in December...

https://weatherspark.com/m/3561/12/Average-Weather-in-December-in-Boulder-Colorado-United-States

The average temperature in Boulder, CO in the second half of December is in the mid-40s. The average chance of any precipitation in Boulder in the second half of December on any given day is roughly 9%. Based on all of that, I would be much more shocked if there was snow on the ground as opposed to there not being any snow on the ground.

Fair enough. I wasn't expecting a foot of snow outside, but Boulder is a touch warmer in the winter than I would have thought...

If you’ve followed the case, and I have, there’s only one conclusion that you can reach, even if it’s not proven beyond any doubt.

Let’s review some facts. The ransom note was supposedly found on a back stairway that only the family knew they used. This is a very illogical place to leave a ransom note. If you kidnap someone, you want the ransom note to be found as soon as possible. Next, the ransom note was written on Patsy Ramsey’s legal pad, meaning the note was written in the house. The ransom note was three pages long. Ransom notes are never three pages long. Three lines long, maybe. But never three pages. If you are a kidnapper holding a struggling girl hostage, you don’t take 20 minutes out to write a ransom note. You get out of the house as soon as possible. The ransom note asked for $118,000, an incredibly odd number. John Ramsey’s Christmas bonus received a few days before was $118,000. That’s not a coincidence and no one outside the family or his company would know that. The content of the letter is also extremely convoluted as if the writer were trying to build up the kidnapper as some sort of international terrorist. Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting was found to be similar to the ransom note.

The ransom note was an obvious fake, the kidnapping obviously fake and staged. People have speculated that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet. But if either did it, the other would never cover for them. There’s only one logical conclusion for both parents to cover up the murder: Burke did it. He didn’t do it on purpose but he hit her in the head hard enough while in one of his tantrums for his parents to think she was dead. But she wasn’t. The strangulation finished her off; although I’m sure her parents thought she was dead from the blow to the head.

In a taped interview conducted shortly after the murder that was shown on TV recently, a psychiatrist asked Burke if he was told what happened to her and he blurted out that he knew what happened to her. He knew what happened because he did it. It’s the only possibility that makes all the other known facts fit.

and

You've done nothing but say "no no no" but given no additional facts to refute anything. Even if an intruder had 6 hours to sneak into the house, that combined with the facts make no sense.

I wrote this 5 months ago and nothing in it has been factually or logically refuted:

Babalu,

if an intruder wants to leave a ransom note on the stairs he does.

if an intruder wants to write a long ransom note he does.

since when does a criminal have to do something logical?

the zodiac killer wrote long cryptic messages, that he could have just chosen not to do so

yet he did

your claim is in essence the intruder could have done something different therefore there was no intruder.

yet the BTK killer dennis raider wrote long messages

the unabomber wrote a manifesto

the ABC killer killed girls with same first and last name and dumped them in a town with same letter as their name

this makes no sense

yet they did so

bc they wanted to

just recently a girl calls an ubi driver and then stabs him to death
bc she wanted to

charles manson and his followers broke into sharon tates home and killed her and wrote helter skelter in the home

that made no sense

charles manson helter skelter refers to his belief in a future race war between whites and blacks so he gets his white woman followers to kill another white woman inside her own home

doesn't make sense
he did it anyway

btk said he heard voices that made him do it.

son of sam said voices told him to kill.

does that make sense?

maybe a voice told the intruder jonbenet killer to leave a ransom note behind with the body

intruder wanted to write a ransom note, wanted to leave it on the stairs, and wanted to leave the body behind

doesn't have to makes sense to you

and dna evidence along with other evidence in the crime scene is genuine scientific evidence of an intruder

you have been thoroughly debunked, totally refuted

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

this did not require a separate thread.

it makes it come off like a personal attack directed at someone.

this did not require a separate thread.

it makes it come off like a personal attack directed at someone.

i'm debunking a claim that was made, and yes it did require a separate thread

this did not require a separate thread.

it makes it come off like a personal attack directed at someone.

I agree... LooksLikeCRicci, can we take this onto an existing JonBenet thread or nuke it? I have no problem with anyone's opinion, but this is an argument to an old thread in a new thread. Totally not necessary.

THANK YOU! ;)

I agree... LooksLikeCRicci, can we take this onto an existing JonBenet thread or nuke it? I have no problem with anyone's opinion, but this is an argument to an old thread in a new thread. Totally not necessary.

THANK YOU! ;)

i will only reply to arguments to this debunking on this thread, not on the old thread where it is very confusing

i will only reply to arguments to this debunking on this thread, not on the old thread where it is very confusing
i think we've already seen all sides of that argument ad nauseum, is any further debunking of the debunking really absolutely necessary?

i think we've already seen all sides of that argument ad nauseum, is any further debunking of the debunking really absolutely necessary?

if anyone wants me to reply to their reply on this specific issue this is the thread to do it

You've done nothing but say "no no no" but given no additional facts to refute anything. Even if an intruder had 6 hours to sneak into the house, that combined with the facts make no sense.

I wrote this 5 months ago and nothing in it has been factually or logically refuted:

Babalu is making a specific claim that in the 5 months he made his claim he was never debunked.

killers do all kinds of things that don't make sense.

the charles manson murders killed sharon tate and wrote helter skelter in her blood on the wall

charles manson said helter skelter refers to a coming race war where whites will eliminate blacks and jews

so charles manson has his white women followers murder another white woman as home intruders in her home, sharon tate.

doesn't make sense so i guess no intruder killed sharon tate in her home

charles manson was wrongly convicted if we follow babalu's reasoning.

Babalu claims in the 5 months that thread was started he was never factually or logically refuted

i'm doing it now and i'm doing it in this thread, not the old thread

:eek:

I thought we established it was a ghost or a poltergeist.

Rikishi did it for da Rock.

I thought we established it was a ghost or a poltergeist.

https://media.giphy.com/media/mvNExt19DqFJS/giphy.gif

I will merge this thread with the previous Jon-Benet thread. I agree-- it doesn't need a separate thread.

It's so hard to not comment, so I'm just going to say this:

The Unabomber and the Zodiac did not write long rambling messages to the authorities while at the scene of the crime. The Unabomber's manifesto took months, I believe, for him to write. The Zodiac's letters were clearly written AFTER he committed some of the murders and contained information for the police to know they were coming from the killer and not a hoax. This is very different from what you're talking about at the scene of Jon-Benet's murder. Someone SAT DOWN and wrote a THREE PAGE note while at the scene of the crime.

Yes, when Sharon Tate was murdered, the killers wrote "Pig" and "Helter Skelter" on the wall in blood. They did NOT, however, write a three page manifesto on the wall in that blood. Why? They knew they needed to get the eff out of Dodge because they had just killed numerous people at the Tate residence and they wanted to be long gone before the police showed up.

You're missing the point entirely.

i think we've already seen all sides of that argument ad nauseum, is any further debunking of the debunking really absolutely necessary?

I want to debunk the debunking of the debunking. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I want to debunk the debunking of the debunking. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

HAHAHA! :lol:

This is one of the best posts EVER!

https://media.giphy.com/media/mvNExt19DqFJS/giphy.gif

I will merge this thread with the previous Jon-Benet thread. I agree-- it doesn't need a separate thread.

It's so hard to not comment, so I'm just going to say this:

The Unabomber and the Zodiac did not write long rambling messages to the authorities while at the scene of the crime. The Unabomber's manifesto took months, I believe, for him to write. The Zodiac's letters were clearly written AFTER he committed some of the murders and contained information for the police to know they were coming from the killer and not a hoax. This is very different from what you're talking about at the scene of Jon-Benet's murder. Someone SAT DOWN and wrote a THREE PAGE note while at the scene of the crime.

Yes, when Sharon Tate was murdered, the killers wrote "Pig" and "Helter Skelter" on the wall in blood. They did NOT, however, write a three page manifesto on the wall in that blood. Why? They knew they needed to get the eff out of Dodge because they had just killed numerous people at the Tate residence and they wanted to be long gone before the police showed up.

You're missing the point entirely.

again,
an intruder could have slipped in when the Ramseys were away at the white party, giving him 6 hours all alone inside the home.

i writing 3 pages takes about 15 minutes

I thought we established it was a ghost or a poltergeist.

how do you explain the disappearance of Dennis Martin?:eek:

I want to debunk the debunking of the debunking. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


give it your best shot

again,
an intruder could have slipped in when the Ramseys were away at the white party, giving him 6 hours all alone inside the home.

i writing 3 pages takes about 15 minutes


1) How would he know that he had 6 hours inside the home until the Ramseys came back?

2) How would he know the Ramseys were coming back at all?

3) How did he know he'd have a chance to kidnap Jonbenet when and if they did come home? What if she slept in her parent's bed that night?

4) If you were after money and had broken into a wealthy person's home, wouldn't you steal what you could and get out?

5) How did the kidnapper know that John Ramsey had just received a $118,000 bonus so he could ask for that much in ransom?

I realize that these are all logical questions that you will answer by saying 'bc he felt like it'. That's fine. I'm giving these responses for other posters here who can understand them, not you.

how do you explain the disappearance of Dennis Martin?:eek:

SHC.

1) How would he know that he had 6 hours inside the home until the Ramseys came back?

2) How would he know the Ramseys were coming back at all?

3) How did he know he'd have a chance to kidnap Jonbenet when and if they did come home? What if she slept in her parent's bed that night?

4) If you were after money and had broken into a wealthy person's home, wouldn't you steal what you could and get out?

5) How did the kidnapper know that John Ramsey had just received a $118,000 bonus so he could ask for that much in ransom?

I realize that these are all logical questions that you will answer by saying 'bc he felt like it'. That's fine. I'm giving these responses for other posters here who can understand them, not you.

1- he didn't need to know. the house was unoccupied
2- he didn't need to know.
3- he didn't need to know. opportunity presented itself
4- he wasn't after money
5- he didn't. $118 is some number he made up, as in the # of minutes in Silence of the lambs

:eek:

1- he didn't need to know. the house was unoccupied
2- he didn't need to know.
3- he didn't need to know. opportunity presented itself
4- he wasn't after money
5- he didn't. $118 is some number he made up, as in the # of minutes in Silence of the lambs

:eek:


He planned to kidnap someone, wrote a ransom note asking for $118,000 (which happened to be the exact amount of John Ramsey's X-mas bonus received a few days before), but wasn't after money....:crazy:

No further questions.

He planned to kidnap someone, wrote a ransom note asking for $118,000 (which happened to be the exact amount of John Ramsey's X-mas bonus received a few days before), but wasn't after money....:crazy:

No further questions.

you don't know that he intended the ransom note to be for a genuine kidnapping ransom

i think he wrote it to troll the ramseys and fbi.

and the $118k could be coincidence.

Burke accidentally killed JonBenet, Patsy helped cover it up. (John possibly picked her up to purposely contaminate or make things complicated) Patsy probably wrote the note herself.

The book I got contains the entire ransom note

He planned to kidnap someone, wrote a ransom note asking for $118,000 (which happened to be the exact amount of John Ramsey's X-mas bonus received a few days before), but wasn't after money....:crazy:

No further questions.

Re: The Ransom Note:

Don't forget the SBTC acronym, which is same acronym of the naval base where John had trained. Also numerous usages of expressions and idioms frequently used by John and Patsy, such as "Don't try to grow a brain" or "Use some of that good southern common sense of yours."

Re: The Ransom Note:

Don't forget the SBTC acronym, which is same acronym of the naval base where John had trained. Also numerous usages of expressions and idioms frequently used by John and Patsy, such as "Don't try to grow a brain" or "Use some of that good southern common sense of yours."

do you ahve a credible source that patsy or john use these expressions?
i didn't think so.

these are actually common quotes from certain movies like dirty harry speed ransom

Re: The Ransom Note:

Don't forget the SBTC acronym, which is same acronym of the naval base where John had trained. Also numerous usages of expressions and idioms frequently used by John and Patsy, such as "Don't try to grow a brain" or "Use some of that good southern common sense of yours."
that's one thing that really bothers me about all of this - I don't understand how someone dumb enough to create that ridiculous ransom note could have possibly managed to pull all of this off without making a single mistake that would have tipped the police off and given themselves away.

what was the motive behind the ransom note? It doesn't seem like it was meant to "throw off" the police - it is just so implausible and completely farfetched that it just throws up red flags all over the place.

That "ransom note" seems more likely to have been designed just to taunt John and Patsy rather than to actually collect a ransom. I don't have any clue why or who would want to do such a thing, but it makes me think that maybe someone had some sort of grudge against John and Patsy and somehow that led to what happened to Jonbenet. At least its a possibility, but we'll never know because the Ramsays stopped cooperating with the police during the investigation.

that's one thing that really bothers me about all of this - I don't understand how someone dumb enough to create that ridiculous ransom note could have possibly managed to pull all of this off without making a single mistake that would have tipped the police off and given themselves away.

what was the motive behind the ransom note? It doesn't seem like it was meant to "throw off" the police - it is just so implausible and completely farfetched that it just throws up red flags all over the place.

That "ransom note" seems more likely to have been designed just to taunt John and Patsy rather than to actually collect a ransom. I don't have any clue why or who would want to do such a thing, but it makes me think that maybe someone had some sort of grudge against John and Patsy and somehow that led to what happened to Jonbenet. At least its a possibility, but we'll never know because the Ramsays stopped cooperating with the police during the investigation.

it's called trolling and it was written by an intruder

that's one thing that really bothers me about all of this - I don't understand how someone dumb enough to create that ridiculous ransom note could have possibly managed to pull all of this off without making a single mistake that would have tipped the police off and given themselves away.

what was the motive behind the ransom note? It doesn't seem like it was meant to "throw off" the police - it is just so implausible and completely farfetched that it just throws up red flags all over the place.

That "ransom note" seems more likely to have been designed just to taunt John and Patsy rather than to actually collect a ransom. I don't have any clue why or who would want to do such a thing, but it makes me think that maybe someone had some sort of grudge against John and Patsy and somehow that led to what happened to Jonbenet. At least its a possibility, but we'll never know because the Ramsays stopped cooperating with the police during the investigation.

Well done. I've had exactly the same overview and I'm sure I've posted it more than once.

There were so many areas for the Ramseys to slip up minus any doubt, if indeed they were the perpetrator(s):

* The body
* The clothing
* The room
* The window
* The instruments of death
* The ransom note
* The 911 call
* The kitchen area or other parts of the house
* The interviews
* Burke's meeting with the child psychologist
* Conversations with friends or acquaintances

Somehow they dodged all, with nothing but shamelessly inflated conclusions from anyone asserting the Ramseys' guilt. It reminds me a great deal of the Visalia Ransacker link to EAR/ONS. There is nothing to cement or strongly indicate that link but a vast majority of posters on the related forums desperately want to believe it, so they slant the similarities and probability aspect to absurd extreme to match the premise.

Maybe the Ramseys simply got lucky. That is not out of the question. The ransom note is so lengthy and bizarre it should be a simple handwriting match and/or syntax match to someone in the family, or John and Patsy as combo. That has never been accomplished. In fact, the few attempts I've seen have been pathetic. Patsy is isolated as handwriting match on her off (left) hand. But only on a few carefully selected letters. The rest don't threaten to match.

In a normal world it should never play out that way.

The $118,000 is similarly overblown. Why is the Christmas bonus the focal point? If any number with theoretical connection to the Ramseys had shown up in that ransom note, it would have been hoisted as the Ah-Ha moment. Look, it matches the value of the Ramsey savings account. Or house assessment. Whatever.

Likewise the Burke theory doesn't impress me because I know how conspiratorial types operate. It's Burke only because Burke was the only other child in that home. If there had been two more children of nearby age then guaranteed there would be equally diabolical and plausible death blow stories attached to them. Take your pick. Books and TV specials and lawsuits for everyone.

When the details and story are so unusual I tend to conclude innocence. I would go there in this case other than high confidence that a female wrote that ransom note. I'll trust my instincts that the exclamation marks and late phrasing source from a woman.

Tough call. I understand the lack of charges or consensus.

There were so many areas for the Ramseys to slip up minus any doubt, if indeed they were the perpetrator(s):

I would argue they did slip up on several things: John asking to have the plane for Atlanta ready (right after the body was found), the ransom note, the underwear, and the pineapple, to name a few.

Maybe the Ramseys simply got lucky. That is not out of the question. The ransom note is so lengthy and bizarre it should be a simple handwriting match and/or syntax match to someone in the family, or John and Patsy as combo. That has never been accomplished. In fact, the few attempts I've seen have been pathetic. Patsy is isolated as handwriting match on her off (left) hand. But only on a few carefully selected letters. The rest don't threaten to match.

Keep in mind police discovered there were "practice" letters written, too. The perpetrator had to feel comfortable enough to have the time to write such a long, rambling letter and to start over to get it right. As I've said before, you are going to write a long ransom note but you don't bring the letter already made or the tools to do it? That is beyond bizarre. There are also the references to John's southern heritage and other things in the letter that show this could not have been a complete stranger.

The $118,000 is similarly overblown. Why is the Christmas bonus the focal point? If any number with theoretical connection to the Ramseys had shown up in that ransom note, it would have been hoisted as the Ah-Ha moment. Look, it matches the value of the Ramsey savings account. Or house assessment. Whatever.

I totally disagree with this. The number "$118,000" is bizarre to begin with. Who the hell asks for such a strange number? Why not $100,000 or $125,000 or $150,000? The fact that it matches that number tells me either someone wanted them to think it was the Ramseys who wrote it (possible) or that number was already on the mind of the letter writer. Had the ransom been $150,000 and it matched John's bonus, I'd be more apt to agree with you. But based on what a unique number that is, it has to have meaning in some way, shape, or form.

In the end, I don't know if the Ramseys did it or not. But I think we can deduce that whoever did it had intimate knowledge of the family (based on the letter) and felt comfortable in that house. This points to the family or someone close to them.

In the end, I don't know if the Ramseys did it or not. But I think we can deduce that whoever did it had intimate knowledge of the family (based on the letter) and felt comfortable in that house. This points to the family or someone close to them.

It wouldn't be surprised if one of the Ramsey's tried to frame someone John worked with, but it backfired.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Ramsey's tried to frame someone John worked with, but it backfired.


I disagree for several reasons. Knowing that Burke did it they wanted police to think that some mystery person that couldn't be found did it. Pointing the finger at a specific innocent person or persons would have to backfire because who of a small group of employees couldn't prove where they were with witnesses on Christmas? The other factors are that the Ramseys were obviously in a panic and were just looking to direct attention away from themselves. They couldn't possibly have formulated a logical plan, and that's why they look so bad in all of this, with this ridiculous ransom note. The complete irony in all of this is that if they told the truth Burke may have been put into an institution for a short time and maybe the Ramseys would have been embarrassed in their local community but the world would never have heard of Jonbenet Ramsey.

I disagree for several reasons. Knowing that Burke did it they wanted police to think that some mystery person that couldn't be found did it. Pointing the finger at a specific innocent person or persons would have to backfire because who of a small group of employees couldn't prove where they were with witnesses on Christmas? The other factors are that the Ramseys were obviously in a panic and were just looking to direct attention away from themselves. They couldn't possibly have formulated a logical plan, and that's why they look so bad in all of this, with this ridiculous ransom note. The complete irony in all of this is that if they told the truth Burke may have been put into an institution for a short time and maybe the Ramseys would have been embarrassed in their local community but the world would never have heard of Jonbenet Ramsey.

I didn't mean co-worker per se, but maybe a partner, or affiliate that his company worked with/for.

"We respect your business, but not the country that it serves"

The line above, plus his bonus being asked for ransom is what made me say that they tried to pinpoint someone that he worked with. Again, not a co-worker per se, but maybe a company that he partnered with.

I agree with you though, they just weren't thinking right and were scatterbrained, but that's what I mean't.

here is a link for my outsidse the house lack of snow pic,,I went back and put the link in my original post http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jonbenet-ramseys-murder-shocking-footprint-8845138


it was an el nino year and unseasonably warm.,....here is the listed temps for that dec

1996 12 26 51 6 0.00 -999.0 0


Dec 1996
Day high T low T Precip Snow Snow Depth

1 51 14 0 0 2
2 46 27 0 0 1
3 47 14 0 0 1
4 41 21 0 0 1
5 47 24 0.02 0 T

6 44 30 0 0 T
7 45 27 0 0 T
8 68 38 0 0 0
9 67 37 0 0 0
10 63 43 0 0 0

11 56 35 0 0 0
12 58 36 0 0 0
13 54 31 0 0 0
14 51 29 0 0 0
15 40 13 0 0 0

16 40 14 0.23 3.8 4
17 18 -4 0.11 2.1 6
18 18 -6 0 0 4
19 31 -4 0 0 4
20 49 22 0 0 3

21 47 36 0 0 2
22 52 20 0 0 1
23 38 17 0.01 0.2 1
24 44 24 0 0 T
25 54 24 0 0 T

26 51 6 0 T 0
27 59 26 0 0 0
28 54 37 0 0 0
29 64 34 0 0 0
30 60 42 0 0 0

31 65 32 0 0 0


I would like to know what the temp was at eight a.m. and what time
the dusting occured, if it was at six ,at four, it would have no bearing on the crime.





Is that a confirmed picture of the outside of the Ramsey household on the day of the murder? Because there's NO snow. And it's Christmas. In Boulder-freaking-Colorado.

I would be SHOCKED if there was no snow on the ground. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but Colorado isn't exactly Florida in December...

Few of my questions / thoughts.
I do think the brother did it.. But in my head I am trying to play out the pineapple snack. I don't see the brother cutting the pineapple up.. Was this a before bed snack or middle of the night? Also the letter, I am thrown off there are no tear drops. I would think that if the mother wrote it she would be upset and crying and there would be tear drops.

Few of my questions / thoughts.
I do think the brother did it.. But in my head I am trying to play out the pineapple snack. I don't see the brother cutting the pineapple up.. Was this a before bed snack or middle of the night? Also the letter, I am thrown off there are no tear drops. I would think that if the mother wrote it she would be upset and crying and there would be tear drops.

What if she wiped her eyes with a tissue while she wrote the letter?

What if she wiped her eyes with a tissue while she wrote the letter?

Maybe, but I feel I would be too upset and some would get on the paper,

What are your thought on who cut the pineapple?

Maybe, but I feel I would be too upset and some would get on the paper,

What are your thought on who cut the pineapple?

Well these people put their dead daughter in a garrote, and hid her in the house. I wouldn't question why she didn't cry while writing a letter, granted she could've.

I'm not sure about the pineapple.

Maybe, but I feel I would be too upset and some would get on the paper,

What are your thought on who cut the pineapple?

killer obviously, an intruder
:eek:

Well these people put their dead daughter in a garrote, and hid her in the house. I wouldn't question why she didn't cry while writing a letter, granted she could've.

I'm not sure about the pineapple.

what evidence do you have for these assertions?

what evidence do you have for these assertions?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Here we go round the mullberry bush

https://media.giphy.com/media/4sk9UZQRIptUA/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/oNU0bm2AqXUGI/giphy.gif

:lol: :lol: you guys.

We went around so much I got dizzy :eek: :eek:

We went around so much I got dizzy :eek: :eek:

Any evidence to back up this assertion?

Any evidence to back up this assertion?

Checkmate. You got me.

What you didn't catch the sound of me vomitting afterwards?

What you didn't catch the sound of me vomitting afterwards?

Where's the evidence for the sound of you vomitting afterwards?

"I don't give a flying flip what evidence you have. I didn't do it! Go back to the damn drawing board"

Wrong thread

I don't think the family killed her.

I think an intruder who wasn't right in the head broke in while they were at the Christmas party, prowled around, wrote the note, specifically wrote down John's bonus amount as the ransom to cast suspicion on the family, and then hid and waited for when he could get JonBénet.

The idea Burke did it strains credibility too much.

I don't think the family killed her.

I think an intruder who wasn't right in the head broke in while they were at the Christmas party, prowled around, wrote the note, specifically wrote down John's bonus amount as the ransom to cast suspicion on the family, and then hid and waited for when he could get JonBénet.

The idea Burke did it strains credibility too much.

Not as much as this theory.

CBS Can't Dodge Burke Ramsey's $750M Defamation Suit
by Ashley Cullins
Jan. 5, 2018


Burke Ramsey's $750 million defamation lawsuit against CBS over the limited series "The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey" will proceed after a Michigan judge on Friday denied the network's motion to dismiss the matter.

Ramsey sued CBS in December 2016, claiming that the network falsely conveyed to millions of viewers that he killed his sister. A panel of law enforcement specialists interviewed for the series, who are each named as a defendant in the suit, concluded after reviewing evidence from the case that Burke, then 9 years old, killed 6-year-old JonBenét by accident in 1996.

The investigators also believed the children's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, faked their daughter's kidnapping to cover for their son.





CBS asked Judge David Groner to dismiss the case, arguing its show didn't state as fact that Burke killed his sister and the statements relayed were either opinion or theory. It also noted that a disclaimer aired at the beginning and end of the program explaining that the crime is unsolved and the conclusions of investigators on the series "represent just some of a number of possible scenarios."

Groner watched the program and found "the statements at issue and the docuseries as a whole could reasonably be understood as stating actual facts" about Burke Ramsey. He further found that the disclaimer didn't negate the show's potentially defamatory meaning.

"The rejection of CBS’s opinion defense is likely the most significant ruling that will be issued in the case," said Ramsey's attorney L. Lin Wood in a Friday email statement. "Now the case moves to factual discovery. The facts were thoroughly reviewed by law enforcement investigators 20 years ago. Burke is innocent. Committing a knowing fraud on the viewing public in a fake documentary cannot not change that fact."





CBS also issued a statement in response to the ruling: "This very preliminary procedural ruling was issued prior to any evidence being presented. It is based solely on the plaintiff’s complaint. Should the case move forward, we look forward to defending it on its merits."

Burke Ramsey filed a separate $150 million suit against a pathologist who participated in the series, Werner Spitz, over statements he made to the press about the case. The court also on Friday declined to dismiss that matter.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-cant-dodge-750m-defamation-suit-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-1072118

That thing was a hatchet job, go get 'em Burke.

How long until we get a documentary suggesting that Melinda snuck in to the house and killed JonBénet?

How long until Burke threatens to sue everybody on the planet who even mentions the case?

It's painful to know there are people that are still clinging to the notion that one of the Ramseys were involved. They were CLEARED. Through DNA TESTING! They were cleared by the same police department that zeroed in on them from the start (to the point of virtually ignoring all other suspects and leads, even when the evidence screamed intruder), and the same department that hired Linda Arndt, the first responding officer who believed the Ramseys were guilty even before entering the house or knowing any of the facts. That speaks volumes.

JonBenet was apparently sexually assaulted, strangled with a garrote and struck with a blunt object. This did not occur at the hands of her nine-year-old brother. This did not occur from her mother who had recently beat back death herself. This did not occur from her father who had already lost a daughter at a young age. Yes, Burke is weird. Yes, John and Patsy were probably snooty rich people that were ignorant of how things would be perceived by the average citizen. But they're not murderers. I don't know how much plainer it can be stated.

If we find ourselves questioning the DNA evidence under the notion that it was the factory worker who made the panties, that puts us in a position where we then are questioning the DNA results of every single case where DNA has convicted someone, and that's a pretty scary place.

My theory is this: A pedophile saw her in the pageants, got into the house with the intention of kidnapping her and taking her elsewhere to sexually assault, wasn't able to get her out of the house and felt forced to do it there, and when JonBenet screamed, he felt he had to kill her. The ransom letter was an attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere since pedophiles don't fare too well in prison and he was worried what would happen if he was caught. But it was probably unncessary as a lot of people believed the Ramseys did it.

It's painful to know there are people that are still clinging to the notion that one of the Ramseys were involved. They were CLEARED. Through DNA TESTING! They were cleared by the same police department that zeroed in on them from the start


Incorrect. The police department did not clear them. Lacy recklessly wrote them an apology letter contrary to evidence, facts and individuals who actually were involved- and know what they are talking about. Besides, the DA doesn't "clear" suspects, except by charging someone else.

Regardless, "touch DNA" is hardly reliable- certainly not proof of innocence or guilt.

If we find ourselves questioning the DNA evidence under the notion that it was the factory worker who made the panties, that puts us in a position where we then are questioning the DNA results of every single case where DNA has convicted someone, and that's a pretty scary place.

This is the problem... There was only TRACE DNA on the panties. This is very different than DNA from blood, semen, or saliva. I think that is a relevant issue. If an article of clothing brushes up against someone, their DNA could be on the clothing but that doesn't make them guilty. This is why this evidence has been overplayed both for clearing the Ramseys and for determining how many suspects are involved. DNA is a great tool but the use of it has to constantly be examined. In this case, there isn't enough material to determine even where the DNA came from.

As someone who has found hairs in new items I have purchased, I do believe it is possible for DNA from manufacturing to be transferred. That is by no means a guarantee of where it came from, but it has to be in play.

My theory is this: A pedophile saw her in the pageants, got into the house with the intention of kidnapping her and taking her elsewhere to sexually assault, wasn't able to get her out of the house and felt forced to do it there, and when JonBenet screamed, he felt he had to kill her. The ransom letter was an attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere since pedophiles don't fare too well in prison and he was worried what would happen if he was caught. But it was probably unncessary as a lot of people believed the Ramseys did it.

The biggest issue in clearing the Ramsey's is the ransom note. If it is an intruder, we have to believe this person wrote this either before the crime or after to throw blame elsewhere. If it is the latter, than we have to accept that someone killed JonBenet, then went back upstairs, found Patsy's stationary, stayed long enough to write multiple attempts of the note (including the multiple page final one), then place it on the stairs Patsy used, and leave. They also had to have specific knowledge of the family (like "Use that good southern common sense of yours") and the bonus amount (which is such a unique number it can't be a coincidence). Does that really make any sense? You just committed murder and now your going to hang out and hand write a ridiculously long ransom note? If someone accidentally killed her, I would think their first thought would be to get the hell out of there. If this was an accidental murder that was covered up, than the perp had to feel comfortable taking his or her time.

I'm still not convinced one way or the other as to who did this. But I can't get past the ransom note and I also can't get over John's bizarre behavior right after. Your daughter is missing then brutally murdered, and your first thought is to fly out of town?!? Don't forget the pineapple, which was found in JonBenet's stomach, which Patsy denied all knowledge of, and which had Patsy and Burke's fingerprints on the container. Not a smoking gun, but it needs to be explained.

While I'm surprised they named Burke as the likely killer on the CBS special, I don't think it is out of the question. I've been around plenty of my relative's kids who can get worked up and go a little nutty. If a kid was mad enough, picked up a big Maglite and swung it, I bet they could bash in a small skull. My issue with that theory is why would John and Patsy stage a murder then (to protect Burke?) and do it so elaborately by using the garrote. That part I have no explanation for.

So I am back to the 50/50 camp. There is evidence it could have gone either way, but there is no way you can tell me the Ramsey's are completely in the clear on this.

It's painful to know there are people that are still clinging to the notion that one of the Ramseys were involved. They were CLEARED. Through DNA TESTING! They were cleared by the same police department that zeroed in on them from the start (to the point of virtually ignoring all other suspects and leads, even when the evidence screamed intruder), and the same department that hired Linda Arndt, the first responding officer who believed the Ramseys were guilty even before entering the house or knowing any of the facts. That speaks volumes.

JonBenet was apparently sexually assaulted, strangled with a garrote and struck with a blunt object. This did not occur at the hands of her nine-year-old brother. This did not occur from her mother who had recently beat back death herself. This did not occur from her father who had already lost a daughter at a young age. Yes, Burke is weird. Yes, John and Patsy were probably snooty rich people that were ignorant of how things would be perceived by the average citizen. But they're not murderers. I don't know how much plainer it can be stated.

If we find ourselves questioning the DNA evidence under the notion that it was the factory worker who made the panties, that puts us in a position where we then are questioning the DNA results of every single case where DNA has convicted someone, and that's a pretty scary place.

My theory is this: A pedophile saw her in the pageants, got into the house with the intention of kidnapping her and taking her elsewhere to sexually assault, wasn't able to get her out of the house and felt forced to do it there, and when JonBenet screamed, he felt he had to kill her. The ransom letter was an attempt to throw suspicion elsewhere since pedophiles don't fare too well in prison and he was worried what would happen if he was caught. But it was probably unncessary as a lot of people believed the Ramseys did it.

Fine, if you think some random pedophile broke into their house and wrote a ransom note in Patsy Ramsey's handwriting with the exact amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus then why don't you explain to us how the murderer knew what some stranger's Christmas bonus was. And you can do that by revealing to us what every poster on this thread received as a Christmas bonus.

Don't forget the pineapple, which was found in JonBenet's stomach, which Patsy denied all knowledge of, and which had Patsy and Burke's fingerprints on the container. Not a smoking gun, but it needs to be explained.


I agree with most of what you said, but given that the pineapple container and bowl belonged to the Ramseys, it’s not unheard of that Patsy and Burke’s fingerprints might be on it. Fingerprints can last for decades.

Burke Ramsey settled his suit with CBS. As usual, no details. I hope he got nothing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jonbenet-lawsuit-settlement/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-settles-lawsuit-with-cbs-attorney-idUSKCN1OY1XP

Burke Ramsey settled his suit with CBS. As usual, no details. I hope he got nothing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jonbenet-lawsuit-settlement/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-settles-lawsuit-with-cbs-attorney-idUSKCN1OY1XP
I think he deserves compensation for the slander he has suffered.

I hope he got a good fat pay out.

That special was a hatchet job trying to launch careers at the expense of real people.

I hope he got a good fat pay out.

That special was a hatchet job trying to launch careers at the expense of real people.


I think he deserves nothing because I think he did it. I've long thought that he did it. It's the only logical conclusion under the circumstances.

Thinking someone did something is not enough to go on national television and convict someone. CBS screwed up, they screwed up huge. Their legal department should have been raising a big fat alarm over this whole affair.

There's a difference between what shows like Unsolved Mysteries did and what CBS did with this special. UM presented scenarios as potentials, with outs built in to suggest it could be something else. They never gathered a bunch of people in a room, like a jury, and proclaimed by the end of an episode "we will know" who killed someone purely by their conjecture.

Thinking someone did something is not enough to go on national television and convict someone. CBS screwed up, they screwed up huge. Their legal department should have been raising a big fat alarm over this whole affair.

There's a difference between what shows like Unsolved Mysteries did and what CBS did with this special. UM presented scenarios as potentials, with outs built in to suggest it could be something else. They never gathered a bunch of people in a room, like a jury, and proclaimed by the end of an episode "we will know" who killed someone purely by their conjecture.
Yes and I seem to remember a similar people's jury convened on Oprah(or was it Donahue) which convicted the Ramsey parents, as if they hadn't already endured enough.

Didn't some creepy looking weirdo falsely "confess" to killing her some years back?

What the hell was up with that! :confused:

Didn't some creepy looking weirdo falsely "confess" to killing her some years back?

What the hell was up with that! :confused:

Yes, he was a fantasist, last I heard he has become a woman.

John Mark Karr, a 41-year-old elementary school teacher, was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 15, 2006 when he falsely confessed to murdering JonBenét.[76] He claimed that he had drugged, sexually assaulted, and accidentally killed her.[77] According to CNN, "Authorities also said they did not find any evidence linking [Karr] to the crime scene."[78][79] He had provided only basic facts that were publicly known and failed to provide any convincing details. His claim that he had drugged JonBenét was doubted because the autopsy indicated that no drugs were found in her body.[80] DNA samples that were taken from Karr did not match DNA found on JonBenét's body.[79][81][82][n]

https://www.romper.com/p/where-is-john-mark-karr-now-jonbenet-ramseys-confessed-killer-has-interesting-story-17013

Thinking someone did something is not enough to go on national television and convict someone. CBS screwed up, they screwed up huge. Their legal department should have been raising a big fat alarm over this whole affair.

There's a difference between what shows like Unsolved Mysteries did and what CBS did with this special. UM presented scenarios as potentials, with outs built in to suggest it could be something else. They never gathered a bunch of people in a room, like a jury, and proclaimed by the end of an episode "we will know" who killed someone purely by their conjecture.

The curse of modern television & the search for massive ratings-they know any show on her case will do huge numbers & something like this the figures will be through the roof-did legal even get to see the final edit? Did they come under huge pressure from the very top of the network to green light it?

Burke accidentally killed JonBenet, Patsy helped cover it up. (John possibly picked her up to purposely contaminate or make things complicated) Patsy probably wrote the note herself.

The book I got contains the entire ransom note

Agreed, and the "stranger DNA" was either a coincidence of incredible luck for the Ramseys, or, more likely, John picked it up during the time he left the house and planted it there. The footprints were either made by the cops or by workmen in the house at sometime in the past. No intruders!

Hopefully with all the DNA being entered in databases now, one of the three "strangers" or a relative will enter theirs at some point and it can be established what restroom John Ramsey may have swiped the DNA from.

And check this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/brother-of-jonbenét-ramsey-reaches-settlement-with-cbs/ar-BBRONPK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Burke Ramsey has on the same creepy-ass smile at his mother's funeral as he did through the entire three-part Dr. Phil special and in the two interviews following his sister's murder, one done just days later when, had an intruder been in the house, he should have been fearing for his own life! If he ever had a conscience, he lost it for his own convenience after killing his sister, possibly a case of arrested development as sometimes happens in such events, where the person is frozen in time at the moment of the tragedy.* He was probably abnormal even at nine and if not, became that way.

Look at the difference in the way Burke looked and spoke when Dr. Phil asked him what he thought about his sister being gone, and Jacob Wetterling's brother, who was about the same age as Burke when Jacob was taken, who was sobbing while speaking of him years later while he was still missing. Burke is clearly creepy and guilty as hell!

*Can't find the story now, but a girl of about twelve and her fourteen-year-old brother left the house one Thanksgiving because the parents were fighting. They went to an abandoned school to hang out. The boy had given the girl $20, she spent $4 and returned $16 change. At the school, she asked for another $20. When her brother said no, she pushed him, he pushed back harder and she fell, striking the back of her head on a piece of metal sticking up from the floor or ground. He buried her in the debris and lied saying he did not know where she went. After twenty-three years he confessed, by which time the school was demolished and no trace of the girl could be found. It was said the boy never matured from that day on and was more afraid of his mother's reaction than anything.

And check this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/brother-of-jonbenét-ramsey-reaches-settlement-with-cbs/ar-BBRONPK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Burke Ramsey has on the same creepy-ass smile at his mother's funeral as he did through the entire three-part Dr. Phil special and in the two interviews following his sister's murder, one done just days later when, had an intruder been in the house, he should have been fearing for his own life! If he ever had a conscience, he lost it for his own convenience after killing his sister, possibly a case of arrested development as sometimes happens in such events, where the person is frozen in time at the moment of the tragedy.* He was probably abnormal even at nine and if not, became that way.

Look at the difference in the way Burke looked and spoke when Dr. Phil asked him what he thought about his sister being gone, and Jacob Wetterling's brother, who was about the same age as Burke when Jacob was taken, who was sobbing while speaking of him years later while he was still missing. Burke is clearly creepy and guilty as hell!

*Can't find the story now, but a girl of about twelve and her fourteen-year-old brother left the house one Thanksgiving because the parents were fighting. They went to an abandoned school to hang out. The boy had given the girl $20, she spent $4 and returned $16 change. At the school, she asked for another $20. When her brother said no, she pushed him, he pushed back harder and she fell, striking the back of her head on a piece of metal sticking up from the floor or ground. He buried her in the debris and lied saying he did not know where she went. After twenty-three years he confessed, by which time the school was demolished and no trace of the girl could be found. It was said the boy never matured from that day on and was more afraid of his mother's reaction than anything.


I recently read about this case but can't remember the names. It happened in FL. The kids had been in and out of foster care.

And check this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/brother-of-jonbenét-ramsey-reaches-settlement-with-cbs/ar-BBRONPK?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Burke Ramsey has on the same creepy-ass smile at his mother's funeral as he did through the entire three-part Dr. Phil special and in the two interviews following his sister's murder, one done just days later when, had an intruder been in the house, he should have been fearing for his own life!.

That video interview of him two days after his sister's death has always disturbed me. His behavior resembled nothing of what you'd expect from a child who's family member was just killed by an intruder.

Logically, a child who just experienced that traumatic event would have been scared to death that this same man would come back and kill him too. He'd be stressed, he'd be exausted from lack of sleep. He'd most likely not want to go back to that house. He'd be a complete mess. But in the interview, he's laughing, talking about his favorite video games and playing with his friends at recess. You'd think it was a completely regular day to him.

Whether a kid or adult, he just doesn't come across well in interviews.

Yes, and when picked up by a family friend before the discovery of his sister's body, in the car he talked only of video games. Never asked why he was being taken or where his sister was. Perhaps it was supposed to look as if she was kidnapped and he was being removed for his own safety, but he did not act normal for those circumstances.

There's no such thing as normal.

That video interview of him two days after his sister's death has always disturbed me. His behavior resembled nothing of what you'd expect from a child who's family member was just killed by an intruder.

Logically, a child who just experienced that traumatic event would have been scared to death that this same man would come back and kill him too. He'd be stressed, he'd be exausted from lack of sleep. He'd most likely not want to go back to that house. He'd be a complete mess. But in the interview, he's laughing, talking about his favorite video games and playing with his friends at recess. You'd think it was a completely regular day to him.

Whether a kid or adult, he just doesn't come across well in interviews.


In that first interview - which his parents tried to prevent - he also said something to the effect of that he knew what happened to Jonbenet but wasn't allowed to say.

I'll never, ever believe that it wasn't an inside job. That kid is obviously mentally deranged. Because of how odd that family was/is, I doubt it will ever be solved and personally don't give much thought about it anymore when it's brought up. Completely bungled investigation, the media sensationalizing every aspect and the family acting so strange that they make Blair Adams seem sane.

Honestly I think the majority opinion is that Burke had something to do with it and Patsy covered it up.

Sounds like there has been another confession...police aren't really buying it though.

https://patch.com/colorado/boulder/boulder-police-show-little-interest-alleged-ramsey-confession?utm_source=oath&utm_medium=rss&utm_term=police%20&%20fire&utm_campaign=recirc&utm_content=oath&yptr=yahoo

Honestly I think the majority opinion is that Burke had something to do with it and Patsy covered it up.

I lean more towards this theory, but I really wish discussions on this case focused less on Burke being weird and more on solid evidence. As someone on the Autism Spectrum, I know I have pisspoor social skills and don’t always come across well to people, especially when I’m anxious or nervous. Yeah, someone acting all skittish might be proof that they did it, but it could also prove that they suffer from chronic anxiety, which probably isn’t helped by some cop accusing them of doing something they didn’t do.

What convinces me to lean more towards Burke, is more tangible evidence. I heard somewhere that JonBenet had drag marks on the back of her heels. Now JonBenet was six at the time of her death and probably barely weighed anything. A grown adult probably wouldn’t have too much trouble carrying her body away, but a nine-year-old boy who probably barely had fifteen pounds on his sister, would have a much harder time. Hence the drag marks.

I lean more towards this theory, but I really wish discussions on this case focused less on Burke being weird and more on solid evidence. As someone on the Autism Spectrum, I know I have pisspoor social skills and don’t always come across well to people, especially when I’m anxious or nervous. Yeah, someone acting all skittish might be proof that they did it, but it could also prove that they suffer from chronic anxiety, which probably isn’t helped by some cop accusing them of doing something they didn’t do.

What convinces me to lean more towards Burke, is more tangible evidence. I heard somewhere that JonBenet had drag marks on the back of her heels. Now JonBenet was six at the time of her death and probably barely weighed anything. A grown adult probably wouldn’t have too much trouble carrying her body away, but a nine-year-old boy who probably barely had fifteen pounds on his sister, would have a much harder time. Hence the drag marks.

Bingo -- great points, SPD Yellow! Just because Burke was "weird" (especially if he is on the spectrum) doesn't make him guilty.

There IS plenty of evidence that what happened started and ended in that house, with the ransom note being the biggest piece of evidence. To me, the biggest clue that gets not enough discussion is the pineapple. That implies that JB was up again that night and that Burke was likely with her.

For years it bugged me about the garrote because it is so complex. But if you were Patsy and realized your son had killed your daughter and in a panic you though you would lose him too, it almost makes sense. Do whatever you can to throw blame to a crazy killer: write a ransom note, make a garrote, etc. that makes it look like only a depraved mind could have done that.

I do think it's unfair to say Burke looked guilty based on how he behaved in the interview. His sister was just killed and I don't know how any kid could process that well. But looking at the evidence, I think the likelihood that Burke was somehow involved is fairly high.

Joe Kenda, who happens to hold a national record for the highest percentage of solved homicide cases (92% of 387 and actually knows who did most of the other remaining ones, just had a lack of evidence) was approached after he retired to take the case on. He laughed at them, said "The Ramsey family put the 'fun' in dysfunctional, and LE has screwed it all up so bad that no one will ever pay for that crime." He has also hinted at an inside scenario. When the most prolific homicide man in the country says it's unsolvable without a full confession from someone than I'd take it to the bank. BTW the cruise I went on that he hosted was surreal.