Programming Alert: The Case of JonBenet Ramsey 9/18 & 9/19

[ScaryFog]

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

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

[Awsi Dooger]

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

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

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

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

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

[Awsi Dooger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tsaun]

They will examine the physical evidence tomorrow.

That's exactly what I want to see.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

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

Probably mostly so the Ramseys won't sue them.

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

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

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

[tsaun]

Well maybe it was Burke. Their theory makes sense.

[Todd Mueller]

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

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

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

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

[JannTosh]

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

[tsaun]

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

[Todd Mueller]

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

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

[tsaun]

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

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

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

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

[ScaryFog]

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

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

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

[Awsi Dooger]

Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush

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

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

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

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

These are some areas that troubled me:

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

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

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

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

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

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

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