Who killed Jonbenet Ramsey: CBS & Dr. Phil Specials

[Fadingpain]

Did anyone watch the recent CBS 2 part special investigating the crime, or the Dr. Phil series of shows in which he interviewed the older brother Burke?

 

Curious as to other opinions on what happened.

 

 

[JohnC]

Did anyone watch the recent CBS 2 part special investigating the crime, or the Dr. Phil series of shows in which he interviewed the older brother Burke?

 

Curious as to other opinions on what happened.

 

 

I saw part of the story on A&E. My impression is that no one in the family was involved in the murder. What stuck out to me is that the detectives quickly came to a theory and then stuck to it even when the evidence indicated that it was problematic.

 

What I found very disturbing is that the police department and the prosecuting attorney's office were in constant conflict and spent more time and effort battling one another instead of attempting to resolve their differences. Clearly these two hostile units created an environment not conducive for a positive working environment to solve the case. The overall lack of professionalism in this case was stark. Especially the police. they seemed to be responding more to the public pressure of the case than objectively scrutinizing the evidence.

 

From the parts that I watched it seemed that every time an outside authority (some of the best forensic experts in the world) reviewed the evidence they determined that the theory that the homicide division was promoting was wrong.

 

A crime was committed with the murder of the little girl. And another crime was committed to the Ramsey family members by the way they were treated.

Edited September 24, 2016 by JohnC

[Fadingpain]

That's an interesting take you have there, JohnC.

 

My interpretation, especially in light of the new TV shows, is 180 degrees the opposite.

 

Some of that A&E information is now a bit dated.

 

I think there is a strong case to suggest that Burke hit his sister in the head with a Mag-Lite flashlight or similar blunt object and killed her. I highly doubt he had the intent to kill. I'm sure he was just acting out in rage.

 

The parents discovered this and then covered the whole thing up with the ransom note, etc...then went into a strong legal defense shell at times hampering investigation.

 

One thing is for sure: the crime was very poorly investigated, it was filled with conflict and politics as you say, and unfortunately this is the sort of thing that can happen when you have a homicide in a town where that is rare and law enforcement doesn't really know how to handle the situation.

 

You can watch both parts of the CBS show at CBS.com. The Dr. Phil stuff is on youtube.

 

I recommend it as I thought it shed some interesting new light on the case, and I had previously seen just about everything that had been done, as for some reason I was always fascinated with the story.

 

The newly released video of a psychologist talking with Burke a few days after the death of Jonbenet is particularly probing, in that it clearly shows a child who is intelligent, uncomfortable discussing certain aspects of Jonbenet's death, and one who shows zero remorse or sense of loss for his sister.

[Marv's Neighbor]

Where was OJ??

[JohnC]

That's an interesting take you have there, JohnC.

 

My interpretation, especially in light of the new TV shows, is 180 degrees the opposite.

 

Some of that A&E information is now a bit dated.

 

I think there is a strong case to suggest that Burke hit his sister in the head with a Mag-Lite flashlight or similar blunt object and killed her. I highly doubt he had the intent to kill. I'm sure he was just acting out in rage.

 

The parents discovered this and then covered the whole thing up with the ransom note, etc...then went into a strong legal defense shell at times hampering investigation.

 

One thing is for sure: the crime was very poorly investigated, it was filled with conflict and politics as you say, and unfortunately this is the sort of thing that can happen when you have a homicide in a town where that is rare and law enforcement doesn't really know how to handle the situation.

 

You can watch both parts of the CBS show at CBS.com. The Dr. Phil stuff is on youtube.

 

I recommend it as I thought it shed some interesting new light on the case, and I had previously seen just about everything that had been done, as for some reason I was always fascinated with the story.

 

The newly released video of a psychologist talking with Burke a few days after the death of Jonbenet is particularly probing, in that it clearly shows a child who is intelligent, uncomfortable discussing certain aspects of Jonbenet's death, and one who shows zero remorse or sense of loss for his sister.

In reference to the highlighted area the brother was not a typical child. I suspect that he is on the autistic spectrum, maybe in the asperger category. He is highly intelligent and works from home because his interpersonal skills are inadequate to be comfortable around a workplace setting. He reminds me of the Sheldon Cooper character in the Big Bang Theory Show on TV. A brilliant individual who is lacking on the interpersonal and emotional side of living. As I stated in my first post the detective who had no experience interviewing children thought there were suspicions surrounding him. However, child psychologists who separately interviewed the brother found no issues with him and the family situation. On this point I would lean toward the experts over the police authorities.

 

I have a very different take on the parents taking a tough legal stance in order to protect themselves. From the beginning the authorities focused on the family which is not unusual in this type of case. But it was apparent right from the beginning that the police developed a theory on this case and were relentless in proving their theory without much room for alternative interpretations. That was the source of the conflict between the police and the prosecutor's office. The parents with separate attorneys not only protected their rights and interests but also the family's interest. The family had enough resources and sophistication to not allow themselves to be steamrolled by the zealous police department that had a lot of public pressure on them to solve this sensational case.

 

You brought up the point that one theory is that the parents staged the scene after the fact to cover up the killing by the brother. I have problems with the ability of desperate and traumatized parents to stage the scene without any contradictions to the scene to the point that it befuddles a police department. For me that is a tough sell.

 

Again, according to the A&E segment that I watched world renowned forensic experts examined the evidence and gave scathing responses to what they thought of the police's interpretation of the evidence.

 

This is still an open case. And it should be.

[Fadingpain]

In reference to the highlighted area the brother was not a typical child. I suspect that he is on the autistic spectrum, maybe in the asperger category. He is highly intelligent and works from home because his interpersonal skills are inadequate to be comfortable around a workplace setting. He reminds me of the Sheldon Cooper character in the Big Bang Theory Show on TV. A brilliant individual who is lacking on the interpersonal and emotional side of living. As I stated in my first post the detective who had no experience interviewing children thought there were suspicions surrounding him. However, child psychologists who separately interviewed the brother found no issues with him and the family situation. On this point I would lean toward the experts over the police authorities.

 

I have a very different take on the parents taking a tough legal stance in order to protect themselves. From the beginning the authorities focused on the family which is not unusual in this type of case. But it was apparent right from the beginning that the police developed a theory on this case and were relentless in proving their theory without much room for alternative interpretations. That was the source of the conflict between the police and the prosecutor's office. The parents with separate attorneys not only protected their rights and interests but also the family's interest. The family had enough resources and sophistication to not allow themselves to be steamrolled by the zealous police department that had a lot of public pressure on them to solve this sensational case.

 

You brought up the point that one theory is that the parents staged the scene after the fact to cover up the killing by the brother. I have problems with the ability of desperate and traumatized parents to stage the scene without any contradictions to the scene to the point that it befuddles a police department. For me that is a tough sell.

 

Again, according to the A&E segment that I watched world renowned forensic experts examined the evidence and gave scathing responses to what they thought of the police's interpretation of the evidence.

 

This is still an open case. And it should be.

Watch the Dr. Phil interview with Burke.

 

He is somewhat shy/socially awkward but is not exactly dysfunctional with some type of severe Autism spectrum disability. He did not come across as a person who must work at home but rather chose to work at home, as millions do these days.

 

Regarding the parents' ability to stage the crime scene without making mistakes...it was filled with "mistakes" and "tells" that were neatly dissected by the pros hired to do so in the CBS piece. One was ex FBI and one ex Scotland Yard/FBI.

 

As an example, the ransom note was written with a pen from the family kitchen on the family kitchen notepad. There were a couple fought drafts written as well. The note is way too long and well written to be from a kidnapper/criminal...

 

The experts on the show needed something like 17 minutes (?) to simply mechanically write out the note, just copying the original. It would have taken much longer to compose the original with original thought.

 

The 9/11 call was immediately called out as strange and an anomaly by the woman who answered it (previously never interviewed by anyone!) as well as the investigators. Too short, and Patsy ended the call while the 911 operator tried to get her attention to keep her on the phone. In these situations apparently the caller almost always wants to stay on the line until the authorities arrive at the house, as the 911 operator is seen as the "lifeline to resolution"...but Patsy hung up on the operator, thinking her work was done.

 

Lou Smit's "outsider intruder" theory was effectively debunked as well. They fairly convincingly established that a taser would not produce the marks found on Jonbenet's body, it would not have incapacitated her as hypothesized by Smit, and the distance between the marks did not mach any known taser. Jonbenet's dead body was poked by Burke (speculation) to see if she would move or was alive with his "O" gauge railroad track, which was all over the house, he played with it all the time, and the track perfectly matches the wounds. This was after he hit her in the head with the flashlight standing on the kitchen counter that evening/morning and which perfectly matches the wound on her thin, fragile, 6 year old skull.

 

Honestly, accepting that Burke did it solves most of the mysteries surrounding the case, at least for me.

 

It clarifies and simplifies; it does not confuse or complicate.

[JohnC]

Watch the Dr. Phil interview with Burke.

 

He is somewhat shy/socially awkward but is not exactly dysfunctional with some type of severe Autism spectrum disability. He did not come across as a person who must work at home but rather chose to work at home, as millions do these days.

 

Regarding the parents' ability to stage the crime scene without making mistakes...it was filled with "mistakes" and "tells" that were neatly dissected by the pros hired to do so in the CBS piece. One was ex FBI and one ex Scotland Yard/FBI.

 

As an example, the ransom note was written with a pen from the family kitchen on the family kitchen notepad. There were a couple fought drafts written as well. The note is way too long and well written to be from a kidnapper/criminal...

 

The experts on the show needed something like 17 minutes (?) to simply mechanically write out the note, just copying the original. It would have taken much longer to compose the original with original thought.

 

The 9/11 call was immediately called out as strange and an anomaly by the woman who answered it (previously never interviewed by anyone!) as well as the investigators. Too short, and Patsy ended the call while the 911 operator tried to get her attention to keep her on the phone. In these situations apparently the caller almost always wants to stay on the line until the authorities arrive at the house, as the 911 operator is seen as the "lifeline to resolution"...but Patsy hung up on the operator, thinking her work was done.

 

Lou Smit's "outsider intruder" theory was effectively debunked as well. They fairly convincingly established that a taser would not produce the marks found on Jonbenet's body, it would not have incapacitated her as hypothesized by Smit, and the distance between the marks did not mach any known taser. Jonbenet's dead body was poked by Burke (speculation) to see if she would move or was alive with his "O" gauge railroad track, which was all over the house, he played with it all the time, and the track perfectly matches the wounds. This was after he hit her in the head with the flashlight standing on the kitchen counter that evening/morning and which perfectly matches the wound on her thin, fragile, 6 year old skull.

 

Honestly, accepting that Burke did it solves most of the mysteries surrounding the case, at least for me.

 

It clarifies and simplifies; it does not confuse or complicate.

Clearly you closely followed this case more than I did. I watched only a segment on A&E yesterday so you are better schooled on the details. On the segment that I watched the experts debunked the train track theory and favored the taser theory. The segment that I saw had the experts state that the width of the probes on the tracks did not correspond to the marks on the victim's face.

 

As it stands the prosecutor's office felt that the evidence was not solid enough to rise to the level of a probable cause arrest and then rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt if taken to court. As it stands for me I can not say for sure what happened and who committed the crime. Sure there are suspicions but the evidence wasn't solid enough to bring the case to trial.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I saw most of the CBS special and thought it was interesting, but just driving toward a predetermined conclusion.

 

I never really followed this case much when it happened (the whole child pageant thing creeped me out), so I found it to be interesting.

[Doc]

I knew back in 1996 that, at the very least, someone in the family was covering for the murderer by the mere fact that the ransom note asked for a peculiar amount of money, $118,000, which just happened to be the amount John Ramsey had received as a bonus. There's no way anyone outside of John or Patsy Ramsey, or someone at John's work, could have known that amount. And odds are that if it had been someone at work, they'd have turned him/her in.

 

Now, I thought one of the parents did it, but after hearing the theory about Burke, I now believe it was him. And I think that the Ramsey's did everything they could to get it covered up.

[KD in CA]

Parents clearly covered up something, the brother theory makes the most sense.

[Gugny]

I knew back in 1996 that, at the very least, someone in the family was covering for the murderer by the mere fact that the ransom note asked for a peculiar amount of money, $118,000, which just happened to be the amount John Ramsey had received as a bonus. There's no way anyone outside of John or Patsy Ramsey, or someone at John's work, could have known that amount. And odds are that if it had been someone at work, they'd have turned him/her in.

 

Now, I thought one of the parents did it, but after hearing the theory about Burke, I now believe it was him. And I think that the Ramsey's did everything they could to get it covered up.

 

This is exactly how I have felt/still feel about this case.

[/dev/null]

CBS and A&E made their cases. Now we just need the History© channel to weigh in and tell us why it was Aliens

[Beef Jerky]

So old anymore, bunch of new problems we need to focus on.

[Captain Caveman]

I'm generally sucked in by true crime stuff, and after seeing this thread went over to try and watch the CBS thing. It's terrible, and terribly obvious that they had some pre-conceived notions that they were trying to prove. I am an audio engineer and the conclusions they were drawing from the "noise reduction" were dubious at best.

 

I dropped it about 20 minutes in, would not trust anything found in their "investigation."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

CBS and A&E made their cases. Now we just need the History© channel to weigh in and tell us why it was Aliens

[Mike in Horseheads]

The 20/20 show on the case uncovered that the grand jury found cause and bought it to the DA and he refused to take the case, The kid did it probably accidental

[KD in CA]

I'm generally sucked in by true crime stuff, and after seeing this thread went over to try and watch the CBS thing. It's terrible, and terribly obvious that they had some pre-conceived notions that they were trying to prove. I am an audio engineer and the conclusions they were drawing from the "noise reduction" were dubious at best.

 

I dropped it about 20 minutes in, would not trust anything found in their "investigation."

 

Yup, pretty much the same thing that turned me sour on the Making a Murderer show half way through.

[Fadingpain]

I'm generally sucked in by true crime stuff, and after seeing this thread went over to try and watch the CBS thing. It's terrible, and terribly obvious that they had some pre-conceived notions that they were trying to prove. I am an audio engineer and the conclusions they were drawing from the "noise reduction" were dubious at best.

 

I dropped it about 20 minutes in, would not trust anything found in their "investigation."

You should continue to watch it. I agree that the audio interpretations were far fetched, which is why I didn't reference them up-thread. Even if you completely throw the 911 phone call out (for purposes of the background noise) there is a ton of good, new evidence in the CBS investigation pointing the finger at Burke.

The 20/20 show on the case uncovered that the grand jury found cause and bought it to the DA and he refused to take the case, The kid did it probably accidental

This was also mentioned in the recent CBS piece.

[NoSaint]

I'm generally sucked in by true crime stuff, and after seeing this thread went over to try and watch the CBS thing. It's terrible, and terribly obvious that they had some pre-conceived notions that they were trying to prove. I am an audio engineer and the conclusions they were drawing from the "noise reduction" were dubious at best.

 

I dropped it about 20 minutes in, would not trust anything found in their "investigation."

the noise reduction stuff felt like i was watching the guys reviewing film on one of those ghost hunting shows.

[Fadingpain]

the noise reduction stuff felt like i was watching the guys reviewing film on one of those ghost hunting shows.

Yes it did!

 

 

Actually the entire production approach of the CBS 2 part special was gimmicky and smacked of bad cable TV.

 

The content was actually pretty good though.