JonBenet Ramsey: 20 Years Later, Whodunit?

[l2 0 5 5]

So recently there have been a couple specials that have aired focusing on the approaching 20 year anniversary of Ramsey's death.  I admit that I never really paid too much attention to this growing up, mostly because I was too young at the time.  I watched the special on CBS this past Sunday and Monday with close attention.  The show was run by a former FBI agent and former Scotland Yard behavioral analyst. They and a crew of other retired investigators piece together the evidence and info to form their own conclusions as to what happened.  They even use modern technology to decipher the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey during some inaudible moments.  They all come to the conclusion that the murderer was inside the house that night, and not an intruder whom broke in.  I have to agree.

After listening to all the evidence and stories that surrounded the case, I'm leaning more towards the son, Burke, to be the murderer. It was uncovered that he hit his sister with a golf club during their youth, which i find to be telling.  Past events leading to future events, things of that nature... Burke appears to be a pretty introverted cat, and the video of him speaking with child psychologists after the murder are eye-opening.  A mere few days after the murder he speaks with a woman and shows no regards to this sister being killed, no fear of the murderer coming back to his house to hurt him, no sorrow at all.  I know he's only 9 at the time but I'd like to think that I would be quite hurt if my younger brother was killed, and it would show.

I have to think that if the Ramsey parents wake up in the middle of the night and find their 6 year old daughter dead at the hands of her 9 year old brother, I think one of their first conscious thoughts may be to protect their only remaining child and cover up the truth.  If they don't, they then have no children left.   I had no distinct opinion at first, but I'm now lead to believe that Burke accidentally killed JonBenet, and the parents, in their effort to preserve their son's life, covered up the truth.

Thoughts?

[Swordfish]

The fact that it was most likely someone inside the house is hardly something new.  That;s what they've always believed.

Hell, the grand jury recommended an indictment.  It was the prosecuter who decided not to bring charges.

 

 

 

 

[l2 0 5 5]

Yeah I think the DA was the taint of that investigation.  He told the one Boulder detective that there were political reasons for not indicting the Ramseys.  That ransom note is also a crux.  I don't see who would write a letter that long when they were in the midst of abducting a child.  They timed the people on the show as they wrote the letter themselves and it took over 20 minutes to write.  I find an outside person doing that unlikely.

[Swordfish]

Yeah.  THere seems to be very little doubt that it was an inside job.

I have a hard time imagining a 9 year old creating  garrotte, and then standing up to interviews from the cops and psychiatrists though.  I think the more likely candidate is the parents.

But we'll probably never know for sure.

[l2 0 5 5]

They indicated that her skull was cracked by a blunt object, as well.  In the crime scene photos there's a flashlight in the kitchen.  Question is, did the skull crack first or the asphyxiation? A 9 year old could certainly swing a large flashlight hard enough to crack a skull, as they demonstrated on the program. 

[Kelli Fury]

I don't know much about the case and have no opinion, but I guess if it had been the 9 year old I don't know how I could blame them for keeping that secret: I mean, what good can the justice system possibly do a 9 year old kid??

[zelticgar]

Never paid much attention to it but i did catch some of the recent documentaries. Never realized investigators thought she was Tazed prior to being killed. I found that kind of weird. 

I used to immediately blame the family but the Elizabeth Smart case is a good example of a situation where jumping to conclusions is not a good idea. Lots of people assumed that was an inside job as well. 

[Swordfish]

17 hours ago, l2 0 5 5 said:

They indicated that her skull was cracked by a blunt object, as well.  In the crime scene photos there's a flashlight in the kitchen.  Question is, did the skull crack first or the asphyxiation? A 9 year old could certainly swing a large flashlight hard enough to crack a skull, as they demonstrated on the program. 

Certainly they could.  But the fact that someone could swing a flashlight is pretty far from proving that they DID swing the flashlight.

 

 

15 hours ago, Kelli Fury said:

I don't know much about the case and have no opinion, but I guess if it had been the 9 year old I don't know how I could blame them for keeping that secret: 

This is absolutely nuts to me.  If your kid gets killed and you know how it happened, you tell the truth about it.  You don't chew up an enormous amount of public resources chasing a lie.

If he did it and if they covered for him, then they should have been thrown in jail.

 

6 hours ago, zelticgar said:

Never paid much attention to it but i did catch some of the recent documentaries. Never realized investigators thought she was Tazed prior to being killed. I found that kind of weird. 

Some did, some didn't.  It wasn't a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Quote

I used to immediately blame the family but the Elizabeth Smart case is a good example of a situation where jumping to conclusions is not a good idea. Lots of people assumed that was an inside job as well. 

The grand jury recommended charges be filed against the parents based on the evidence presented.  So it's not exactly a case of jumping to a conclusion.

[Arkhangel]

On 21/09/2016 at 9:05 AM, l2 0 5 5 said:

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that 20 years later, can we stop picking over this poor child's bones? This isn't a 'whodunnit' Agatha Christie novel. A more interesting question would be why people take up internet-sleuthing as a pastime, like crossword puzzles except that rather than 'six letters, old name for sail boats' it involves questions like 'did the [6 year old child's] skull crack first or the asphyxiation?' What are the ethics of treating a real, relatively recent murder of a child as though it's entertainment gossip?

[zelticgar]

2 hours ago, Arkhangel said:

My thoughts are that 20 years later, can we stop picking over this poor child's bones? This isn't a 'whodunnit' Agatha Christie novel. A more interesting question would be why people take up internet-sleuthing as a pastime, like crossword puzzles except that rather than 'six letters, old name for sail boats' it involves questions like 'did the [6 year old child's] skull crack first or the asphyxiation?' What are the ethics of treating a real, relatively recent murder of a child as though it's entertainment gossip?

Murder mysteries are interesting. I see murder mystery speculation as much different than entertainment gossip. I don't think it is an indictment on anyone if they are interested in these cases. Humans are naturally curious and this particular case happened right at the beginning of the growth of the cable news network culture. 24 hours worth of coverage requires content. This case captured a pretty lengthy news cycle and is only popping up because of the 20 year anniversary. 

[Elder Sister]

Part of what people find fascinating about it is that this happened in suburbia to a wealthy family.  And it has never been solved.

The Emmys were basically an awards show for a true crime movie about the OJ Simpson case. True crime is interesting to people.

[l2 0 5 5]

10 hours ago, Arkhangel said:

My thoughts are that 20 years later, can we stop picking over this poor child's bones? This isn't a 'whodunnit' Agatha Christie novel. A more interesting question would be why people take up internet-sleuthing as a pastime, like crossword puzzles except that rather than 'six letters, old name for sail boats' it involves questions like 'did the [6 year old child's] skull crack first or the asphyxiation?' What are the ethics of treating a real, relatively recent murder of a child as though it's entertainment gossip?

It's discussion not internet gossip.  I put this thread in the gen chatter section to see what others thought about the murder and case.  If you're not interested you don't have to participate. 

[kairparavel]

@Arkhangel as others have said, murder mysteries are fascinating. 

 

So who killed the princes in the tower? People STILL talk about that, and it's been over 500 years. Are we still picking over their bones? Or The Black Dahlia, or the actor Bob Crane, or on and on..

[Arkhangel]

That's why I said relatively recent (although actually I thought the first thing someone would come back with was Jack the Ripper). When it was hundreds of years ago and everyone involved is dead, I don't see a problem with it. When friends and family of the victim are still around, it seems crass at best and cruel at worst to turn the death of their loved one into pop culture 'murder mystery' for everyone and their dog on the internet to sally forth with their theories about. It doesn't help the police to do their jobs, it's not going to bring justice to anyone, and I'm not sure the fact that the public finds it interesting makes it justifiable. I'm not saying it's some huge terrible awful thing to do, but I think there's a curious lack of empathy there.

[zelticgar]

27 minutes ago, Arkhangel said:

That's why I said relatively recent (although actually I thought the first thing someone would come back with was Jack the Ripper). When it was hundreds of years ago and everyone involved is dead, I don't see a problem with it. When friends and family of the victim are still around, it seems crass at best and cruel at worst to turn the death of their loved one into pop culture 'murder mystery' for everyone and their dog on the internet to sally forth with their theories about. It doesn't help the police to do their jobs, it's not going to bring justice to anyone, and I'm not sure the fact that the public finds it interesting makes it justifiable. I'm not saying it's some huge terrible awful thing to do, but I think there's a curious lack of empathy there.

You may want to do a little homework. Publicity and the work of private citizens absolutely helps the police solve mysteries. There have been hundreds of missing person, runaways, kidnappings and murders solved directly by internet sleuths and indirectly through increased media exposure of cases. 

[Arkhangel]

Let's not conflate police appeals to the public for information during an investigation with turning a child's murder into a sideshow. If you genuinely think TV special No. 853, or whatever it's up to after twenty years, is about furthering the course of justice rather than furthering the TV channel's bank accounts, well, you're a more trusting soul than I.

[PetyrPunkinhead]

I just remember from back in the day believing the mom was very, very suspect.