JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[cabanafrau]

I'm referring to the interview they showed on dateline the other night. He was 11 at the time of the interview.

Never seen it, back then or now. IMO, even if his family are as innocent as newborn babes, I can understand why a kid with his baggage, doing an interview, might have good reason to seem weird for reasons that don't point to his having killed his sister.

 

[cabanafrau]

Good questions but why a 3 page ransom note on the day of the murder, especially if they'd been "casing the joint" for a few months?

Maybe they had been waiting for their moment and decided the Christmas chaos was a good opportunity. Gotta admit, if that were the case "casing the joint" appears to have paid off since they've never been caught -- although they did wind up with a dead kid and no ransom paid.

 

[sunshinehighway]

If anybody wants to really delve deep into some info, you should check out Websleuths , Forums For Justice and A Candy Rose. Hours and hours of reading material.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?23-JonBenet-Ramsey
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-Justice-for-JonBenet-Discussion-Public-Forum
http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm

These forums are being run and contributed to by people who have been following this case from the beginning. Very interesting.

Thanks for the links.
Reading there I do find a lot of people seem to be caught going down rabbit holes. Focusing on little details which really lead nowhere but just confuse the details. It does seem like people have taken opinions and turned them into facts as the years have gone on.
There are many questionable things about the whole case but those things might not have answers or might not have answers that really lead anywhere. People seem to focus on them though, like they are some kind of proof of a cover-up or indication of guilt.

 

[LisaR]

I think he's a really weird kid. His interview was completely off to me. I could definitely see that happening. Sociopath maybe. To him it could've been no big deal.

I followed the case long ago, but haven't thought about it in a long time. Is there any evidence that Burke had some issues? Did he harm animals, get thrown out of school, caught with his pants down, didn't have any friends in school, picked on the girls, harmed his sister in the past, etc. Anything? The Sandy Hook killer (won't use his name) had a history of some weird behavior. Did Burke? I can't imagine determining that a kid committed murder based on how he responded in one interview when he was 11. His parents were suspects, he was a suspect, there were absolutely whispers going around that, even at 11, he was very much aware of. I think I would be even more concerned if he came off as perfectly normal in that interview. At the age of nine his sister was murdered and three years later it hadn't been solved and his entire family was a suspect including himself. Oh, and he had already dealt with his mom battling cancer and losing his step sister. Eleven year old boys are at a pretty weird stage of life to begin with and it seems like he would definitely have reason to be on the weird side given the serious of horrific events that had already happened in his short life.

 

[lovin'fl]

I don't know about that, but I find it hard to believe that there haven't been reports of any issues with him if he were indeed a sociopath. I presume he grew up with his parents under his real name and people knew who he was, knew there were rumors and speculation. I find it hard to credit that he managed to dodge official suspicion (legal) at age nine, grew up and in all these years shown no tendencies publicly.

There were some reports of some issues. But not sure if it's proven fact or not...I'd have to go back on websleuths and look into it. But I read about odd behaviors and maybe even getting therapy. Ther was a strange story about a box of chocolates found in JBR room with his feces on it. Having trouble with Disboards...wonky freeeezing. Anyone else having

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

If you read the analysis of John Douglas on the case (ex-FBI Profiler) he believes the $118,000 amount actually points the suspicion away from either John or Patsy.

These are wealthy people and that particular amount really doesn't scale to what they would imagine a ransom should be. They were getting ready to hop on a Private Plane to fly to their vacation home kind of wealth. He thinks they would have likely chose an amount in the millions rather than the salary bonus amount. From the amount and some of the verbiage in the ransom letter - I think there were some movie references?? he profiled a male likely in their late teens or 20's I believe who had been in the house and seen a paystub or had other means to know the bonus amount. In other words, somebody much more likely to think $118,000 is a large amount.

I respect and admire John Douglas. He has an impressive background and a bright mind. Nonetheless, John Ramsey (or his attorneys) hired him to find the "real" killer. John Douglas worked for John Ramsey. That puts Douglas' book into the category of "Biased."

 

[Kitty 34]

There were some reports of some issues. But not sure if it's proven fact or not...I'd have to go back on websleuths and look into it. But I read about odd behaviors and maybe even getting therapy. Ther was a strange story about a box of chocolates found in JBR room with his feces on it. Having trouble with Disboards...wonky freeeezing. Anyone else having

YES, I am!!!!!

 

[cabanafrau]

There were some reports of some issues. But not sure if it's proven fact or not...I'd have to go back on websleuths and look into it. But I read about odd behaviors and maybe even getting therapy. Ther was a strange story about a box of chocolates found in JBR room with his feces on it. Having trouble with Disboards...wonky freeeezing. Anyone else having

Well if there's some reports and you've read about odd behaviors and that he got therapy, that clinches it, no need to even consider whether it's factual at all.

I can see where the loss of a sibling might cause someone to need therapy, simply to cope. Nevermind your parents are also probably in rough shape emotionally, your mom has already had cancer and battles it again, the media and whispering public keep discussing your sister's death and speculating that you or your parents are likely or potentially responsible -- or even if at the age of nine you woke up to find that the bogeyman came into your home & killed your sister. Nah, only a ninny would need therapy to handle that, buttercup needs to buck up.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I followed the case long ago, but haven't thought about it in a long time. Is there any evidence that Burke had some issues? Did he harm animals, get thrown out of school, caught with his pants down, didn't have any friends in school, picked on the girls, harmed his sister in the past, etc. Anything? The Sandy Hook killer (won't use his name) had a history of some weird behavior. Did Burke? I can't imagine determining that a kid committed murder based on how he responded in one interview when he was 11. His parents were suspects, he was a suspect, there were absolutely whispers going around that, even at 11, he was very much aware of. I think I would be even more concerned if he came off as perfectly normal in that interview. At the age of nine his sister was murdered and three years later it hadn't been solved and his entire family was a suspect including himself. Oh, and he had already dealt with his mom battling cancer and losing his step sister. Eleven year old boys are at a pretty weird stage of life to begin with and it seems like he would definitely have reason to be on the weird side given the serious of horrific events that had already happened in his short life.

Beyond whispers, read some of those websites link earlier. It's pretty much a common theory among people that follow the case that he killed her. Imagine that being your life. At nine years old, your older half sister had already died suddenly, your mother had battled cancer, your little sister had been murdered and it was one of the most infamous cases in recent history, your parents were widely suspected of killing her, you were too.. Yeah that might make your interview somewhat awkward. Reading thing, theories about it all it seems people forget these are real people and have things they are going through in their lives. It's easy to forget that and analyse each action individually but that isn't really fair.

 

[Hikergirl]

What are the reasons the brother was a suspect at 9? Were there actual reported issues, or are people just assuming there was something off about him after the fact?

I don't know if I believe the parents are guilty. If they are they are the luckiest criminals to have ever committed a crime. Well except maybe for OJ. They have been the main suspects for years, to the point where they were the sole focus of the investigation and despite that there is zero conclusive evidence of them having something to do with their daughter's murder in their own home.

 

[goofy !]

Were they the only owners the home had ever had? Is it possible the latch predates their residency and they simply never bothered to remove it?

Some things can seem sinister and have a perfectly plausible and benign explanation having no bearing or relation on a crime.

The house is a beautiful old mansion built in 1927.

 

[RitaE]

What are the reasons the brother was a suspect at 9? Were there actual reported issues, or are people just assuming there was something off about him after the fact?

I don't know if I believe the parents are guilty. If they are they are the luckiest criminals to have ever committed a crime. Well except maybe for OJ. They have been the main suspects for years, to the point where they were the sole focus of the investigation and despite that there is zero conclusive evidence of them having something to do with their daughter's murder in their own home.

In the absence of any sort of reliable evidence, people make their own story.

And that pretty much is the case for or against any of the theories.

The crime scene was decimated almost from the first minute and the investigation went downhill from there with the Police, District Attorney, and various Lawyers and Public Relations (yes, there were PR firms hired) blaming and mudslinging and everybody trying to protect their own butts. The Ramseys, especially Mrs Ramsey, were weird people by most standards. The child pageant thing caught most people as just Normal People Don't Do This, So What Else Was Going On?

But being weird doesn't make somebody a murderer.

Frankly for years if somebody would have wanted me to cast a vote, I would have said Mr Ramsey and probably his wife as my second place. After I read several books and reports I became less convinced and I now find the Intruder scenario more likely. I tend to think that somebody became fixated on the little girl via the pageant circuit and stalked and murdered her. It wouldn't surprise me to find out I was right or wrong on that however because I'm making my best guess. I'm probably still biased just because of my intense dislike of those pageant photos and film of her "performances."

 

[mi*vida*loca]

So I went and watched the entire dateline episode without doing chores, coming in and out of the room and kids bothering me. My new opinion is an intruder did it. We are allowed to change our minds right? I don't think they'll ever find the killer though.

 

[Hikergirl]

So I went and watched the entire dateline episode without doing chores, coming in and out of the room and kids bothering me. My new opinion is an intruder did it. We are allowed to change our minds right? I don't think they'll ever find the killer though.

Just finishing up watching the A&E special right now and I agree. I didn't really follow the case at the time but knew the parents were always considered guilty in the eyes of the public. Watching that really opened my eyes.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

Just finishing up watching the A&E special right now and I agree. I didn't really follow the case at the time but knew the parents were always considered guilty in the eyes of the public. Watching that really opened my eyes.

I had no idea she was so brutally murdered. Very heartbreaking.

 

[rigs32]

I'm a couple pages late, but I wanted to give a real life example of how DNA actually works in a criminal investigation.

Imagine a man wearing a sweater, gloves, and a ski mask. He fires a gun, police see him, he runs. He's caught about 4 minutes later having removed the mask, gloves, and sweater. We don't know how long he's worn the sweater or how long he had the gloves and mask on.

There is DNA on the gun, gloves, mask, and sweater.

The gun DNA is a mixture of three contributors and can't be used to rule anyone in or out as the source. Usable/matchable DNA is found on a firearm *maybe* 10% of the time. Fingerprints? 2-3% of the time.

Same is true for the glove and mask, but this time it's a mixture of at least four contributes and cannot be used to rule anyone in or out.

There IS matchable DNA on the sweater. Why? Probably because he wore that the longest and it was rubbing on his neck/wrists for long enough to transfer enough skin cells. Even so, it's still part of a mixture, but he's the major contributor, so the forensic biologist can say his DNA is on the sweater (well, technically he can say the chances of the DNA belonging to another person who is not an identical twin is 1 in 907 quintillion).

Even after having that explained, a jury will often still think CSI is how things really work. It's tough.

 

[adisneyaunt]

My Opinion is that it was someone who had been in that home before, some type of worker/contractor/helper maybe even a vagrant from the area. What I saw on recent tv ...was the horrific brutality, the insistent focus on the parents and the subsequent he said /she said between the DA, police, etc. the egos seemed to take over ( people quit/retired etc) and that little girls death took a back seat to all that. It looked like they tried to " fit" evidence to a narrative versus following the evidence, or lack thereof.
They said on latest tv they have DNA evidence that was found on two different parts of clothing that does NOT match any family. Science gets better all the time.
I pray that Someday they get a "hit" on that DNA And ultimately resolve the case. Such a tragedy.
The family deserves Peace and closure. RIP

 

[RainbowBrite]

Plus, why do we assume the letter was written in the house after the murder? Maybe the killer wrote it ahead of time and had every intention of kidnapping the girl, but it didn't go as plan and she died. He could have left the note on purpose or dropped it -- I mean, it was left on the floor . . .

.

Because the killer DID write it in the house. It was written on John and Patsy's pad of paper (the indentation from the letter was still on the pad) and they'd even left a few lines of a practice note still on the pad. The pad and pen were both neatly put back where they were supposed to be. The note was left neatly at the bottom of the stairs Patsy would come down every morning, exactly where she would find it.

 

[JPPT1974]

Really you would think that DNA would solve the case. But still as they say, money does talk. And that they were very wealthy!

 

[RainbowBrite]

Really you would think that DNA would solve the case. But still as they say, money does talk. And that they were very wealthy!

DNA can only solve the case if it can be matched to somebody and so far it hasn't been.