JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[Pixie Dust ✨]

Was that the officer that said she counted the bullets in her firearm and counted the people in the house to make sure she had enough bullets in case she had to take everyone down?

That's also the officer who said, "When I first met JR, he was... cordial," and then stared at the interviewer waiting for a reaction, as if she didn't understand that "cordial" was not an inappropriate thing to be. It's like she expected the interviewer to gasp and say, "Oh my GOD! He was CORDIAL?!"

 

[Miskey]

So a fake leak that is still being relied upon decades later?

Like the "it couldn't have been an intruder because there were no footprints in the snow". When you see the pictures of the outside of the house that morning, THERE WAS NO SNOW. There were patches of snow in various places around the yard, but on the walkways and the area around the basement window, there is simply no snow.

The false accusatios that were leveled against this family is just mind boggling to me

 

[cabanafrau]

Like the "it couldn't have been an intruder because there were no footprints in the snow". When you see the pictures of the outside of the house that morning, THERE WAS NO SNOW. There were patches of snow in various places around the yard, but on the walkways and the area around the basement window, there is simply no snow.

The false accusatios that were leveled against this family is just mind boggling to me

The no footprints in the snow would be a classic police misdirection to confront the suspects with to see if they could elicit a reaction. The fact that it survives all these years later doesn't speak well of the intentions or of the investigation of the police.

 

[pryncess527]

Actually it is common to hear experts assert things with 100-percent certainty -- paid experts on the witness stand there to sway a jury. It's pretty interesting to watch them twist and limbo through cross examination. They either get indignant and stick to their guns come hell or high water, or they have to grudgingly back off the 100-percent.

That's precisely what people don't understand when they watch talking head "experts" in these programs. They stand up there, paid to make a pronouncement without having to face any questioning into their assertions, or their background, education and reasoning behind their conclusions. The head of psychiatry at a really good hospital here in our metro area testifies as an expert all of the time. He is also a professor of psychiatry at a university. He knows his stuff. He also is renowned for being very facile in how he applies facts and context in his opinions. It's truly a marvel to watch. Lots of attorneys come in to watch if they're in the building and have a few minutes to watch him during cross.

You are right -- I should have said Scientists. Outside a court setting, scientists usually couch their answers in caveats and are very clear about the limits of their knowledge. People babbling on TV for ratings use no such caution.

 

[EMom]

I know, it's crazy. https://www.romper.com/p/who-is-lin...ive-at-the-jonbenet-ramsey-murder-scene-18234




"I see John Ramsey carrying JonBenét up the last three steps from the basement, and my mind exploded," Arndt told ABC News. "And everything I that I had noted that morning, that stuck out, instantly made sense."

She continued, "JonBenét was clearly dead, and she's been dead for awhile. I ordered him to put JonBenét down, I knelt next to her and I leaned down to her face, and John leaned down opposite me and his was just inches from mine and we had a non-verbal exchange that I'll never forget."

Arndt said in the interview that she instructed John to call 911, and she tucked her gun closely to her and consciously counted the 18 bullets in it.

The interviewer asked Arndt, "You were afraid because you thought the killer was still be in the house?"

"I knew it," she replied.

The Ramseys were never charged in their daughter's case and, as their attorney mentioned, were officially exonerated.

http://thecabin.net/stories/091399/wor_0913990010.html#.V9__HlsrIdU



"We had a nonverbal exchange that I will never forget. ... And as we looked at each other, I remember, and I wore a shoulder holster, tucking my gun right next to me and consciously counting out the 18 bullets."

She was asked why, and replied:

"'Cause I didn't know if we'd all be alive when people showed up."

Between her and Barney Fife, I'd take Barney.

 

[LisaR]

I'll agree the enhanced audio was much like the ghost voices! I heard nothing. But, there is a third voice that does sound like a child's voice. I in no way think Burke did it. I am not convinced he wasn't awake and downstairs at the time of the 911 call.

I have the most difficult time getting past going on CNN 6 days after your daughter is murdered, and you have refused to speak to the police about it. It's just not right.

Knowing what we know now about the way the police screwed up this investigation, it is probably a good thing they didn't talk to the police! But were they really not speaking to the police and not cooperating? It is my understanding that they immediately gave blood, hair, and writing samples. That doesn't strike me as people who aren't being cooperative. Did they do a formal sit down interview? No! John says he regrets going on CNN, but the police seemed certain they were the ones who did it as evidenced by the comments some of the investigators are still making today. I can see why they weren't willing to sit for an interrogation. The Ramsey family had the advantage of being rich. They had expensive lawyers who were advising them on what they should do with regard to the police. Most people in these situations don't have the money or knowledge on how to deal with anything when something horrific happens. I wonder how many people with good lawyers sit down for an interrogation unless the person has actually been arrested?

 

[CdnCarrie]

I often like to read Websleuths about some cases I find interesting. Forget the Jon Benet ones as the owner of WS is anti-Ramsey.

 

[cabanafrau]

You are right -- I should have said Scientists. Outside a court setting, scientists usually couch their answers in caveats and are very clear about the limits of their knowledge. People babbling on TV for ratings use no such caution.

I didn't know until I worked this job for a while how big a business trial consulting and expert testimony is. Lots of them are very qualified professionals, but at the end of the day they are a hired gun paid to go bang when requested. It's pretty fascinating. Several years back I was waiting in a courtroom during a civil trial hearing in a dental malpractice case. I had to bite my cheek not to laugh when a dentist giving expert testimony was being asked about his hourly rates for doc review and testimony. His rate was $400 an hour, plus expenses, for the entirety of time he was in court, even while waiting to testify. He explained the rate was fair because "he had to wait on really hard benches".

Expert testimony is a big business. Recently there was an enterprising 23 year old college student testifying as an expert because he has turned his technical expertise in audio and visual enhancement into a trial consultant business while he's still in college. He was accepted by the court as an expert in his field -- which can be denied if challenged and the court decides the witness' testimony should not be recognized as such. Expert witnesses are allowed to give their opinions as testimony.

 

[cabanafrau]

I often like to read Websleuths about some cases I find interesting. Forget the Jon Benet ones as the owner of WS is anti-Ramsey.

Does knowing the bias in the one case make you doubt any bias in their information regarding the other cases?

 

[asta]

I watched the A&E version of the JonBenet murder and I think it seemed to be based more on actual science and less on opinions and theories that the CBS version. In the end they focus on the DNA evidence and made a compelling argument that a non family member was responsible. The same DNA was found in three places on two pieces of her clothing. That means it was not left during the manufacture of the garments.

I also thought it was very interesting that John Ramsey is still pushing for more investigation to find the murderer. That doesn't sound like a guilty man.

The A&E show brought to mind a local case of the murder of a 9 year old girl in Nashville back in 1975 (Marcia Trimble). There were many theories, even a mistaken arrest. Most people thought this case would never be solved and then 40 years later DNA finally led to the murderer. This gives me hope that the murderer will finally be found out in this case.

 

[stitch'sgirl]

I am so glad that others on this board could not understand the scratchy enhanced audio of the 911 call. I strained and strained and couldn't come close to identifying a voice let alone specific words that were said. And the way that they had the words written on the bottom of the screen like that was what was being said was laughable to me. How did the 911 operator hear that in the NON-enhanced version??
Then I saw Dr's Spitz and Lee (?) and I thought "Oh wow, I know those guys, they'll come up with something good." and then I remember where I have seen them before....Nancy Grace. Lol.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Does knowing the bias in the one case make you doubt any bias in their information regarding the other cases?

I'm just a casual lurker for the most part. Some of the big cases that have thousands upon thousands of posts and old threads if just too hard to get into. I've only posted a handful on a missing persons thread that happened locally.
Not sure that I would doubt all threads there but for sure the Jon Benet one with the owner Trisha. It's all just bashing the Ramseys.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm just a casual lurker for the most part. Some of the big cases that have thousands upon thousands of posts and old threads if just too hard to get into. I've only posted a handful on a missing persons thread that happened locally.
Not sure that I would doubt all threads there but for sure the Jon Benet one with the owner Trisha. It's all just bashing the Ramseys.

I wasn't criticizing you, by the way. I was just curious what your take on it was since you have experience reading the site.

For me, I could understand overlooking the bias if the person was actually related to the case, let their emotions cloud their vision with the case and yet could take an objective view of the other cases they put on their site. I've got to give a hairy eyeball to someone disconnected from the case forming such strong opinions based on distance knowledge and then using a website to publicize their information in a way that makes it seem truthful when they haven't vetted it. For example, I could overlook someone like John Walsh deciding to man a website like that with information about his son's case and being dead set on a suspect and say, hey, I don't agree with him but I don't fault him for not being objective there. Yet I might feel his website had good info about other cases because he was objective about those and sought to only publicize credible info.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I wasn't criticizing you, by the way. I was just curious what your take on it was since you have experience reading the site.

For me, I could understand overlooking the bias if the person was actually related to the case, let their emotions cloud their vision with the case and yet could take an objective view of the other cases they put on their site. I've got to give a hairy eyeball to someone disconnected from the case forming such strong opinions based on distance knowledge and then using a website to publicize their information in a way that makes it seem truthful when they haven't vetted it. For example, I could overlook someone like John Walsh deciding to man a website like that with information about his son's case and being dead set on a suspect and say, hey, I don't agree with him but I don't fault him for not being objective there. Yet I might feel his website had good info about other cases because he was objective about those and sought to only publicize credible info.

Oh I totally agree with you. We had a local woman here who disappeared mysteriously last year in an area that I grew up in and still frequent almost weekly. That news story is what prompted me to sign up and post on WS. One poster there who had a huge number of posts and was also local and was just putting out all this false information about the area. Turns out she didn't know the area and all and finally admitted that. But it did show me how some people on there are totally full of BS. Even the most prolific posters.

 

[msjprincess]

Oh I totally agree with you. We had a local woman here who disappeared mysteriously last year in an area that I grew up in and still frequent almost weekly. That news story is what prompted me to sign up and post on WS. One poster there who had a huge number of posts and was also local and was just putting out all this false information about the area. Turns out she didn't know the area and all and finally admitted that. But it did show me how some people on there are totally full of BS. Even the most prolific posters.

Something similar is what turned me off of Websleuths. I read there for years. It wasn't until I started reading about a local case that I realized half of the posters have no idea what they're talking about. They come up with a crazy theory and run with it.

 

[elphaba91]

I often like to read Websleuths about some cases I find interesting. Forget the Jon Benet ones as the owner of WS is anti-Ramsey.

I know what you mean. There is a sticky on the page by her that says that there is no possibility that anyone other than a Ramsey did it and that no discussion of any other possible suspects is permitted. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-The-3-People-in-the-House-when-JonBenet-Died

I just don't think that that degree of censorship is appropriate on a website that is meant to be about investigating different theories on crimes.

 

[gemini2727]

I know what you mean. There is a sticky on the page by her that says that there is no possibility that anyone other than a Ramsey did it and that no discussion of any other possible suspects is permitted. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-The-3-People-in-the-House-when-JonBenet-Died

I just don't think that that degree of censorship is appropriate on a website that is meant to be about investigating different theories on crimes.

Wow...way to be impartial, lol. I can't believe she limits the conversation to only speculating about the Ramseys, unbelievable.

 

[msjprincess]

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the date on the headstone and why they put 12/25 instead of 12/26. Dr Phil asked John Ramsey about it. He said they did it because they ransom note said "I will call tomorrow" or something like that, so he assumed it was written on 12/25. And also because he didn't want the world to forget that his daughter was killed on Christmas, a day that is supposed to be about peace.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the date on the headstone and why they put 12/25 instead of 12/26. Dr Phil asked John Ramsey about it. He said they did it because they ransom note said "I will call tomorrow" or something like that, so he assumed it was written on 12/25. And also because he didn't want the world to forget that his daughter was killed on Christmas, a day that is supposed to be about peace.

Yeah even the headstone is something people seem to analyze and speculate about like the date has some great meaning or clue to the parents being guilty. They weren't given and exact time of death do they had to pick a date to put on it. It's really not some huge thing that needs to be gone over and over.

 

[RitaE]

I've watched most of the CBS episode from last night. I realize that this is an edited for television re-enactment of a fake investigation but it really seems to take every single fact and only examine it from the angle of "Does this prove Ramsey guilt." They so far haven't even introduced any other scenario where somebody other than a Ramsey could be guilty.

I heard all the "experts" are supposed to name a suspect on tonight's episode.