Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[Joneslab]

There have been quite a few stories in the last few years that have come out about kids who have sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies.

The podcast This American Life dedicated part of an episode to it. (A mother talks at length about her son's budding pathological violence and how he tries to physically harm his siblings.)

These are kids who are dangerous in a way that embarrasses the family. They try to hide the kid, but there seems to be this stigma of shame there that you've done something wrong. That you're somehow at fault for a fluke of genetics.

Crazy Ramsey Brother may be in that boat. And if that theory's correct, it definitely would have been something still vastly misunderstood back in 1996. On social media it's talked about more now, and maybe understood more, but back then an affluent family with a business and livelihood to protect would have been deeply ashamed of this violent kid in their home, and would have gone to great lengths to hide it.

 

[TortElvisII]

In a way, kinda, we all killed JonBenet.

I put 10 bucks on it being you. Million to one. I like you but took a chance. Went to bed pissed at you.

 

[KopiKat]

perhaps it is in this thread or available in a documentary, but can somebody offer a summary of what adult life had been like for Burke? His education, where he went to college, how long it took him to graduate, degree in what? do a thesis? If so, in what? What sort of a career path has he? What sort of personal relationships has he? Where does he live? Any adult-aged legal issues?

 

[UKserialkiller]

I put 10 bucks on it being you. Million to one. I like you but took a chance. Went to bed pissed at you.

Only if I had a time machine.....I could make things right for you and your $10.

 

[Bill Derington]

The Dr Phil interview with the family was an attempt by them to do damage control from the CBS program. They knew it was coming out, and knew there were some heavy hitters doing the investigating. CBS came to them, and asked them to be a part of it. They're told that its going to be done simply using evidence, now, you're daughter's killer still hasn't been captured why not be involved with that? Instead they go on Dr Phil of all places, WTH is Dr Phil going to do? He gives you public support.

I didn't see the first or third episode on Dr Phil, I did see the second, and in that episode Burke states something I didn't hear on the ID program, Dateline or CBS, and I'm guessing he said it because he thought CBS would be able to link him to being there in the timeframe. He stated that he and Jon Benet went to the basement to play at approx 11PM.

I believe that is accurate, I don't believe he hit her upstairs. I think they snuck or mom sent them down to play, we know Burke was upset about something, he smeared **** on her presents and his room. They get downstairs and he got physical or rough, hits her in the head. When she doesn't wake up he pokes her with train tracks like CBS said. I think the strangulation set up was simply staging.

 

[buckethead1978]

I read that there were bike tracks found swerving to and fro from the house so it is likely that @BoulderCat needs to be questioned.

I looked at the crime scene photos last night and the unkempt nature of the home is what jumped out at me. Something rotten had been going on in that home before the murder.

 

[UKserialkiller]

I read that there were bike tracks found swerving to and fro from the house so it is likely that @BoulderCat needs to be questioned.

I looked at the crime scene photos last night and the unkempt nature of the home is what jumped out at me. Something rotten had been going on in that home before the murder.

[laughing]

 

[TortElvisII]

I think Burke was so intelligent the cops could not trip him up.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

I did not - and that is very interesting. thank you.

Not just that the train tracks match the wound perfectly, but also that she was dead already when she was stuck with the train tracks as if to prod her to see if she was dead. Why would you stun gun a dead person? Also, the stun gun manufacturers said the wounds do not match those of what would be left by a stun gun as did their demonstration on the grown man's back both over cloths and under them.

The whole stun gun theory is completely discredited.

 

[beltieboy_rivals376542]

Lou Smit sure does come away from this looking like a complete buffoon.

 

[Joneslab]

Vulture says the Ramsey special was true crime at its worst.

I don't know. It definitely wasn't Serial or Making a Murderer, but I thought it was interesting for what it was. There was obviously some unintentionally comedic sensationalism (the little boy beating the fake skull was a tad jarring), but if you want to open up that Pandora's Box then all true crime is sensationalistic. It's inherently shady, what with people throwing out suspects that might be completely innocent and all.

I just read Rabia Choudry's book about the Adnan Syed case, and she offers up suspects left and right. The same with the great documentary West of Memphis. True crime as a genre demands that a person check their ethics at the door.

 

[wcc31]

Lou Smit sure does come away from this looking like a complete buffoon.

And if he was alive and given two hours to make his argument, these guys would've come off looking like buffoons.

 

[wcc31]

Vulture says the Ramsey special was true crime at its worst.

I don't know. It definitely wasn't Serial or Making a Murderer, but I thought it was interesting for what it was. There was obviously some unintentionally comedic sensationalism (the little boy beating the fake skull was a tad jarring), but if you want to open up that Pandora's Box then all true crime is sensationalistic. It's inherently shady, what with people throwing out suspects that might be completely innocent and all.

I just read Rabia Choudry's book about the Adnan Syed case, and she offers up suspects left and right. The same with the great documentary West of Memphis. True crime as a genre demands that a person check their ethics at the door.

It was terrible. They had a lot of interesting and, obviously, reputable investigators, but they all seemed to have come in with their minds made up already. There was little discourse. I think I remember one time Lee declaring that he was going to play devil's advocate. That lasted a minute and then it was back to them all nodding and agreeing with each other.

Don't get me wrong- their theory is a valid one and it surely could have happened, but I really wish they could've given voice to some other opinions. I feel the best of these types of shows let you form your own opinion instead of telling you and selling you.

I don't know- I was just hoping for a real documentary instead of some hokey Investigation Discovery type hack job. Interestingly enough, ID's docuseries on the Ramsey case was much better than the one from CBS.

You couldn't pay me to read Choudry's book.

 

[Joneslab]

^ I disagreed with most of what Choudry brought forward. And the Adnan-was-framed-because-he-was-Muslim angle comes in pretty hard at times. I ended up skimming large swaths of the book.

But it was better than I thought it would be. The last 75 pages or so are made up of this running laundry list of complexities and unanswered questions about the case that Serial doesn't touch. There's stuff in there about the police trying to procure a motorcycle for Jay Wilds to a page from a fax that was missed by the prosecution which resulted in the cell phone expert actually apologizing to the Syed family.

It didn't make me think Syed was innocent or anything. And I still believe that Asia, the girl in the library, was coerced by Adnan's family. And Rabia Choudry is still a nut.

But it was much better than it had any business being.

 

[wcc31]

^ I disagreed with most of what Choudry brought forward. And the Adnan-was-framed-because-he-was-Muslim angle comes in pretty hard at times. I ended up skimming large swaths of the book.

But it was better than I thought it would be. The last 75 pages or so are made up of this running laundry list of complexities and unanswered questions about the case that Serial doesn't touch. There's stuff in there about the police trying to procure a motorcycle for Jay Wilds to a page from a fax that was missed by the prosecution which resulted in the cell phone expert actually apologizing to the Syed family.

It didn't make me think Syed was innocent or anything. And I still believe that Asia, the girl in the library, was coerced by Adnan's family. And Rabia Choudry is still a nut.

But it was much better than it had any business being.

Maybe I'll check it out. I just have a problem with one-sided stuff- whether it's FoxNews/MSNBC or Rupps Rafters. I just don't get much out of it. I listened to her podcast 1-2x and it came off as heavyhanded homer BS. JMO

 

[Joneslab]

I agree that good true crime will generally sit down in the middle.

But there are times when I find something interesting even as I sit there and shake my head at what it presupposes. One obvious example was Making a Murderer, which is basically a long argument. But another one that wasn't nearly as popular was Erroll Morris's book A Wilderness of Error.

This is about the Fatal Vision case, but you don't have to have read that book to get into Morris's. Morris kind of performs this exhaustive, detailed takedown of the original story, and even though I disagreed with most of what he brought in, the time and effort and obsession that it must have taken to write a book like that I found highly interesting.

Morris also made the great documentary The Thin Blue Line, which I believe remains the only film ever presented in court as evidence. It ended up exonerating a falsely accused man.

 

[beltieboy_rivals376542]

And if he was alive and given two hours to make his argument, these guys would've come off looking like buffoons.

Disagree. Two of his main arguments were that an intruder came in and went out through the basement window, and that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. Both of these things were proven false rather easily by this CBS team. I think Lou may have just been past his prime during this investigation. He was already retired and I believe closing in on 70 at the time.

 

[wcc31]

Disagree. Two of his main arguments were that an intruder came in and went out through the basement window, and that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. Both of these things were proven false rather easily by this CBS team. I think Lou may have just been past his prime during this investigation. He was already retired and I believe closing in on 70 at the time.

They weren't "proven" at all. LOL at easily. That's why this show was such a hackjob. You really think Smit didn't consider those questions?

 

[Bill Derington]

Vulture says the Ramsey special was true crime at its worst.

I don't know. It definitely wasn't Serial or Making a Murderer, but I thought it was interesting for what it was. There was obviously some unintentionally comedic sensationalism (the little boy beating the fake skull was a tad jarring), but if you want to open up that Pandora's Box then all true crime is sensationalistic. It's inherently shady, what with people throwing out suspects that might be completely innocent and all.

I just read Rabia Choudry's book about the Adnan Syed case, and she offers up suspects left and right. The same with the great documentary West of Memphis. True crime as a genre demands that a person check their ethics at the door.

The difference between this show, and those docs is this one followed the evidence.
Those were trying to show an angle that their "stars" were not guilty. They weren't offering up suspects, they were using evidence to determine a suspect.

These were professional crime investigators in several fields.

 

[beltieboy_rivals376542]

They weren't "proven" at all. LOL at easily. That's why this show was such a hackjob. You really think Smit didn't consider those questions?

No, I don't think he considered them. I think if he had he would have realized that they were not strong theories. Neither one is plausible IMO. Say what you want about the show, but they made it pretty obvious that no adult was getting through that window without taking out that web or disturbing any of the foliage around the window. The same goes for the stun gun theory. Those wounds look nothing like a stun gun wound, and the punctures perfectly matched the train track.

Did they push an agenda and sensationalize some things? Maybe (although I'm not sure I agree with that either...what do they have to gain by accusing Burke? He can't be prosecuted because he was 9 at the time). But I don't think you can reasonably argue that they didn't discredit these two critical parts of Smit's theory.

 

[Bill Derington]

They weren't "proven" at all. LOL at easily. That's why this show was such a hackjob. You really think Smit didn't consider those questions?

I think Smit was given a task, find something other than the family.
I saw the ID show that used Smits investigation. One of his main points was that it was possible for an intruder to enter the window, he alluded the police said it wasn't possible. He climbed right through it, the cob web was brought up, but not explained why it was important.
He was right, you could climb through the window, but not do it and also not tear down the cob web. To me that shoots down his whole theory of the suitcase and window.

 

[Deeeefense]

I thought from the beginning it was Berke, accidentally killing the kid sister he was jealous of - then the parents covered it up to protect him. The ABC commentary's panel of experts investigating this crime confirmed it beyond doubt IMO.

 

[wcc31]

I think Smit was given a task, find something other than the family.

He was hired by the DA right after the guy basically called out the Ramseys publicly.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Is wcc31 this terrible in every thread? Geesh. The DA was so in the tank for the Ramsey's that the investigators just shook their heads at his goofy shenanigans. The incompetent idiot had two grand jury indictments that he covered up for 13 years.

 

[Get Buckets]

He was hired by the DA right after the guy basically called out the Ramseys publicly.

Simple question, based on everything, which scenario do you think is more likely, intruder or family member?

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Might as well ask him how many JoBenet posters he has on the wall.

 

[wcc31]

Simple question, based on everything, which scenario do you think is more likely, intruder or family member?

I'm up in the air. I suppose I lean more toward the brother at this point, but I'm definitely not positive about it.

 

[wcc31]

Is wcc31 this terrible in every thread? Geesh. The DA was so in the tank for the Ramsey's that the investigators just shook their heads at his goofy shenanigans. The incompetent idiot had two grand jury indictments that he covered up for 13 years.

You're the one getting bent out of shape about a slight disagreement. You need to relax.

 

[wcc31]

Might as well ask him how many JoBenet posters he has on the wall.

I have 5 JonBenet posters on my wall. Bought them all at Spencer's. That said, not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[Get Buckets]

I'm up in the air. I suppose I lean more toward the brother at this point, but I'm definitely not positive about it.

I'm about 95% family, although given the mishandling by the police and the resources of the Ramsey's there would never have been any conviction of any type.

 

[MacCard]

I thought from the beginning it was Berke, accidentally killing the kid sister he was jealous of - then the parents covered it up to protect him. The ABC commentary's panel of experts investigating this crime confirmed it beyond doubt IMO.

I think it was the brother as well, but I disagree that the CBS documentary confirmed it beyond doubt. I still can't wrap my head around how they couldn't get a 9 year old to slip up under interrogation. That seems almost impossible to me on the surface, although impossible stuff happens from time to time, I guess. The investigator commentary on the interrogation was so biased it was comical, as well. Wish they would have offered opposing views there to add more context.

The window entry theory was proven false in my opinion, but there are other ways that an intruder could have gotten in. While it does disprove to me that he came through that window, it doesn't disprove that there wasn't an intruder. Unlocked doors, other open windows, key access are all other plausible scenarios.

Again, I think it was the brother and the parents covered it up, but man, that's some dedication to a story among the family with incredible luck that the 9 year old involved is a natural liar and manipulator. You can't coach that kind of stuff in the moment.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

John Ramsey would have broken on the first night had they separated him and Patsy then questioned him aggressively as they should have.

The one small doubt I have about the son doing it is the unthinkably heinous idea that the father actually did it and used his son to cover it up with Patsy. The father kills her for whatever reason, then ropes the son in, then goes and wakes Patsy up and tells her the son did it and they have to cover it up or they'll lose them both.

That's the only possible other alternative I am even open to in the slightest.

 

[Chuckinden]

Chuckinden seems to know a lot about this case. I am assuming the "den" stands for Denver? Now, I'm not speculating, but where were you Chuck on the night of the murder?

I'll never tell....

 

[Deeeefense]

^no motive for either parent to kill the child. Has to have been Berke IMO.

 

[beltieboy_rivals376542]

no motive for either parent to kill the child.

Is that you Patsy?

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

^no motive for either parent to kill the child. Has to have been Berke IMO.

In all the years with all the interviews Patsy was a complete basket case and Berke the Poop Bugler was quite the energetic monster... yet John has been so unemotional and detached that I strongly detect the aura of a sociopath about him. He was, after all, making travel arrangements and conducting business on the phone an hour after finding his daughter dead in the basement. So my "motive" for him is that he was a complete sociopath in that utterly nutty house of theirs. Imagine for a moment Patsy wigging out, Burke spreading feces left and right like Johnny Appleseed all over the place, and JonBenet in her pony outfit caterwauling one of her six year old beauty contestant numbers out...

Wonder he didn't kill them all now that I think about it.

 

[CrittendenWildcat]

Burke seems like someone with high functioning autism. People with autism have a bad temper at times over trivial things. They also are not very aware of consequences.

Father of a high-functioning autistic daughter here. Autistic children can get upset over trivial things, but lashing out in violence is not even in my daughter's skillset.

In all the years with all the interviews Patsy was a complete basket case and Berke the Poop Bugler was quite the energetic monster... yet John has been so unemotional and detached that I strongly detect the aura of a sociopath about him. He was, after all, making travel arrangements and conducting business on the phone an hour after finding his daughter dead in the basement. So my "motive" for him is that he was a complete sociopath in that utterly nutty house of theirs. Imagine for a moment Patsy wigging out, Burke spreading feces left and right like Johnny Appleseed all over the place, and JonBenet in her pony outfit caterwauling one of her six year old beauty contestant numbers out...

Wonder he didn't kill them all now that I think about it.

Every person responds to the grief of loss in his or her own way. Some people don't stop the world, they continue to function and do the things that are required of them, sometimes due to denial, sometimes due to shock, sometimes deliberately to avoid dealing with the grief. There is no right way. But if you are looking for things in the demeanor of people to further establish your presupposed belief of their guilt, you will always find it.

I can't stand all these amateur analyses of the demeanor of John, Patsy and Burke. 20 years later, they maintain their innocence. 20 years later, people are still jumping to conclusions to declare their guilt.

 

[Joneslab]

^ The amateur analysis kind of goes with the territory.

If you can't analyze people there's really no reason to watch or read true crime.

There's blame to go around in this particular case, but I can see why people have fixated on it for years. The details are so bizarre. Nothing really fits. The fact that the crime scene was so thoroughly contaminated adds to its general strangeness.

But the kind of amateur, "Here's what I would have done," gut-level takes about the murder happens with all these cases.

 

[Get Buckets]

Father of a high-functioning autistic daughter here. Autistic children can get upset over trivial things, but lashing out in violence is not even in my daughter's skillset.

Every person responds to the grief of loss in his or her own way. Some people don't stop the world, they continue to function and do the things that are required of them, sometimes due to denial, sometimes due to shock, sometimes deliberately to avoid dealing with the grief. There is no right way. But if you are looking for things in the demeanor of people to further establish your presupposed belief of their guilt, you will always find it.

I can't stand all these amateur analyses of the demeanor of John, Patsy and Burke. 20 years later, they maintain their innocence. 20 years later, people are still jumping to conclusions to declare their guilt.

So let's hear your take on what happened. Amateur analysis welcome.

 

[Ron Mehico]

The sheer bizarreness and absurdity of the ransom note to me makes its clear-cut that it was not an intruder. That has to be one of the most bizarre things in a crime scene I've ever seen. It was so strange that it completely caused all the police and investigators to lose functioning ability apparently. How they could have gone almost 5 months without questioning the parents is so weird.