The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18 # 2

SuperDave said:

Distraction. They can say, "this person did it. They said they did it. Why aren't you looking for them?"



Except there's no explanation for WHY she's dead without it! Without it, all you have is a dead girl with sexual injuries in her own home. Ask Ron Walker who he'd go after for that!


Right. And frankly, I don't know if it's possible for any of us to understand their thought processes that night.



Well, pardon me if I seem like a wise@$$, but whose notepad and pen were they supposed to use?!



Don't ever make that assumption. There are people who've been in prison 20 years who say they didn't do it.



Maybe so, but how to do it? It wouldn't look very good to be heard or spotted smashing in your own door or window that night.



If it was the murder weapon. I'm not 100%.

Click to expand...

SuperDave said:

Depending on how you look at it, plenty of good.

Click to expand...

carolinea said:

This is from what I posted above: "All of the experts agreed that there was no way any of the recent or chronic abuse damage to the genitalia of the child was the result of masturbation."

As the one expert stated, at least one of the injuries would have been very painful. She wouldn't have done it to herself.

Click to expand...

TeaTime said:

I tripped, fell forward and although my hands were extended, planted my forehead smack into the sharp corner of a metal furniture leg, requiring stitches by a plastic surgeon. My nephew, at about 3 years of age, slipped, fell forward and busted his chin on the opened and down door of the dishwasher as it was being loaded, requiring stitches by a plastic surgeon. My niece did a face plant after getting tangled in a jump rope, scrapes on nose - no doctor needed.

I don't think JBR's prior injuries are from anything sinister, such as being abused. As for her other doctor visits, they seem to be just normal childhood germ issues.

PR believed that LE was her enemy. No doubt she was coached that LE will lie to get a response so she was on guard and likely thought that the information about prior sexual abuse was a lie just to gauge her reaction. She wanted proof. Had they shown her proof, we may have seen an hysterical reaction.

I am not convinced that JBR was being sexually abused by anyone. To my non-scientific mind, all the injuries noted to that area may very well be consistent with her falling on her bike and chronic vaginitis.

Click to expand...

singularity said:

If memory serves me correctly Lou Smit is the person we can thank for turning it into a piece of IDI evidence. I wish that guy had never been allowed on the case. It amazes me that any semi competent detective could look at that suitcase and consider its contents pretty much irrelevant to the case. Yes he asked JOhn about it but other than that, it just became a step out the window for an intruder even though there were chairs down there to use that would be much better to use as an escape instead of a suitcase that could easily tip over while trying to use it.

I agree with Frankie that there's a possibility it was initially under the bed and even if it wasn't, something was under there. I don't buy for a second that an actual person was hiding under there. IF someone was under there, it was Jonbenet trying to get away from a family member but its not really disturbed enough to insinuate that. Its as if someone just looked under there to see what was being kept under his bed.

They're definitely holding back evidence. That is the most disappointing thing about this particular series. I was expecting them to finally show certain things that sleuths have wondered about over the years.

I see you've already been posting for a month but welcome to the forum.


While a couple of these shows did show a few pics and of course snippets of video that night, there was so much more they could have shown. I suppose its possible it is in the 2 hours we didn't get to see or maybe they just didn't want to. Would've been great to see those pics JOhn took to finish the roll of film before handing it to BPD for starters.

On top of the list of pics I wish they would show are the five pics of JAR's room that both Patsy and the interviewers didn't want to deal with so they skipped over them.

I watched this show again as well as the ID show(I missed that one when it aired) and I am also disappointed by the lack of detail. They did a pretty good job I suppose but like you said, they didn't go far enough making it look as it did that night. I'd imagine it would be difficult doing an exact replica but that house was a mess top to bottom and in the replicated version, its as if it was whitewashed and sterile.

I was blown away by the Coke cans and when a member here posted the screenshot, it made me realize I missed some key spots due to going to the bathroom multiple times so I had to watch it again. Unfortunately its impossible to know exactly when those cans were placed there. It certainly implies that two people were drinking Coke. If so and they were placed there that night and not earlier in the day, why would either kid want a glass of tea? If you're still thirsty, wouldn't you just quickly grab another coke? I need to look at the list of items taken from the house again but I don't remember any items being taken from the fridge. Another mistake by BPD.

YOu bring up the possibility of Burke drinking them both. It is possible but at the same time I can just as easily imagine both kids finishing their Cokes and just tossing them in the sink. Having said that, its an odd spot to toss your soda cans although with how messy the entire house is and the housekeeper mentioning years ago how the kids would just toss whatever it is they have anywhere expecting someone else to clean it up, it wouldn't be out of left field.

One thing that particular placement of the Coke cans does is rule out John and/or Patsy drinking one of them as I find it hard to imagine an adult thinking its a good spot to dump your empty cans.


I wish the scarf pics had been shown. What I find so odd about the scarf issue is how it appears in different places depending on which photographs are being discussed. Who keeps moving it around....and why?


It was inexcusable to gloss over it. Playing it safe from a lawsuit?!? They named Burke as the killer. If they wanted to play it safe, maybe they should have not went in that direction or if doing so, actually make a solid case for it.

Mentioning abuse/sexual assault doesn't mean it was Burke doing it. There's a list of suspects as far as the abuse goes so its not like that spotlight would shine only on Burke. IMO that's why it was quickly glossed over. Bring up abuse or sexual assault and it causes the viewer to think about other people besides Burke.

Not sure how this lawsuit will play out......the show specifically posted a disclaimer basically saying its all just their opinion so they're not too confident in what they were saying to begin with.

"The killing of JonBenet Ramsey is a crime that, to this day, remains unsolved. The opinions and conclusions
of the investigators who appear on this program about how it may have occurred represent just some of a number of
possible scenarios. John Ramsey and Burke Ramsey have denied any involvement in the crime, including in recent
televised interviews. We encourage viewers to reach their own conclusions."


They didn't give it any attention. Its why some of us were so disappointed in this specific show as we expected them to practically blow the lid off this case that had been in limbo for so long.

Welcome to the forum.


When you have the time PL, read the full transcripts of Patsy and John from 97 and 98. While there are redactions of course and Patsy does an amazing job at manipulation, they both make some interesting slip ups and had better people been handling the interviews, they both would've been nailed to the wall.



Absolutely. THis is why it blows my mind when I sometimes see a post these past few days saying "all questions have been answered".

There was a mountain of unanswered questions before any of these new series aired and now there's even more questions so I'm unable to comprehend how any were actually answered. A few things we always suspected like Burke being awake are now known but other than that, it's still a complex mystery just like it always was.

I also don't like how if you don't fall in line with all these supposed "answered questions", you get labeled as IDI by certain people.....which has happened to me twice the past couple days. Anyone who labels me IDI after reading my posts is as blind as Ray Charles.

I don't believe for a second that he's never read that note. Amazing that he would claim such nonsense. I'd imagine his lawyer told him to say that although why they'd think an answer like that would help him only god knows why.


FFJ is a great website. I wish they'd open it up to new registrations.

When taking my refresher course on the case earlier this year, I read a lot of their old discussions. Very few trolls were there and the discussions flowed very well.


Because he was irrelevant to them at the moment and they needed to get the freak show rolling.


For anyone interested, there is also a Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode based on the Ramsey case titled 'Masquerade'. It was released not long after the JMK fiasco and includes that element into the case.



Well he just heard his mom tell 911 there's a ransom note. If you were a kid walking in mid conversation, wouldn't you ask such a question?

Click to expand...

questfortrue said:

Legal issues aside, Spitz at one time claimed that the paintbrush injury occurred peri- or postmortem. It’s my belief that there was a considered agreement (legal and other) not to pursue this. Also, it can’t be proven who perpetrated that obscenity. It could have been BR or perhaps a stager. (Could there have been another in the family who was interfering with JonBenét? Yes, according to Christine Courtois; it is not uncommon for there to be two molesters in a family.)

It’s interesting both BR and JR mention a pedophile intruder as the perpetrator. JR later denies in an interview knowing whether she was sexually injured. Confused whether he understands the term pedophile? Me, too. JR also attempted to trade interviews with the BPD in return for having the BPD disappear the ‘prior abuse’ conclusions. (IRMI)

Click to expand...

carolinea said:

As stated by someone above, they didn't just read the autopsy report. If you read what I posted, it gives great detail about what physical characteristics indicated abuse. Additionally, this was a panel comprised of some of the foremost experts on childhood sexual abuse.

If you can read that very technical information and still dismiss the possibility of abuse, AND ignore the opinions of multiple renowned experts, it's because you willfully don't want to believe it, not because of any proof or lack of proof.



It's important to note that Burke also showed signs of abuse, and it's very possible someone else was abusing Jonbenet.

Click to expand...

otg said:

7/93: Regressed in toilet training and eating habits.

8/31/93: Responding to Beuf's questions, Patsy says JBR doesn't have any phobias and no aspect of JBR's sexual education needed to be discussed.

4/94: Breath still bad, runny nose, little appetite, slept poorly, bladder infection and vaginal discharge. Diagnosed with vaginitis. Amoxicillin prescribed and warned against bubble baths.

10/5/94: Came in for checkup, doctor notices scar on left cheek. She'd been hit accidentally by a golf club when the family was in Charlevoix. A week after the accident, a plastic surgeon was consulted. No injury to cheekbone. Beuf is told (at this visit) that she's getting along with brothers and older sister. Wearing pullups at night because she's wetting bed. Patsy completes developmental questionnaire, and says there are no aspects of JonBenet's behavior or sex education she needed to discuss, and also notes JBR has no fears or phobias.


1/1/95: Chickenpox. Rash even appears in vaginal area. Recommended Avino, Benadryl and Lanocaine. (why is this specially noted?)

8/27/96: Patsy reports JBR's a good sleeper, wasn't hard to get to bed, and was easily awakened in the morning. Not interested in opposit sex, behaved modestly in public, and didn't engage in sex play with her friends. She was, however, asking about sex roles and reproduction. She was not rude or afraid of either parent. Didn't seem to be bossy with brother, didn't react with trantrums, and was active. Loved fruit and some vegetables. Patsy said she was delightful and doing very well. Burke had his annual checkup same day. (why is this a series of questions for a six year old.)
September 1993 -- a call about vaginal redness, possibly associated with recent diarrhea.

April 1994 -- a visit about a problem perhaps related to the use of bubble bath, which can be an irritant.



October 1994 -- a routine physical. No problems noted, though some indication of occasional bedwetting. Dr. Beuf says 20 percent to 25 percent of children that age wet the bed.

August 1996 -- another routine physical with a vaginal exam. The doctor said everything checked out as normal.
[/INDENT]


The last time Beuf could have possibly seen any signs of molestation is 8/27/1996, when he saw her for a regular physical. His notes didn't mention it, but he told Sawyer that it included a "vaginal exam." The panel of child sex abuse experts who looked at the evidence collected by the ME could not determine the number of times she had been molested, or the amount of time that had lapsed since the last occurrence. It could very well have begun escalating (and IMO did) after the August visit. Any longer than that and I think there would have been much more evident chronic trauma.

Click to expand...

mauidreemn said:

Did the doctor ever claim Jonbenet had urinary tract infections?

Click to expand...

HarmonyE. said:

I won't dream of trying to quote from singularity's post above as this site is wiggy enough for me as it is, but I'll make a few comments.

Two hours were cut from the CBS special and they were cut within a few weeks of the air date. That's a third of the show, and that itself raises questions.

What was cut and why it was cut we don't yet know, but as you indicate, they came right out and said Burke did it. So its a fair guess they didn't cut two hours out because they are concerned about a lawsuit. It may be that they truncated the special because it was too much JonBenet, but one would think the final editing had taken place before they announced a 6 hour special in the adverts. The disclaimer itself is pretty meaningless. They said Burke did it, and there is no doubt CBS's legal counsel was okay with that from a legal liability standpoint. (In his book, Kolar basically came out and said a civil lawsuit defense would help expose truths here and I totally agree. Bring it on, Lin. )

The sexual assault stuff was absolutely glossed over. It could be that it muddled the show's conclusion. Which is not to say that boys Burke's age never sexually assault smaller children. It certainly does happen, just as kids killing weaker, younger kids has been known to happen. Kolar's book does a good job outlining the stats in this regard. However, it's a complex - and not fully clear - piece of a very complex case and the editing staff may have felt it made sense to avoid any in-depth discussion of it.

Six hours isn't nearly enough to properly delve into this case, never mind four. But "all questions" about this murder are never going to be answered. We have to make do with the puzzle pieces we have and hope we get a few more along the way.

Click to expand...

ThinkHard said:

Yes I read that and that is there opinion and it may or may not be true. But you have to recognize they are referring to normal level of masterbation for a child her age....in the example I gave, the level and aggressiveness of what I witnessed including inserting objects like pens, pencils etc, into herself was far far far beyond normal....this child was basically masterbating multiple times a day and it was far from gentle. A child with sensory processing who has this issue is rare, so I doubt the experts would have considered that level of masterbation and the evidence it might leave behind in a child that age....so it wouldn't have fallen in the scope of their lens as an acception to that comment when they made it.....I believe they are referring only to what would be for a typical child....but we know the Ramsey children were not typical....so it's possible in my mind, that some evidence of activity could have been self inflicted.

That said I certainly don't think she shoved a paintbrush handle so aggressively she would have screamed.....If she was sexually aggressive at all herself, that doesn't exclude the idea someone else was also doing something to her.

Click to expand...

ThinkHard said:

Honestly what I find shocking....is that CBS looked at everything they had, and thought the conclusion was so strong that they could stand by it in a court of law......and still managed to convince audiences of their conclusion with only 2/3 of a ducomentary. .... Makes we wonder what's on that last 3? Could it be something CBS knows is the final smoking gun....and are intentionally saving it?

Click to expand...

Heymom said:

Did anyone ever mention finding *advertiser censored* in the home? Back then, maybe it would have been viewed as just "normal guy stuff," but *advertiser censored* can be connected to sexual abuse of children. I don't know if JR or JAR might have had *advertiser censored* laying around but it's a question I have.

Click to expand...

ThinkHard said:

Right, but what does that have to do with anything I wrote?

Click to expand...

vulture said:

There was some. I got online in July of 1995, and I did a search out of curiosity to see if there was really all this *advertiser censored* like everybody said. No I didn't look at any of the links that came up (I searched for "sex with horses") but there was plenty to choose from! That was my one and only *advertiser censored* search. Now how easy it would have been for a 9 year old to get online then I don't know. I was one of the first people I knew to have internet access.

Click to expand...

fedfan4life said:

I nominate this for POST OF THE DAY. Very, very clever.

Click to expand...

CoolJ said:

Yes, there is no doubt she knew. There is no doubt JR and PR were deceptive right from the beginning. But that in no way rules out an "Intruder" (terrible term IMO as it completely diverts attention away from a myriad of other possible perps and scenarios)

Click to expand...

ThinkHard said:

If this was a professional phot shoot, no doubt lights would have been in her face...yet her pupils look unusually large for that level of light exposure.

Also I have one finger that looks a lot like that. It was a gymnastics injury and my finger twisted on the knuckle and the finger bones were spiral fractured....it was repositioned and cast, but it still has a twist to it.

To me that definetly looks like a break and it looks like someone grabbed her by the hand/finger and twisted it.

Click to expand...