The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18

[Amonet]

I hope it's okay to double post but this is a different post entirely from my last one.

I finally feel closure in this case, and I am left with an immense feeling of sadness for John, Patsy, and Burke.

I always looked at the accusations against Burke and railed against them. He couldn't have written that note or staged that scene, not in my mind. So I looked at John and Patsy with hate and non-understanding of how and why. The explanations given in the show for why it wasn't someone from the outside were pretty glaring to me, so it had to be someone in that house. But what an awful picture it left for us of hateful, murderous parents! Now I feel all that erased by seeing what may have really happened, and that it was just a few hours of stupid, stupid, desperate acts by devastated, confused, and frightened parents who loved both their children.

Assuming that show uncovered 99% of the actual events of that night....I don't believe Burke knows what happened. I think they covered it up from him as well as trying to cover it up for the outside world. I don't think he was culpable or intending to murder. He appears to maybe have some kind of Asperger's syndrome and lack emotional connections to his sister and parents (judging from the interviews aged 9 and 11 which were shown on the show). It would be like a 2-year old lashing out with something in their hand when someone's annoyed them....there's no intent to kill, they don't know their own strength and can't accurately gauge the consequences of this thoughtless action.

I think Patsy came down and saw JonBenet laying there, lifeless, and Burke was sent to bed. I think he got up in the morning and found out she was dead and part of him wondered if what he'd done was the cause of death...hence asking "where did you find her?" Because if she was found in the place he'd last seen her laying 'asleep' or 'knocked out' then maybe he'd hurt her. But if she was in another place, maybe it wasn't him! Then for 20 years he's been fed this pedophile intruder story by his parents. He knows his parents couldn't have murdered his sister in that way, so he has 20 years of being convinced someone broke in, and may no longer have any memory of anything else from that night.

I wish Patsy could have felt the closure I now feel in this case. I wish John and Burke could have that closure, too. I wish they'd never had all this media intrusion in their lives (which they didn't help with when they seemed to want to go on TV to talk about it).

If that show got it far wrong, I would be very surprised. Everything seems to meet Occam's razor....the simplest explanation is usually the truth.

If it was what happened that night, then I think instead of Burke suing CBS, John should come clean to his son, go to his lawyer and make a plea deal for his part in it in order to protect his son from the ordeal of a trial that's going to be like a murder trial on a man who is not really responsible for what happened that night. Then the two of them would be able to have counselling and maybe finally to heal.

 

[fullmoon]

I'm wondering if LW is just trying to get a guick settlement. Say CBS kicks him half a million or so, so what, they still made a nice profit on the show. I doubt jr and br will take it to court, Burke looks very guilty.

In April 2000, Boulder resident Chris Wolf sued the Ramseys for libel after they lumped him in with a list people they considered suspects in their book. A district judge in Atlanta dismissed the case. So if the Ramsey's can name possible suspects in their book, why can't CBS do the same in The Case of JonBenet Ramsey?

 

[ElleElle]

Has anyone thought that the flashlight was not what struck her on the head?

Wasn't there a metal baseball bat around as well?

 

[wildebeest]

Perhaps he thought that if BR is on the biggest daytime TV shows, the people who have been following this case may say: "Oh poor Burke". I cannot think of any explanation, but I am sure some awesome WS'er may be able to explain this as I find the timing odd as well.

Also, maybe he wanted a big ca$h in before he goes into hiding after the CBS special?

Will never understand why he went on DP. All these years, I had imagined him as a rather normal young man. But, his demeanor and personality during the interviews with DP, was beyond bizarre.

IMHO

 

[Amonet]

I can't believe they got a kid to hit a skull that was covered with rubber and a blond wig, with a flashlight. They actually went there. :shivers:

I was revolted at seeing the camera pan to that child!

But...though it was a very risky scene, and they claimed that they used the child to show how someone of that age could have the strength to cause that injury, it was actually a much more damning demonstration. That child was the perfect height to cause that injury, which did appear to match the position on JB's skull. So it's not just that a child 'could' have done it, but that the child's height, weight, arm force, object 'could' have matched, which is a far stronger combination.

Then, later in the documentary, you see 9-year old Burke making the exact same arm motion when demonstrating how JonBenet might have been killed by an intruder. I don't see that as an admission of guilt, but as something in his subconscious mind coming through involuntarily. But given all the evidence presented, I don't think it's a coincidence that he made that motion.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

REOPEN: I think the case needs reopened.

 

[wildebeest]

I hope it's okay to double post but this is a different post entirely from my last one.

I finally feel closure in this case, and I am left with an immense feeling of sadness for John, Patsy, and Burke.

I always looked at the accusations against Burke and railed against them. He couldn't have written that note or staged that scene, not in my mind. So I looked at John and Patsy with hate and non-understanding of how and why. The explanations given in the show for why it wasn't someone from the outside were pretty glaring to me, so it had to be someone in that house. But what an awful picture it left for us of hateful, murderous parents! Now I feel all that erased by seeing what may have really happened, and that it was just a few hours of stupid, stupid, desperate acts by devastated, confused, and frightened parents who loved both their children.

Assuming that show uncovered 99% of the actual events of that night....I don't believe Burke knows what happened. I think they covered it up from him as well as trying to cover it up for the outside world. I don't think he was culpable or intending to murder. He appears to maybe have some kind of Asperger's syndrome and lack emotional connections to his sister and parents (judging from the interviews aged 9 and 11 which were shown on the show). It would be like a 2-year old lashing out with something in their hand when someone's annoyed them....there's no intent to kill, they don't know their own strength and can't accurately gauge the consequences of this thoughtless action.

I think Patsy came down and saw JonBenet laying there, lifeless, and Burke was sent to bed. I think he got up in the morning and found out she was dead and part of him wondered if what he'd done was the cause of death...hence asking "where did you find her?" Because if she was found in the place he'd last seen her laying 'asleep' or 'knocked out' then maybe he'd hurt her. But if she was in another place, maybe it wasn't him! Then for 20 years he's been fed this pedophile intruder story by his parents. He knows his parents couldn't have murdered his sister in that way, so he has 20 years of being convinced someone broke in, and may no longer have any memory of anything else from that night.

I wish Patsy could have felt the closure I now feel in this case. I wish John and Burke could have that closure, too. I wish they'd never had all this media intrusion in their lives (which they didn't help with when they seemed to want to go on TV to talk about it).

If that show got it far wrong, I would be very surprised. Everything seems to meet Occam's razor....the simplest explanation is usually the truth.

If it was what happened that night, then I think instead of Burke suing CBS, John should come clean to his son, go to his lawyer and make a plea deal for his part in it in order to protect his son from the ordeal of a trial that's going to be like a murder trial on a man who is not really responsible for what happened that night. Then the two of them would be able to have counselling and maybe finally to heal.

Excellent post, Amonet!!! I don't think John Ramsey will ever admit to anything. I think he's in too deep, and perhaps has convinced himself he did nothing wrong.

Why didn't they call 911, Christmas night, and tell the operator what really happened? Afterall, JR knew she died on the 25th.

IMHO

 

[wildebeest]

REOPEN: I think the case needs reopened.

No worries, Aydrianna523, the case is still very active, it was never closed.

 

[HarmonyE.]

According to the video I posted above, they don't even know that what was found in her system was actually pineapple.

What else could she have eaten so shortly before her heart stopped beating?
Her dinner consumed at the Whites' house was digested by the time of death. And they hadn't served anything similar to what was found in her digestive track.
Her parents say she went straight to bed when they got home.
Pineapple was sitting on the table.
JonBenet liked pineapple.
Ergo, JonBenet got up out of bed, went downstairs and took some pineapple out of that bowl.

 

[BBB167893]

Lin Wood is saying on Twitter there is no proof Jonbenet ate pineapple. Sure enough, the autopsy says "which may represent fragments of pineapple" . Playing devils advocate here, how sure can we be that it is pineapple?

The autopsy report was just the beginning. They tested the material afterwards. Even Lou Smit agreed.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but is it possible that a suit against CBS could compel the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts? From what I've read, the court has the power to unseal that record if public interest outweighs the need for secrecy, and prosecutorial error constitutes public interest. Presumably those transcripts could be quite relevant in a libel suit in which the plaintiff is required to prove that the statements made by CBS were false.

 

[molly1255]

Will never understand why he went on DP. All these years, I had imagined him as a rather normal young man. But, his demeanor and personality during the interviews with DP, was beyond bizarre.

IMHO

One motivator for giving the interview may have been a lot of money offered by DP.

Agree on the behavior/demeanor in the DP interview.

 

[ElleElle]

No worries, Aydrianna523, the case is still very active, it was never closed.

There is no statute on limitations on murder cases.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Excellent post, Amonet!!! I don't think John Ramsey will ever admit to anything. I think he's in too deep, and perhaps has convinced himself he did nothing wrong.

Burke too. Although I found it interesting that in one of Lin Wood's rants today he made it sound like not suing CBS is not an option for Burke - because he says so. Almost like Burke as no say in the matter.

Lin Wood cares only about money. If Burke ends up collateral damage because he can't handle being deposed by expert litigators or because new information comes forward that completely confirms his guilt, Wood will just move on to his next case. Burke, on the other hand, may never recover. Hard to know what's in his mind, but he comes across as a feeble character who might allow himself to be manipulated by Wood. And who knows what he's convinced himself about what happened that night.

 

[BBB167893]

http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-brother-burke-defamation-lawsuit-cbs/

TMZ

JonBenet Ramsey
Brother To File Defamation Suit Against CBS
9/21/2016

the network "stands by the broadcast and will do so in court."If it goes to court this could become a de facto murder trial.

Oh, I'm positively SALIVATING over that prospect! And here I thought the Wolf case would be the last chance.

 

[TTF14]

Will never understand why he went on DP. All these years, I had imagined him as a rather normal young man. But, his demeanor and personality during the interviews with DP, was beyond bizarre.

IMHO

Ditto. I never, ever thought he did it until I saw him on DP and that prompted me to watch the other specials. Now I think he did it.

 

[ElleElle]

10 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, we had so many other
11 things that she had for a snack first, you know, before
12 she got pineapple. But she wouldn't do this. She
13 would not have a bowl like this with a big huge spoon
14 like that.
15 TOM HANEY: Would you do that?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
17 TOM HANEY: Would --
18 PATSY RAMSEY: That is weird.
19 TOM HANEY: Would John do that?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
21 TOM HANEY: How about Burke?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. He has a sweet tooth. He
23 doesn't like fruit too much. He likes pineapple a
24 little bit, strawberries a little bit, but he would not
25 pour himself a big bowl of pineapple.
0478
1 TOM HANEY: If he got up in the middle of the
2 night would he eat something like that?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No. He would eat something
4 chocolate.
5 TOM HANEY: Could he reach the bowl?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: He could reach the bowl.
7 TOM HANEY: The spoon, where is it kept?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: In the silverware drawer in
9 there in the kitchen to the right of the range.
10 But, see, if the kids were making a snack for
11 themselves, even if they were, that is a huge serving
12 spoon. They, you know, they use a little spoon.
13 Now, I don't know if some of those women, you
14 know, Priscilla and them were there that morning, it
15 was early, and I don't know whether they were, you
16 know, fixing things for people to eat, but that doesn't
17 look right to me.

Source ~ http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

 

[TTF14]

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but is it possible that a suit against CBS could compel the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts? From what I've read, the court has the power to unseal that record if public interest outweighs the need for secrecy, and prosecutorial error constitutes public interest. Presumably those transcripts could be quite relevant in a libel suit in which the plaintiff is required to prove that the statements made by CBS were false.

Excellent query, and we can only hope!

 

[HarmonyE.]

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but is it possible that a suit against CBS could compel the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts? From what I've read, the court has the power to unseal that record if public interest outweighs the need for secrecy, and prosecutorial error constitutes public interest. Presumably those transcripts could be quite relevant in a libel suit in which the plaintiff is required to prove that the statements made by CBS were false.

I've been wondering the same thing. Some stuff I yanked off the web.

Records of federal grand jury proceedings remain confidential “to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury,” according to Rule 6(e)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is left to the court to determine when to release such records.Access to state grand jury transcripts varies. In California, transcripts of grand jury testimony become public record once an indictment is returned, unless a defendant can show a reasonable likelihood that release of part or all of the transcripts would prejudice his right to a fair trial.
Other states have no such law. A Massachusetts trial judge recently unsealed all court documents except the grand jury transcripts in Commonwealth v. Pitsas, a case involving a retired dentist charged with accidentally poisoning an infant.
When the media seeks disclosure of a grand jury transcript, a court balances the government’s interest in secrecy against the public’s interest in disclosure. The press should argue “that there is an important public interest in seeing what is in the grand jury transcripts,” especially in cases involving botched prosecutions or government corruption, said Lake, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief for the media in United States v. Aisenberg.

 

[sherlockh]

I think the pineapple being left has a very simple explanation. They never realized it was a key part of the evidence. They were so focused on covering up what happened that night that no one would have thought about the pineapple...they might not have known she took some of it and that it would be found in her stomach contents. That wasn't what they were focused on...they were only focused on a cover-up to save their son from knowing what he'd done and being taken away from them. I can't explain the flashlight. No one should wipe the batteries inside the flashlight but leave it there. It was snowing that night? They couldn't leave the house to dump anything. The notepad and pen stayed in the house, the flashlight stayed too...that's the only answer I can see.

I agree. The pineapple simply shows that the kitchen was not the crime scene. Who thinks of that when the crime scene is somewhere else? If that flashlight is anything like mine then the batteries would have jumped out because of that hit or maybe it was dropped after the hit, so somebody had to put the batteries back and therefore cleaned them off. Other then that, they simply made plenty of mistakes IMO.