Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BBB167893]

also FB,
It's the clarity of the photos. Can read the names of the board games in the trophy room shot.



ty, otg, I watched a bit, got real sleepy.... OG drones on.
Will have to set aside some time, big coffee, always been interested in the location of switch plates.

wrt MB,


MB's naivete?, the regrets, retractions, adjustments are documented,
p439 the author's comments slay.

How do you mean, Tadpole12? "Slay" as in made you laugh? Or you think she's right?

 

[BBB167893]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/13/why-is-america-still-freakishly-obsessed-with-jonbenets-murder/

Why is America still freakishly obsessed with JonBenet's murder?
Aug 13, 2016

“This case keeps on coming back,” says Lawrence Schiller, author of “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury’s Search for the Final Truth,” considered the definitive biography of the case.
“It’s like going to the beach,” Schiller says. “The tide goes out and it goes back in, and the police are hoping the next time it comes in, they may catch who did it.”

....

“This case would have lasted in regional newspapers for one week if not for two elements,” Schiller says. “It’s the release of videos of JonBenet in beauty pageants, and the release, days later, of still photos of her in hair and makeup. The tabloids latched on to that. What sustained it? Very simple: The police department said, ‘The parents did it,’ and a DA who said, ‘I’m not going to prosecute.’ ”

...

“The 20th anniversary of JonBenet’s death is December 26th,” says Schiller. “Know why all these specials are going to air in September? It’s sweeps. It’s all about ratings.”

Tadpole12, I'll tell you why we're obsessed: because SOMEONE has to care! The people who should have cared didn't and don't. Someone has to take a stand.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/13/why-is-america-still-freakishly-obsessed-with-jonbenets-murder/

Why is America still freakishly obsessed with JonBenet's murder?
Aug 13, 2016

“This case keeps on coming back,” says Lawrence Schiller, author of “Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury’s Search for the Final Truth,” considered the definitive biography of the case.
“It’s like going to the beach,” Schiller says. “The tide goes out and it goes back in, and the police are hoping the next time it comes in, they may catch who did it.”

....

“This case would have lasted in regional newspapers for one week if not for two elements,” Schiller says. “It’s the release of videos of JonBenet in beauty pageants, and the release, days later, of still photos of her in hair and makeup. The tabloids latched on to that. What sustained it? Very simple: The police department said, ‘The parents did it,’ and a DA who said, ‘I’m not going to prosecute.



...

“The 20th anniversary of JonBenet’s death is December 26th,” says Schiller. “Know why all these specials are going to air in September? It’s sweeps. It’s all about ratings.”

Schiller's argument makes no sense. Plenty of non-child beauty queens have gotten more coverage than a week of regional coverage. JonBenet was a cute child from a wealthy family. The case may not have made the tabloids, JonBenet may not have become a "celebrity" and there may not be tons of TV specials 20 years later, but he is grossly underestimating the amount of coverage.

A child whose family has a net worth of $6 million who is found dead is making national news.

 

[observation]

Schiller's argument makes no sense. Plenty of non-child beauty queens have gotten more coverage than a week of regional coverage. JonBenet was a cute child from a wealthy family. The case may not have made the tabloids, JonBenet may not have become a "celebrity" and there may not be tons of TV specials 20 years later, but he is grossly underestimating the amount of coverage.

A child whose family has a net worth of $6 million who is found dead is making national news.

Also if we consider JBR was killed on Christmas Day (or 12/26) in her own home with 3 family members present that night, right there it piques interest. Likely now because this case has gone unsolved for close to 20 years, yes it has a lot of interest and some may be NEW interested folks. I will have to disagree with Shillers reasoning too. The costumes and photos may account for 20% but the fact family members may have killed their own blood- that's 80% of the following. IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otg]

Normally, I don't favor lawsuits for personal insults, but in this instance, I say you're right, otg.

...and normally, I'd agree with you, SD, about lawsuits. But Woodward goes beyond a simple personal insult to Beckner. She slanders his knowledge and professionalism in accusing him of being wrong about the evidence. The "personal insult" is toward us or anyone else who is familiar enough with the case facts to know that she is writing garbage for the sole purpose of defending her "buddies," the Ramseys. Hey, that's it! Maybe we should sue.

 

[otg]

I appreciate your help on this, otg. But, that last line you gave tells the story:

It is ultimately the jury's responsibility to determine the specific role a defendant plays. People v. Scheidt, 182 Colo. 374, 513 P.2d 446 (1973).

That's right. It's the "jury's responsibility to determine the specific role." What is not stated (but implied) is that it is the prosecutor's responsibility to present the facts which will allow the jury to make that determination.

How is the jury supposed to make that decision when either one of them could have done it? I'm not claiming that there was a legal impediment to charging them both, I'm saying that what's written in a law book and what a jury actually does are different things. I'll give you a practical example. I know that Florida and Colorado are different states, but in the Casey Anthony trial, the defense tried to put blame on George Anthony. As a result, Casey walked. (I wish she'd have walked out in front of a bus, but that's a whole other pot of coffee!)

Been here before. To save time, here was my answer then (with reference to another famous Florida trial where different individuals were charged with having committed the same crime):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-about-all-these-3-s&p=11943987#post11943987

 

[AndHence]

If the case really is BDI, why would Burke contradict his parents' version of events in two key areas? He says he was awake during the 911 call and that JonBenet was not carried to bed but walked up the stairs. It obviously behooves Burke to stick to a story that is consistent with John and Patsy's, especially if he was aware that they were covering for him.

 

[UKGuy]

If the case really is BDI, why would Burke contradict his parents' version of events in two key areas? He says he was awake during the 911 call and that JonBenet was not carried to bed but walked up the stairs. It obviously behooves Burke to stick to a story that is consistent with John and Patsy's, especially if he was aware that they were covering for him.

AndHence,
BR being a child probably thought talking about what happened outside the house didn't matter, so mentioned JonBenet walking into the house, and the sleeping issue was raised by hearing his alleged voice on the 911 call, with his parents later confirming it.

BR really just has one inconsistency, how many do the parents have to offer?

.

 

[BBB167893]

...and normally, I'd agree with you, SD, about lawsuits. But Woodward goes beyond a simple personal insult to Beckner. She slanders his knowledge and professionalism in accusing him of being wrong about the evidence.

She seems to have included the entire police force and FBI in that, as well. If it was me, I sure wouldn't put up with it.

The "personal insult" is toward us or anyone else who is familiar enough with the case facts to know that she is writing garbage for the sole purpose of defending her "buddies," the Ramseys. Hey, that's it! Maybe we should sue.

A nice idea, but I don't think it would go anywhere.

I've been meaning to bring this up, and now seems like a good time. It's just scary how easily the Ramseys can sucker people, who then turn around and say, "how could such lovely people do such a thing?" and then view the evidence through that lens. And I speak from personal experience on that. Everyone here knows that I was taken in by them for a long while. Then I saw what they were doing to people who spoke against them. But even now--and I am NOT ashamed to admit this--my heart aches for Patsy Ramsey as well as JonBenet. I believe she truly did, and does, love her daughter and family. And I truly believe that God, in His infinite mercy, has reunited them. (I know, "there goes SD, his heart bleeding all over the landscape.)

But that is not EVIDENCE. It would be so wonderful if the capacity for terrible acts was strictly limited to the most derelict of humanity, but that's just not so.

It all comes down to this: James Kolar viewed the entire case file, and was an experienced investigator. And his conclusions directly fly in Paula Woodward's face, and so do Mark Beckner's. Not a hard choice for me.

 

[BBB167893]

That's right. It's the "jury's responsibility to determine the specific role." What is not stated (but implied) is that it is the prosecutor's responsibility to present the facts which will allow the jury to make that determination.

Been here before. To save time, here was my answer then (with reference to another famous Florida trial where different individuals were charged with having committed the same crime):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-about-all-these-3-s&p=11943987#post11943987

otg, you make great points, as always. But there's something to keep in mind here: what you say is true in cases where it can be shown that the two or more people acted together, because then it falls under conspiracy. It's different when one person does it and the other person is acting as reasonable doubt. In this case, you've got two cops publicly stating that one parent did all with the other one not knowing about it until later on. ST claims PDI alone, LA claims JDI alone. If even the cops can't agree, how could a jury?

 

[Denlawyer]

I've followed this case for years and lurked on here for the past couple. Given all of the new shows coming out this year I figure I will be going back down this rabbit hole and decided to start posting.

I read how one of the new experts looking at this case believes the most critical piece of evidence in this case is the undigested pineapple found in JB. We all know PR and JR said JB was asleep when they got home; we also know that PR said they did not feed her pineapple and they didn't even have any at the house. Yet, we know her fingerprints were on the bowl with the same fruit that was not fully digested by JB before she was killed. Seems like a pretty clear instance of PR lying (I refuse to accept the logic of intruder feeding her pineapple that the intruder brought with him, and yet only PR and JB's fingerprints end up on the bowl (possible BR's too, I don't recall)).

Now, one thing that is not often mentioned is that Det. Arndt's report noted that green "garland" like xmas material was found in JB's hair that appeared to be the same material decorating the spiral staircase. The reason I think this is important is--if it came from that staircase railing--it potentially means it got there when (1) she was carried upstairs asleep when they got home, or (2) it got there after the blow to the head happened upstairs and she was being carried downstairs unconscious and in a panic. Since we know she ate pineapple shortly before she died (i.e., after she got home and before she was murdered, we can rule out number (1) above. I've always thought the head to the blow came from PR upstairs after JB wet the bed (sheets thrown back, diaper package hanging out of closet, balled up shirt, etc.).

I know there's a fair amount of assumptions here and a number of other possible explanations for how the green stuff got in her hair (e.g., she was laid down on the ground by the xmas tree; it could have come from the floor). Regardless, I do think the pineapple evidence--which has been discussed thoroughly--is one of the most critical pieces of evidence in this case and undermines the R's credibility. PR saying there was no pineapple in her house and she didn't serve any to JB is completely contradicted by the fingerprints on the bowl, the contents of the bowl, and the fruit in JB's digestive track. I think it's one of the things she initially lied about not giving it much significance and eventually had to just maintain that lie despite it sounding absurd.

Just a random thought as I read these articles about the upcoming shows. Thanks

 

[InstantProof]

The pineapple is a good clue but I personally don't need it to believe she was awake. It's convenient to write her off as asleep from the moment they pulled in the driveway. The ransom note does not use her name. Neither is it said on the 911 call. And she is found in the furthest away location of the house. She's very removed from the whole picture for a child murdered in her own home that night.

 

[Denlawyer]

I don't really need it to believe she was awake (although it categorically proves she was); I need it as pretty concrete evidence that they (or at least PR) lied about the pineapple because they had already committed to the story that she was asleep and we never woke up before it became a significant clue.

During JR's interview he tried to suggest that she may have been fed pineapple at the White's but admitted they said they didn't; he then theorized that maybe JB just found some on her own in the White's fridge (and then some magically appeared in their kitchen?). Then when faced with the fact that the pineapple was likely eaten sometime between 9:30 and midnight he said PR did not fed her pineapple that night because she told him she didn't (ok). Most importantly, after acknowledging it would have had to been the intruder (one she knew because she would have screamed otherwise) he said it would be very easy for us to say we fed her pineapple if we did this; that there would be no reason to lie about it. Yet, they couldn't do that because by the time they realized the pineapple's significance they had already committed to their story that she was asleep and then they woke up and she was gone. As you said, it was easy to commit to she was asleep and that was that; it was too late to change their story so they're left with illogical explanations for the pineapple (i.e., an intruder that knew her fed it to her before bashing her head in, ransom note, etc.).

Interestingly, while JR said if it came from that bowl of pineapple it had to be a known intruder, PR said she would have easily heard Burke or JB in the kitchen in the middle of the night if they were down there pulling down bowls and making something to eat. Would she not hear the intruder fixing pineapple and JB talking to her special friend (JR mentions the santa theory here)? And then the fingerprints: Burke's and PR's are the only ones on the bowl (there was some discussion about a container of pineapple in JB's room). Yet PR said she would have never used that bowl for serving pineapple and absolutely did not that night. Therefore, I think it's pretty much indisputable that she lied about this, and she did so because she faced questions on it after already committing to her story. The morning she called 911 she never thought that the autopsy would time-stamp the consumption of the pineapple contradicting her story.

There's tons of important evidence in this case. I've just been re-examining the pineapple evidence since it's supposed to be one of the focuses of the new documentaries and it's a piece of evidence that really can't be (logically) explained away by the IDI theory.

 

[BBB167893]

I've followed this case for years and lurked on here for the past couple. Given all of the new shows coming out this year I figure I will be going back down this rabbit hole and decided to start posting.

I read how one of the new experts looking at this case believes the most critical piece of evidence in this case is the undigested pineapple found in JB. We all know PR and JR said JB was asleep when they got home; we also know that PR said they did not feed her pineapple and they didn't even have any at the house. Yet, we know her fingerprints were on the bowl with the same fruit that was not fully digested by JB before she was killed. Seems like a pretty clear instance of PR lying (I refuse to accept the logic of intruder feeding her pineapple that the intruder brought with him, and yet only PR and JB's fingerprints end up on the bowl (possible BR's too, I don't recall)).

Now, one thing that is not often mentioned is that Det. Arndt's report noted that green "garland" like xmas material was found in JB's hair that appeared to be the same material decorating the spiral staircase. The reason I think this is important is--if it came from that staircase railing--it potentially means it got there when (1) she was carried upstairs asleep when they got home, or (2) it got there after the blow to the head happened upstairs and she was being carried downstairs unconscious and in a panic. Since we know she ate pineapple shortly before she died (i.e., after she got home and before she was murdered, we can rule out number (1) above. I've always thought the head to the blow came from PR upstairs after JB wet the bed (sheets thrown back, diaper package hanging out of closet, balled up shirt, etc.).

I know there's a fair amount of assumptions here and a number of other possible explanations for how the green stuff got in her hair (e.g., she was laid down on the ground by the xmas tree; it could have come from the floor). Regardless, I do think the pineapple evidence--which has been discussed thoroughly--is one of the most critical pieces of evidence in this case and undermines the R's credibility. PR saying there was no pineapple in her house and she didn't serve any to JB is completely contradicted by the fingerprints on the bowl, the contents of the bowl, and the fruit in JB's digestive track. I think it's one of the things she initially lied about not giving it much significance and eventually had to just maintain that lie despite it sounding absurd.

Just a random thought as I read these articles about the upcoming shows. Thanks

Welcome, Denlawyer. I like how you put pieces together.

 

[UKGuy]

Denlawyer,

Now having established, to your satisfaction, what you reckon are the pineapple snack facts. Do you think Patsy or JR ever knew about the pineapple snack?

Here is a scenario: on the 24 Dec Patsy serves JonBenet some pineapple and returns the bowl to the fridge. On the 25th Dec BR retrieves the bowl, so depositing his prints, and serves JonBenet pineapple, all without the parents knowledge, so explaining why the parents never factored the pineapple snack into their version of events?

.

 

[Denlawyer]

It's a good hypothetical UKGuy, but to answer your question, yes I believe PR and probably JR knew about the pineapple snack for a couple reasons.

First, PR said he did not recall serving the kids pineapple on the 25th (late pancake breakfast, then the Whites), and while it's conceivable she served it and put it in the bowl in the fridge on the 24th, she certainly did not say she recalled doing that. In fact, she said she would never serve pineapple in that particular bowl with that big spoon. Yet, the bowl has her prints on it (as well as Burke's) but no one else's.

Second, even if we assume she did serve it in that bowl (and just forgot), I highly doubt the idea of Burke retrieving it late on the 25th and feeding it to JB. PR said the kids never got up in the middle of the night and ate snacks; that even Burke would have woken her up if he was hungry. And even if it was some sort of nefarious plan of Burke's, neither of them loved pineapple (per PR) and would have probably opted for another snack. So even if BR was involved, I don't see a realistic scenario where he wakes up a sleeping JB, lures her to the kitchen to eat pineapple while their parents are sleeping, and then things unfold from here. In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that PR gave the kids some pineapple before they went to sleep on the 25th (having a 4 and 7 year old, I know on a day like xmas where they play all day, they will suddenly be hungry when you say it's bed time). PR stayed up to pack, was exhausted, and became furious when JB wet the bed. How the rest unfolded from there I have no idea, but I don't believe PR had no idea about the pineapple and I don't believe she ever went to bed that night. In terms of why, after the head blow, she did not call 911, etc., I believe there was a lot of dark secrets in that family and for reason or another PR (and probably JR) decided they had no other option. But who knows; I've changed my theories in this case a number of times.

Finally, Burke feeding her pineapple unbeknownst to PR and JR when they're sleeping does not jive with the rest of the evidence in my opinion. I believe Burke knows a lot about what happened that night (or what was going on in that family), and possibly even why, but I struggle with the idea that he rendered the head blow, and simply think it defies logic that a 9 year old could make and use a garrote and remain clam during all of this. Keep in mind that a 6 year old's skull is actually harder than an adults; the crack in her skull was caused by tremendous force. The only way I see Burke having that strength is if he used a bat or a golf club, but it appears both those objects were inspected and found to be unlikely as the source of the blow. Also, I've never read that Burke had a temper or was aggressive/violent. Some of PR's temper showed during her interviews; she could appear charming one minute and intimidating the next.

Sorry for the lengthy rambling post. These are obviously just my own opinions and beliefs based on what I know about the evidence. There's lots of plausible theories for what happened that night but, in my opinion, the most likely is that JB was delivered a horrific blow (either by being pushed into something or hit with something in a fit of rage (probably due to bed wetting) and the parents in a panic tried to cover it up from there. I believe JR was an accomplice for the most part and knew what had happened and helped in order to protect himself, his business, and his wife and son.

 

[UKGuy]

It's a good hypothetical UKGuy, but to answer your question, yes I believe PR and probably JR knew about the pineapple snack for a couple reasons.

...

Denlawyer,
Anything Patsy says about the pineapple cannot be accepted as fact. Its similar to using the ransom note to draw conclusions about the wine-cellar, its just invalid.

Patsy and/or John may have known about the pineapple snack, so why was it not factored into their version of events?

.

 

[questfortrue]

In keeping with this thread's title, here is the latest trailer produced by CBS. I am glad to see such folks as Clemente, Fitzgerald and, one of my faves, James Kolar.

http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-...f9qdh5c#ooid=0zaDRkNTE6T8UZjznMDOuvciYqMxPkPs

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/16/case-jonbenet-ramsey-trailer

See The Trailer For The Case of: JonBenet
August 16 2016

"The six-hour series, executive produced by Tom Forman (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, 9/11), airs on Sept. 18, 19, and 25, and a new trailer for the program shows the team poring over the evidence, aided by technological advances and new interviews, and generating new theories. A replica of key rooms in the house has even been constructed in a 50,000-square-foot warehouse. Step inside the show with this just-released three-minute preview."

 

[Tadpole12]

In keeping with this thread's title, here is the latest trailer produced by CBS. I am glad to see such folks as Clemente, Fitzgerald and, one of my faves, James Kolar.

http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-...f9qdh5c#ooid=0zaDRkNTE6T8UZjznMDOuvciYqMxPkPs

and the 911 operator, @ 2:13
@ 2:24 "We're not speaking to you"
@ 2:37 reproduction of 'elephant' painting?
@ 3:00 "B! Come on! We want to talk to you!" reporters rush BR