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

[carolinea]

Their neighbor, Barnhill - the guy who let John store Patsy's surprise bike for xmas and who took care of JB's dog - said he saw someone walking near the Ramsey home the night of the 25th and he assumed it was JAR but JAR was in Atlanta that night. I know some people think JAR's alibi was faked and everyone was lying for him but I don't find it believable myself.

This is from a Dec. 28th article: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-joe-betty-barnhill.htm
Barnhill also said he saw John Ramsey's son from a previous marriage, a student at CU, come to the house.


This is from Steve Thomas's book:
Another reason to interview the Barnhills, however, was that Joe had told the police he had seen JonBenet’s older half-brother, John Andrew, in Boulder on the evening of December 25. John Andrew claimed to have been in Atlanta at the time. During the interview Barnhill sheepishly told us he had made a mistake and apologized, saying that he probably would not even recognize the young man in a crowd. That went a long way toward firming up John Andrew’s alibi.

Did they ever figure out who DID come to the house/who Barnill saw? That's interesting, and the first and only thing I've read that supports IDI.

 

[singularity]

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.

Excellent point and welcome to the forum.

People close to the case like Arndt who was present at the autopsy mentioned how shocking it was looking at JOnbenet's genital area.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

FrankieB already mentioned one thing we know was cut was the footage of them trying to talk to Burke that was in the promo. But another thing we never got to see was a recording of a nasty phone call that played briefly in the end. You can hear a woman with a southern accent saying very severely, "If you EVER try to contact me again..." or something like that. It sounded like Patsy to me (meaning it would have to be an old call someone recorded) or her sister Pam. I was really curious about that one. I'm also wondering if there was more stuff about the Whites that was cut out. It seemed odd that they bring it up once and never revisit it, I thought they were building up to them finally agreeing to talk on the record but it never happened. I also found it interesting that FW took Jim aside to say he really thinks their info could help them, implying his info is consistent with their BDI scenario, maybe?

There are definitely some frustrating omissions in this doc, though overall I'm very pleased that at least the basics are presented publicly.

Also, people keep talking about a doll being visible in the wine cellar photos. Could someone please link me to the picture that shows it? I've never seen a doll when I look at the picture.

 

[singularity]

Their neighbor, Barnhill - the guy who let John store Patsy's surprise bike for xmas and who took care of JB's dog - said he saw someone walking near the Ramsey home the night of the 25th and he assumed it was JAR but JAR was in Atlanta that night. I know some people think JAR's alibi was faked and everyone was lying for him but I don't find it believable myself.

This is from a Dec. 28th article: http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-joe-betty-barnhill.htm
Barnhill also said he saw John Ramsey's son from a previous marriage, a student at CU, come to the house.


This is from Steve Thomas's book:
Another reason to interview the Barnhills, however, was that Joe had told the police he had seen JonBenet’s older half-brother, John Andrew, in Boulder on the evening of December 25. John Andrew claimed to have been in Atlanta at the time. During the interview Barnhill sheepishly told us he had made a mistake and apologized, saying that he probably would not even recognize the young man in a crowd. That went a long way toward firming up John Andrew’s alibi.

I wish they had investigated this incident a bit more thoroughly. Once he did a 180 I suppose it would have reached a dead end anyways.

While I have suspicions regarding JAR for other reasons, I doubt it was actually him. It still begs the question....who was it? Any chance it was that babysitter we hear so little about? Whoever it was, its unfortunate they never came forward..... just because they walked by the Ramsey home at such a crucial time doesn't mean they were involved in her murder although their silence under those circumstances would be understandable. No desire to get involved but by not doing so just leaves one extra piece of the puzzle that will never fit.

Did they ever figure out who DID come to the house/who Barnill saw? That's interesting, and the first and only thing I've read that supports IDI.

No they never found out their identity.

 

[singularity]

Also, people keep talking about a doll being visible in the wine cellar photos. Could someone please link me to the picture that shows it? I've never seen a doll when I look at the picture.

 

[HarmonyE.]

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.

 

[TeaTime]

It is laughable to me that the dust ruffle on a bed being slightly out of place is discussed as evidence of anything but the general state of hot mess inside the Ramsey home. There was no OCD cleaning going on here with someone rushing around putting everything in it's place - ever. It could have happened when a Bichon named Jaques was under the bed, or from LHP vacuuming the carpeting or someone's shoe catching on the ruffle while making the bed. No, it MUST be evidence that the blue suitcase was once under the bed and now was in the basement or evidence of the intruder hiding under the bed waiting to pounce on JBR.

Sometimes a disturbed bed skirt is just part of everyday life.

 

[PositiveLight]

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?

Thank you Singularity! I will definitely have to read those transcripts!!!! Their story changed as much as PR changed outfits. The whole family stated the most absurd things. Didn't recognize a single item in the house!

 

[HarmonyE.]

Sometimes a disturbed bed skirt is just part of everyday life.

My dust ruffles are always disturbed. My children, on the other hand, are not.

 

[Brendon]

There are other things. For one, they didn't just "read the report." The medical experts who said there was abuse also examined the microscopic tissue slides. The others did not. Moreover, JonBenet's doctor admitted that he never performed an internal exam. He's not the first pediatrician to miss signs of abuse. Sadly, he probably won't be the last, either.

OK, but they didn't do the autopsy. That is the big difference. They are still just reviewing evidence gathered from the autopsy. And the experts that reviewed the evidence argued both sides. That is why I'm sticking with the original autopsy as the authority. Her pediatrician while doing a physical exams found no reason to give her a an internal exam, or he would have. I just checked him on google, there is no record of the man being disbarred or sued for gross negligence. So I count his testimony as good circumstantial evidence backing up the the autopsy.

 

[Karinna]

I think another tell in this case that it was not an intruder is the pocket knife of BR that the housekeeper hid from him in a cupboard on the second level of the Ramsey home. That pocket knife was found near JBR's body in the basement. ?Possibly used to cut the nylon cord used for the garrote. So who found & removed the pocket knife from its hidden spot in the cupboard?

 

[Tortoise]

You are correct, the book did not 'belong' to Burke, but it was found the suitcase and said to belong to JAR.

17 LOU SMIT: How about a Dr. Suess
18 book, do you remember anything in a Dr. Suess
19 book, either associated with John Andrew or
20 associated with JonBenet or anything that --
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, we had lots of
22 kids' books. We had bookshelves full of them.
23 I know that they had -- I know I read to 'em,
24 Dr. Suess books, so I am sure they were there.
25 LOU SMIT: Do you know why there
1 would be a sham and duvet and a Dr. Suess book
2 in that suitcase?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?198726-The-Suitcase-Duvet-Sham-amp-Dr-Suess

Does anyone know if there was a bed missing a duvet and pillow sham?

Or if anyone was ever asked if they recognised them (the Rs, the housekeeper..) or where they were usually kept?

 

[Tortoise]

Just on that, the autopsy said nothing about prior sexual abuse.

Other medical experts offered opinions second hand after reading the report. And other medical experts disputed that opinion. Jonbenet's pediatrician, said that he had examined her in the past and found no sexual abuse evidence there. So, the only two places that she had been examined first hand have not reported 'chronic' sexual abuse. So, unless there is something else, I'll go with that.

But the autopsy report stated some sexual abuse in the time of her attack and killing.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence of Prior Sexual Abuse

Her pediatrician had never examined her internally.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi Zoriah

Of course

She was being shown the roll of film of the last christmas morning. Remember that picture of JB smiling with Burke next to her opening gifts? that's one of the few we have been shown, but there are more. When Patsy is shown one of the pictures, she reacts saying "Oh god"

the interrogator replies with: "well, this is your roll of film in your camera, and this picture shows...it basically shows...."

Patsy continues with: "I have no idea why anybody would take a picture like that"

then they discuss pictures of what appears to be a scarf and the note pad, the location of the items is what probably alerted LE to something shady going on, Patsy discards the photographs saying John was probably snapping random things to finish the roll.

But if you analyze the questioning about the first picture she's shown, it sounds like something ominous

Just linking the transcript, it starts at line 0527/16.

It sounds to me like she's saying oh God after seeing a picture of the children, and it's just a sad reminder of JB. And then some pictures of the messy hallway and she can't understand why anyone would take those, maybe to finish the roll.

The pictures from her camera (on 25th) showed her writing pad (probably not being in the same place it was in police photos on 26th judging by her gasps), and the plastic bag at the foot of the spiral staircase that she said she may have put there on 26th, containing clothes for the trip, so the pictures showed it was already there on 25th.

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

 

[BoldBear]

It is laughable to me that the dust ruffle on a bed being slightly out of place is discussed as evidence of anything but the general state of hot mess inside the Ramsey home. There was no OCD cleaning going on here with someone rushing around putting everything in it's place - ever. It could have happened when a Bichon named Jaques was under the bed, or from LHP vacuuming the carpeting or someone's shoe catching on the ruffle while making the bed. No, it MUST be evidence that the blue suitcase was once under the bed and now was in the basement or evidence of the intruder hiding under the bed waiting to pounce on JBR.

Sometimes a disturbed bed skirt is just part of everyday life.

It also wouldn't be that someone would be in that room and pull it up when they were going through the house looking for JB. I love the description of someone hiding under that bed when the Ramseys got home from the Whites. It added a layer of mystery to the case when I was first learning about it.

 

[Tortoise]

Can anyone see a doll here? I can't.

 

[CherCher]

Can anyone see a doll here? I can't.

I believe that's a Barbie doll in the photo under the one with the pineapple. I remember the discussion about this a couple of years ago, and someone had posted a close up of the photo.

 

[ThinkHard]

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.

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.

 

[Tortoise]

I believe that's a Barbie doll in the photo under the one with the pineapple. I remember the discussion about this a couple of years ago, and someone had posted a close up of the photo.

Thanks.

Mmm. It looks like pink and yellow blobs on a white cloth. I'm amazed anyone can make out a Barbie.

 

[Sphinx]

I think another tell in this case that it was not an intruder is the pocket knife of BR that the housekeeper hid from him in a cupboard on the second level of the Ramsey home. That pocket knife was found near JBR's body in the basement. ?Possibly used to cut the nylon cord used for the garrote. So who found & removed the pocket knife from its hidden spot in the cupboard?

Who else would be using that cupboard as a matter of routine ? Was it a linen cupboard ? We know Patsy had to change sheets when JBR wet her bed. Had the housekeeper hidden things from Burke before ? If so, he might have conducted his own search. I agree it is significant that this particular pocket knife that Burke used a great deal for whittling away on pieces of wood, was found near the body. Either he, or someone else in the house found it, and probably did use it to cut nylon rope, or even duct tape. Leaving it behind is the kind of mistake a panicky child would make, or even a distraught Mother. Was it tested for fingerprints and traces left when it was last used ? IMO

IMO