The Case of JonBenet Ramsey-CBS Sept. 18

[fedfan4life]

Just because it's difficult to imagine doesn't mean it can't happen.

Right. I can't really imagine an atom either (as an example), but alas...

 

[fedfan4life]

Mad props to Fleet White and family.

 

[BBB167893]

Possible. But very, very tenuous.

Maybe. Along those same lines, maybe it was as you say: he didn't respect her, but viewed her as "his." And no one was going to take what was "his." That's one other idea I've got.

 

[Zeno49]

I am in total agreement. Later I will elaborate a BDI hypothesis that will connect all the dots.
One of the major hurdles in advancing such a theory was how could it be possible that a 9 yr old boy could commit such grisly acts. Having watched Burke in the police interview videos and watching him on McGraw's propaganda circus recently, I find it entirely plausible that this kid mortally assaulted JBR.

 

[liz b.]

Now that it has finished airing, has anyone found any holes in the theories stated on the show?

Not any holes, but I do wonder why they sent BR over to FW's house ? If he killed JBR, weren't his parents afraid he might tell all ? I do find it somewhat disturbing that BR is now saying that he got up that night. I get the vibe that he's playing us...deep down I get the sense that he's really enjoying playing us...jmo

 

[bxbbysoxer]

Okay, so finally sitting down and looking over it, I have a few thoughts about the CBS documentary. Taking into account that two hours were cut out, some of this could be included in the full cut, but idk.

1) Why did they conclude so fully that there was no sexual abuse? In Kolar's book, he leans pretty heavily on it as a possibility, or even a probability, considering the damage noted in the autopsy, the blood, and the paint brush fragments. How, looking at that, do they conclude that there was no sexual element to this? My personal belief is that BR was abusing JBR, and struck her when she struggled against it. To me, it makes more sense in the way of a cover up - if your child hits his sister, in what pretty much amounts to an accident, where's the incentive to stage such an elaborate cover up?

"I had also found it interesting that the Paughs had reportedly purchased several books on childhood behavior for the Ramsey family. The titles of the books were intriguing:
- The Hurried Child - Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind;
- Children at Risk, Dobson/Bruer;
- Why Johnny Can't Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick

- 'Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?', J Kolar (not sure what page because I only own the e-book edition, sorry!)

Just a glance over these books is very telling - the first one touches on the idea of children being 'hurried' into adulthood, as in engaging in adult behaviours while still having a child's mentality. The other two focus on kids who struggle with morals/are 'corrupted', though take that phrase as you will, because these are books from the 90s. But why, if there was nothing going on, did the rest of the family even notice it and try to help them deal with it?

Thing is, you have a child who very clearly has some mental health issues as well as anger problems, if the testimony of the family friend last night is anything to go on. You then also have a child who is being basically trained up to behave in a provocative manner and to base her behaviour and emotions on the reaction/approval of people around her. I don't put much weight in the 'I don't feel pretty' comment, but you have to admit that if it's legit and not a case of blurred hindsight it's strange.

2) Why were they so focused on the idea that this was something that just happened in a sudden burst of anger, rather than something which had been building?

I don't believe BR intended to kill JBR. I believe he just wanted to shut her up to avoid being caught. My younger brother used to be really violent, and if I caught him doing anything he wasn't supposed to, he would hit me to make sure I didn't tell. He's fine now, but it's just something I thought of while trying to figure this out. But even if you want to say that the 911 call from the party a few days before wasn't involved, that that was just some random thing - in spite of the fact that the police were, for an unexplained reason, not allowed in the house, even if you want to say that, these books could be seen as an indicator that something was going on for a long time.

I also don't buy that hitting her with the gold club was an accident, but w/e.

3) Did anyone else feel like they kind of brushed over the fecal matter on the chocolates, which Burke had smeared on the walls, and in JonBenet's bed? That's another thing that struck me as something which was probably left out of the full cut. It was like they said it, and then 'Okay, time to move on'. Or maybe I'm just crazy.

I did enjoy the CBS documentary; there were some new points and it was good to see everything mapped out linearly again besides. What I'm a little put out about is the fact that in their effort to create a united front for their show, it feels like they've ignored some points to build up their 'accidental murder + cover up' scenario. I don't believe that them cutting it was a result of LW's threats, I think maybe it and the number of JonBenet media being released with the twenty year anniversary coming up combined to make them cut some material.

JMO. I feel like I'll post this and then think of more things I want to talk about, lmao.

 

[elendast]

3) Did anyone else feel like they kind of brushed over the fecal matter on the chocolates, which Burke had smeared on the walls, and in JonBenet's bed? That's another thing that struck me as something which was probably left out of the full cut. It was like they said it, and then 'Okay, time to move on'. Or maybe I'm just crazy.

I ALWAYS feel like that is brushed over and just accepted as a fact of the case and to me it is SO bizarre.

 

[bxbbysoxer]

I ALWAYS feel like that is brushed over and just accepted as a fact of the case and to me it is SO bizarre.

Yes!! It is such a strange thing that's always given such little attention, almost to the point of 'hahaa, kids amirite?' sometimes. Drives me insane!

 

[Zeno49]

McGraw's treatment of Burke Ramsey was a total farce.
First off Lucien Wood is McGraw's attorney - both in defending many lawsuits now pending against him and also leading McGraw's $250M lawsuit against National Inquirer. The arrangement was a total exercise in conflict of interest, Wood got exposure for his Atlanta law firm, which adds to his allure as "lawyer for the rich and famous", Wood and Ramsey got to lay out their mendacious story - that Ramseys are innocent, Ramsey's have been victimized, Boulder Police are bumbling incompetents, suspicions towards the Ramsey's amounted to a lynching, the DA pronouncement that no charges will be filed against the Ramsey's was the only rational act done by Boulder City officials, the DNA absolutely categorically EXCULPATED all Ramseys as perps in the JBR murder, Burke was a perfectly innocent anxious child and now young adult. McGraw was the chief cheerleader in this charade. It was a win - win- win for Lin Wood, John Ramsey " we are all innocent and unjustly persecuted" and P McGraw who pompously scolded any viewers that thinking Burke could be disturbed or capable of heinous acts was ridiculous and absurd - got his desired ratings bump.

 

[wildebeest]

Not any holes, but I do wonder why they sent BR over to FW's house ? If he killed JBR, weren't his parents afraid he might tell all ? I do find it somewhat disturbing that BR is now saying that he got up that night. I get the vibe that he's playing us...deep down I get the sense that he's really enjoying playing us...jmo

Maybe he'll write a book, and entitle it, "If I Did It"

 

[Karinna]

I think J.R. was directing the cover up. The letter conceived by both and helped in the verbiage with both. They had only 1 child left, and they'd sacrifice anyone (even god himself) to save that one's future, imo. Sadly, the opposite now may be true.

The 911 call heard what the operator said was Patsy saying what sounded like, "Now what" or "what's next".

Can't recall all the details of the show now but I got the impression it was he who was the main director, more calm, more cool then she was.

I also recall sitting in their L.R., the detectives said, they didn't touch each other which is strange in itself, not to console your spouse after just losing a child.

BBM, That is not true. The reaction after the sudden death of a child has no right or wrong way to act. I have the experience of grieving the sudden loss of an adult child and i pushed my husband away initially. The death of a child either draws you together or tears you apart. But there definitely is no right or wrong way in how we react to such a life altering event. All IMO.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

Yes!! It is such a strange thing that's always given such little attention, almost to the point of 'hahaa, kids amirite?' sometimes. Drives me insane!

I think it just isn't something that many people are even aware of. When I read about it in Kolar's book, I was flabbergasted. Now, whenever I'm talking about the case with someone who has a passing interest, I make sure to share the scatological details with them. Same response every time: "holy [bleep]!"

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I'm going through the thread now on last night's show (great posts, everyone!). I haven't gotten through all posts yet, so please excuse this if someone has already addressed this. My questions are about the whole sexual abuse thing that was covered last night, so I need some help from one of the Websleuth experts to help me understand this.

When I watched the show last night I was also in the chat room at the same time, and I think I initially misinterpreted what Spitz and Lee were saying. I'd *originally* thought they were say that after Spitz examined the microscope slide, he concluded that there was no evidence of *prior* sexual abuse before JonBenet's death. But when I went back later and rewatched this segment, I think I got that wrong and what Spitz and Lee were actually saying was that there was no evidence of sexual abuse/sexual trauma/sexual intrusion (whatever words you want to use) ON THE NIGHT she was killed. Do I have that right? (If so, my apologies to bubbiegirl because in the chat room I told her the opposite!)

So if I have that right, can fellow WS members help me with the following questions:

1. Am I correct that the experts *never* addressed on the show last night whether or not there was evidence of ongoing, recurring sexual abuse happening prior to the night JonBenet was killed?

2. If they are saying there was no sexual intrusion the night she was killed, where did the blood in JBR's underwear come from? (Kolar asks this as well on the show and I felt he wasn't given a very convincing answer). And as other posters have already stated, this was a fresh pair of underwear she was put in, so a prior pair of undies might have had even more blood on it. Plus, am I remembering correctly that the smear on JBR's thigh (which was found during the autopsy) was actually determined to be JBR's own blood that had been wiped away by something (a cloth or whatever)? So if no sexual intrusion that night (made by a paint brush or some other object), where did this blood come from?

3. If the experts last night are saying no sexual abuse the night she was killed, then how do they explain the inflamation and blood in the vaginal vault that was found and documented in the autopsy?

Thanks in advance for anyone's help in making sense of this for me!

I too have not read all the posts yet, so apologies if this was addressed. i came away with the same impression: There was no sexual intrusion, staged or otherwise. The wood splinter was incidental transference?

I would be very grateful if someone could clear that up please.

 

[Yvettea]

What they said was no sexual assault the night she died.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

Maybe. Along those same lines, maybe it was as you say: he didn't respect her, but viewed her as "his." And no one was going to take what was "his." That's one other idea I've got.

I have to keep going back to JR's political aspirations. There's no winning scenario for him that involves any one of the following: sexual abuse in the home, his awareness of sexual abuse in the home, his lack of awareness of sexual abuse in the home, his participation in sexual abuse in the home, his concealment of sexual abuse in the home, his role or lack thereof in raising a disturbed child... I really could go on like this for some time which tells me the nighttime meds are doing their thing

 

[elendast]

What they said was no sexual assault the night she died.

That surprised me and since we know the show was heavily edited we can guess that they spent a lot more time than it appeared they did discussing whether or not the sexual assault took place. To me, it seems inconclusive, and it's always seemed that way.

 

[YouWho]

Another corroborating evidence for the CBS is that no credible evidence of the intruder was found. No crushed leaves, strange cars, bits of clothings on the fence or elsewhere.
Also, a "small faction" would have went in with several people and armed AND kidnapped BOTH kids almost certainly while gagging and tying up the parents.
Also, an older boy would be more valuable than a younger girl methinks.

Agreed. But for the record I want to say that the fence around the home was installed after the murder, long after the Ramsey's lived there. (I'm still many pages behind.)

 

[New1]

Dr. Phil asked JR if he ever spent another night in that house, and JR answered, "No."

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Another observation... did everyone else notice how often it was mentioned that John was absent? I thought that was curious.

 

[angelainwi]

I had an epiphany moment watching the CBS special last night. I previously thought Patsy did it, but seeing the video of Burke refusing to say what was in the bowl (the pineapple) completely blew me away. He was so sheepish, absolute "deer in the headlights" when asked about it. He visibly reacted in an unequivocally guilty manner and his feet started bouncing almost off of the chair. That's the only time he exhibited those behaviors. He seemed sheepish, embarrassed, and caught.

You make him sound psychopathic. Has a mental health professional ever interviewed him?