Unsolved JonBenet Ramsey

[Mr Reliable]

I'm surprised there's no thread on this infamous case. If there is, sorry, I missed it.

The little girl found garroted to death in her own basement around Christmas time about 17 years ago. There was a ransom note said to be in the mother's handwriting. The little girl had been sexually molested by her killer. The parents were the prime suspects but the crime remains unsolved to this day.

There is a fantastic three-part program on Foxtel CI channel. I watched the first part last Monday evening. A famous homicide cop who was brought in to investigate and then got frozen out by the local cops because he didn't think the parents did it is going through the case systematically and analysing the evidence.

A highly recommended show - it's called ''Who killed the Pageant Queen'' and it's on next Monday at 7.30 on CH 617.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

I watched the first episode too, it was really good viewing. Smit's analysis of the crime scene photographs was amazing, and seriously makes you wonder how the possibility of an intruder was never properly investigated.

 

[Mr Reliable]

He made sense to me too when he described the murder in detail (guesome as it was) and asserted it wasn't the sort of thing a parent would do to their child.

Parents who kill children are usually more impulsive (bashing, strangling by hand etc) - although the bloke who drove his children into the dam and drowned them might be an exception to that theory.

 

[Kram]

The burn marks from a stun gun pretty much sealed it.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Dam i seen the ad but forgot to tape it grr.

 

[Mr Reliable]

The burn marks from a stun gun pretty much sealed it.

Yet the cops scoffed at the suggestion that a stun gun had been used. Plus the cops said she'd wet her bed and angered her Mum, but the sheets were clean and dry. Plus the cops said there was no sign of forced entry or footsteps in the snow yet the pictures showed no snow on some paths around the house and easy, unforced entry into the house for a fully grown adult through some sort of coal trapdoor.

 

[Jayelles]

Unfortunately, Lou Smit, nice man though he was, was way off with some of his analysis of the crime. Perhaps the most infamous blooper he made was to suggest that a blue mark on JonBenet's body was caused by the blue electrical arc of a stungun (it was simply a vein).

I followed the Ramsey case closely for many years and it still remained a mystery to me. I have just purchased a new book about the case "Foreign Faction - Who really killed JonBenet?" by Jim Kolar who was a recent lead investigator. It is my understanding that this book reveals some more of the case files than was previously known about, but I have yet to start reading it.

My biggest problem with the Ramsey case is that much of the evidence can be explained in different ways. Because of the staging, it is also difficult to ascertain which of the evidence is real and which is a red herring. The totality of the evidence as it stands, makes little sense. Unlike the McCann case, the Ramseys did have means and opportunity to commit the crime. I am also perplexed by the Ramseys refusal to speak with the police for four months following their daughter's murder. After these initial interviews, it was a further eighteen months before they sat down with the police again. The McCanns are sometimes accused of not having co-operated, but this is simply untrue. The McCanns submitted themselves for police interviews immediately and without legal representation. They remained in Portugal and fully available to the police for a full four months after Madeleine disappeared. They were interviewed for a full day before being made arguidos (Kate for 11 hours). When they were made arguidos, their lawyer advised BOTH of them not to answer any more questions as a matter of procedure. The right not to answer questions which might implicate you is considered a benefit of the arguido status in Portugal and indeed, many people ask to be made arguido for this reason. Witnesses are not allowed to refuse to answer questions. As it happened, Gerry McCann was so frustrated by the line of questioning in his arguido interview, that he was unable to remain silent. Kate, on the other hand, simply followed her lawyer's advice! I can fully understand this and would probably have done the same if I was in a foreign country, with a very different legal system and being accused of a crime I did not commit!

At the end of the day, why would the McCanns remain in Portugal if they had committed a heinous crime there? The Ramseys, on the other hand, were making plans to leave Colorado within an hour or so of finding their daughter dead in the basement!

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

^^^^^
Has another one of those crazy McCann theorists stumbled across the wrong thread?

 

[Jayelles]

^^^^^
Has another one of those crazy McCann theorists stumbled across the wrong thread?

Thank you for the kind welcome

 

[Mr Reliable]

Judging people's guilt or innocence by their behaviour after a murder is probably something to be done with extreme caution.

The Chamberlains didn't behave how some people expected and came under extreme suspicion and to the exclusion of all other possibilities. So did Joanne Lees in the Falconio murder.

 

[Jayelles]

Judging people's guilt or innocence by their behaviour after a murder is probably something to be done with extreme caution.

The Chamberlains didn't behave how some people expected and came under extreme suspicion and to the exclusion of all other possibilities. So did Joanne Lees in the Falconio murder.

I absolutely agree with you. I still don't understand why the Ramseys refused to meet with police without some fairly ridiculous conditions attached such as:-

1) Not to be interviewed separately
2) Not to be interviewed at the police station
3) Not to be interviewed for more than one hour

I can understand them wanting a doctor to be present in case Patsy became unwell. They had powerful lawyers. I don't understand why they didn't just get on with the interviews with their lawyers present to look after their interests. If it had been the UK, they would simply have been arrested and possibly charged with obstructing a police inquiry!

I do think their lack of co-operation was unforgivable because the Ramseys were in a very unique position to provide the police with information about their daughter's last hours.

 

[Mr Reliable]

I absolutely agree with you. I still don't understand why the Ramseys refused to meet with police without some fairly ridiculous conditions attached such as:-

1) Not to be interviewed separately
2) Not to be interviewed at the police station
3) Not to be interviewed for more than one hour

I can understand them wanting a doctor to be present in case Patsy became unwell. They had powerful lawyers. I don't understand why they didn't just get on with the interviews with their lawyers present to look after their interests. If it had been the UK, they would simply have been arrested and possibly charged with obstructing a police inquiry!

I do think their lack of co-operation was unforgivable because the Ramseys were in a very unique position to provide the police with information about their daughter's last hours.

I know where you're coming from. It seems incomprehensible that they wouldn't co-operate 1000% with the cops. Maybe they were control freaks*?? Maybe being rich made them want everything organised around their preferences?? Maybe the cops rubbed them up the wrong way from the first contact??

Once the relationship with the cops went off the rails (assuming it did), human nature took over and there was no hope of a reconciliation??

*Having sat through a couple of those pageant shows on Foxtel I'd have to say the parents are certainly ''different''. I can barely understand the behaviour of the Mums and have absolutely no comprehension as to how the Dads can show any interest at all beyond looking up from the TV or the sports pages when they get home and saying ''how did you go?''

 

[Sabot]

From what I can remember, The Police were fairly hostile to the parents almost from the beginning. And it is a fact that people do get stitched up by The Police. They tried to do this in The Lisa Irwin Case, and I saw that as it happened. The Irwins aren't in the least bit rich or influential, and I would have refused to speak to The Police, alone, if I had been treated like that.

 

[Duritz]

Yeah I wouldn't necessarily trust the police, even if innocent... plenty of cases in Australia as well as OS about innocent people (especially men) being stitched up for crimes they did not commit. I'd be very, very wary dealings with police when you knew that statistically you'd be their first suspect.

 

[JuddsABlue]

I watched a great speech from the states about why you should never talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer

They went through examples of people getting done for crimes they didn't commit because they spoke to the police thinking they were helping. Examples were people saying they were at the shops at midday when CCTV footage has them there at 1pm, and a single mistake like that can give them enough reason to believe your lying etc

Being wealthy etc, perhaps they were aware of this type of thing and were extremely cautious knowing they would be suspect number 1. I'll try to find the video, while not relevant to us exactly it's a good listen

Edit: I can't link it from YouTube on phone but if you search for 'don't talk to cops part 1' you'll find it, 2 parts about 25m each

 

[checkraiseulite]

my criminal law lecturer (also american) has the same view.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Most of the cases that get ****ed up seem to be where the cops get tunnel vision on a suspect early on and spend all their time trying to make the facts fit their suspect rather than just looking at where the facts lead.

(/superficial amateur analysis of police methodology)

 

[Mr Reliable]

Most of the cases that get screwed up seem to be where the cops get tunnel vision on a suspect early on and spend all their time trying to make the facts fit their suspect rather than just looking at where the facts lead.

(/superficial amateur analysis of police methodology)

And ignoring other lines of inquiry and failing to follow standard procedures. I think it was in this case that a convicted pedophile lived within 200 metres of and in full sight of the house. He wasn't interviewed until years later because the police didn't need to door knock as they already had their prime suspect (the mother).

 

[Kram]

Pretty rough what the South Park guys did to them on the Butters episode when they turned out to be innocent.

 

[Duritz]

Bump.

Remains unsolved but the parents have been completely ruled out by dna evidence on her underwear, which is of an unknown male.

 

[exe ex machina]

Almost 20 years after JonBenét Ramsey was found murdered, the unsolved case still makes headlines. The tragic loss of the pint-sized pageant queen raises a lot of questions today. Here are some of the most bizarre factors in the eerie mystery…

The Discovery Of The Body
JonBenét's body was found the day after Christmas in the basement of the Ramseys' home, roughly 24 hours after her parents reported her missing. Anyone else wondering why her parents wouldn't have checked their own basement before calling the cops? Investigators also noted that there were no signs of a break-in, adding to suspicion against the family.

The Crime Scene Was Compromised
A big reason why any and all leads turned up to be dead ends? Police didn't seal off the crime scene, allowing family and friends to walk around the house after the crime was reported. Police also failed to collect sufficient forensic evidence before and after JonBenét's body was discovered.

The Ramseys Lived In A Shady 'Hood
The Ramseys didn't live in the nicest neighborhood, with reports of more than 100 burglaries in the area in the weeks and months before JonBenét's death. It also had a seemingly high concentration of creeps nearby, with 38 registered sex offenders living within two miles of the family's house.

The Ransom Note
Patsy Ramsey claimed to have found a two-and-a-half-page handwritten ransom note, written on paper from a notebook in the family home, demanding the bizarrely precise sum of $118,000 for JonBenét's return. The amount was almost exactly what John Ramsey earned in a bonus that year. In a Reddit AMA, former Boulder, Colorado police chief Mark Beckner, who served during the case, claimed that experts had pretty much never seen a two-and-a-half-page ransom note to begin with, but its contents were even weirder than its length. Authorities analyzed samples of Patsy and John's handwriting. While John was ruled out, Patsy's sample was deemed inconclusive for several reasons other than just her penmanship: when asked to recreate the ransom note, Patsy wrote out the words "one hundred eighteen thousand dollars" instead of the numerals, seemingly in an effort to be different from the ransom note. Still, district attorney Mary Lacy didn't consider John nor Patsy to be suspects.

Only John Ramsey Followed The Ransom Note's Instructions
John Ramsey and a friend made arrangements to retrieve the money from the bank to pay the ransom the morning Patsy discovered the letter on the family staircase. The ransom letter demanded that the family not speak to police, family, friends, or anyone, even "a stray dog," with the penalty being JonBenét's death. Authorities claim Patsy spoke not just to police, but to family and friends after finding the ransom note specifying not to do so.

The Alleged Kidnapping And Sexual Assault May Have Been Staged
Beckner says that the cause of JonBenét's death was strangulation, but she was also hit on the head close to an hour before her asphyxiation, rendering her unconscious. The strangulation allegedly went down around an hour after the initial hit. Beckner claims that the suspect—whoever that may be—then staged the scene, including the ransom note and alleged sexual assault, to make it look like a botched kidnapping instead of just a murder. You know, because it wasn't terrible enough already.

The False Confession
Seven years after the case made headlines, the tragedy was in the news yet again: in 2006, John Mark Karr, a teacher living in Thailand, claimed that he was guilty of JonBenét's murder—and that it was an accident resulting from a bizarre sexual encounter. Karr only provided details of the case that had been previously released to the public, offering no new revelations to police, but also claiming that he drugged her. Here's where it gets even creepier: None of that ever happened. DNA tests proved that Karr was nowhere near the crime scene, and no traces of drugs were found in JonBenét's system. In fact, Beckner says they found photos of Karr in Georgia at the time the murder went down, making his story impossible to add up.

JonBenet's 9-Year-Old Brother Was A Person Of Interest
John Ramsey revealed to Barbara Walters that police eyed not just himself and Patsy, but also JonBenét's brother, Burke, then nine years old, as persons of interest in the case. John claims that he and Patsy tried to shield Burke from any murder allegations, even asking neighbors to hide newspapers or magazine covers in public that featured the family. Why was Burke being eyed by investigators? It Investigators claim JonBenét ate pineapple a few hours before the murder. There was a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen table with Burke's fingerprints on it; John and Patsy claimed Burke slept through the entire episode and don't remember putting any pineapple out for the kids to eat.

 

[exe ex machina]

One thing fits. It was the Ramsey's son. And the parents covered it up, including writing the ransom note (mother). They didn't want to lose both kids.

 

[exe ex machina]

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...w/news-story/5592cc91c40d3215bc8cc45f14d7b94f

 

[exe ex machina]

http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2013/10/editorial-i-know-who-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/

 

[exe ex machina]

http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm