Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[Henri McPhee]

Because of the kidnapping ransom note? The kidnappers took her, right? Why search the house for her?

Why did Ramsey himself not search the entire house the moment he couldn't find his daughter?

I would certainly have done so, despite the note.

The lack of an immediate thorough search, either by the Ramseys or the police, is strange. Even if you believed the child had been taken, there was evidence to look for. And you'd think there would be some hope of finding her anyway.

Suppose JonBenet had not been killed, but only seriously injured? She'd have been laying down there suffering and dying for quite a while.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Fleet White searched the wine cellar first thing in the morning because he knew where the body was. Everybody else thought she had been kidnapped OUTSIDE of the house because of the ransom note. John Ramsey was preparing to get money out of the bank for the ransom. It was not the job of John Ramsey to search the house. It was a crime scene which is normally taped off to everybody except the police and forensic experts. It was the bungling detectives and Boulder police who failed to find the body, and it was their job to search the house.

There is some background to this from the internet:

"The incompetence of the Boulder Police Department contributed significantly to the uncertainty surrounding the case. Firstly, during initial searches of the house, detectives managed to miss the wine cellar where JonBenet’s body lay; earlier discovery of the body would have resulted in a more accurate time frame of her death. Some accounts report that John Ramsey dissuaded police from investigating the wine cellar, saying that the door was painted shut but these accounts are unverified. An experienced unit would have brought dogs in to locate the body almost immediately.

The failure to seal off and secure the crime scene was fatal, as was the mishandling of the body. People were allowed to walk in and out of the house at will, which at the worst could have led to removal of evidence and at the very least, contaminated the forensic integrity of the crime scene. The finding and removal of the body by two men untrained in forensics meant that no photographs of the scene were accurate and any resulting conclusions drawn from fibres, hair and DNA evidence should have been treated with caution."

 

[BStrong]

I used one "if". The reason why I used it is because, while I believe the Ramseys are innocent, not everyone does. However, I wanted to focus on the act of getting separate lawyers, rather than the overall issue of guilt/innocence.

So let me get this straight... you admit that innocent people do sometimes get railroaded, but you don't think the Ramseys should have done everything they could to prevent that, because its "the exception". They should have trust that their case (one being handled by cops exceptionally hostile to them) is not going to be one of the exceptions.

And here's another issue... lets say such cases are rare. However, instead of looking at how often those cases happen in general, you should be more interested in how often innocent people get railroaded after the police start targeting them. (In other words, there are very few cases of people getting railroaded because the cops are usually competent enough to know where to focus their investigations, something that doesn't seem to be happening here.)

The police had access to the Ramseys DNA profiles. They also provided handwriting examples, and since the house was a crime scene I suspect the police could examine any rooms and objects in the house (e.g. to check for fibers, etc.) So the cops had the physical evidence that they needed to proceed.

The main thing that the Ramseys did was to delay intensive interrogation sessions.

Things started falling apart when the cops became more accusing of the Ramseys. If you expect that any questioning by police will be along the lines of "Why did you kill her? Why don't you just confess?" (although perhaps a little less blatant), I could certainly see them wanting to avoid that. After all, answering those types of questions would be of little use in finding the real killers.

Your premise is one big "if." Poster KatieG said it best on page one of this thread - Four people went into the house alive, only three of them lived.

Your definition of "Hostile" differs considerably from mine. Had the cops answered the call, threw everyone living person into the Black Maria and took them downtown for extended interrogations and held them in custody until the scene was fully sorted out, that would be hostile. The Ramsey family was handled with care.

My read on the subject is that the parents were less concerned with finding the actor than they were with CYA - your mileage may vary, but as I've posted earlier I've observed first hand how folks generally conduct themselves in missing person/murdered family member incidents and I've yet to encounter involved individuals that wouldn't sit down for an interview that were simultaneously talking to reporters. Most family members are happy to give any bit of information that they think may help, to the point that some become more hindrance than help. In most cases you just have to live with it - their hearts are in the right place and they're hurting - who can blame them?

Second bolded - kind of hard to get railroaded at all if LE isn't involved. It is a rare thing. How many are happenstance and how many are deliberate would be a good subject of study, but we're talking about this particular case.

If Boulder PD was in a railroading mood, they had a bunch of possible targets and none of them took a fall. If anything, the refusal of the DA's office to act on the GJ indictments demonstrates that the intention wasn't to railroad the parents.

I don't know where you could come up with the premise that the two adults in the home at the time of the crime who discovered the note and the body couldn't be of help in the investigation, but I can fully understand why they avoided being interviewed as long as was possible.

CYA. The parents put themselves first, ahead of their murdered daughter.

 

[BStrong]

Bob001,

I see it differently. If both were guilty, then each having a lawyer would make it more likely that one would throw the other one under the bus.

Perhaps that why they refused to be interviewed separately until over a year later

 

[Elagabalus]

Because of the kidnapping ransom note? The kidnappers took her, right? Why search the house for her?

Why did Ramsey himself not search the entire house the moment he couldn't find his daughter?

I would certainly have done so, despite the note.

The lack of an immediate thorough search, either by the Ramseys or the police, is strange. Even if you believed the child had been taken, there was evidence to look for. And you'd think there would be some hope of finding her anyway.

Suppose JonBenet had not been killed, but only seriously injured? She'd have been laying down there suffering and dying for quite a while.

BStrong said upthread that LE making a complete search of the house from the get-go was something that should have been done i.e. normal procedure.

 

[BStrong]

BStrong said upthread that LE making a complete search of the house from the get-go was something that should have been done i.e. normal procedure.

If it was my house under the same circumstances, I'd be clearing every space in the home while the 911 call was made.

I'm not the best representative example, but the PD should have done a comprehensive search asap after they arrived at the scene and there's no way they should have directed the father to do so w/o an officer at his elbow.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Brian Morgan's role

Here is a quote (p. 188) from one of the attorneys from Douglas and Olshaker: "During our meeting with the detectives, Brian Morgan stated, 'It is I who have said you [John Ramsey] may not talk to police. And take that or leave it, but I want to put that on the record now. It was I who stopped the process.'" Douglas and Olshaker also indicated that Linda Arndt suspected Mr. Ramsey from day one.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Here is a quote (p. 188) from one of the attorneys from Douglas and Olshaker: "During our meeting with the detectives, Brian Morgan stated, 'It is I who have said you [John Ramsey] may not talk to police. And take that or leave it, but I want to put that on the record now. It was I who stopped the process.'" Douglas and Olshaker also indicated that Linda Arndt suspected Mr. Ramsey from day one.

Linda Arndt's story changed between day one and sometime thereafter. She ultimately stated, "As we looked at each other, (she and John Ramsey) I wore a shoulder holster, I remember tucking my gun right next to me and consciously counting I've got eighteen bullets" she said. "I didn't know if I'd be alive when people showed up... Everything made sense in that instant, and I knew what happened."

Arndt never put any of this into any of her police reports.

Moreover, the police suspected Linda Hoffman-Pugh first, before the Ramseys.

 

[catsmate]

How long ago was your experience?

A few times and models since about 1986.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

According to this timeline: http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682489/Key Events in the Investigation
- JonBenet was killed on the 25th or 26th
- The body was found on the 26th (with the various police questioning that would have went along with that)
- On the 28th, the Ramseys voluntarily went to the police to provide blood and handwriting samples and answer police questions
- It wasn't until later in the day on the 28th that the Ramseys got legal representation.

So no, they didn't get lawyers immediately. They got lawyers days after the murder, and days after interacting with the police. (Given the timeline, I suspect they may have decided to get lawyers based on the questioning at the police station on the 28th, but that's just a guess.)

Ok, first of all, as I mentioned before, the police already had some opportunity to question the Ramseys before they got lawyers, both on the day of the murder, and on the 28th.

Secondly, it is a bit incorrect to say the Rameys wouldn't talk to the police. They talked to some police that they trusted. (I think they willingly talked to Detective Ault.

According to Steve Thomas, JBR was discovered just after 1PM. At 2:15PM, the Ramseys left the house, so no "questioning that would have gone into that" occurred.

He further states, "On the night of December 27...Detective Arndt and Sergeant Larry Mason arrived at [the Fernies'] at 9:30PM to schedule the formal interviews... John Ramsey was there but would not talk to them alone. Also present were his brother, Jeff Ramsey; Dr. Beuf, the pediatrician; Rod Westmoreland, Ramsey's financial advisor from Atlanta, who introduced himself as an attorney; and the influential local lawyer Mike Bynum, who had once worked in the DA's office. Bynum made his role official when he said he would be providing John Ramsey with legal advice. It was the first time police had a chance to speak with Ramsey since he had left his house the previous afternoon, yet he sat there with two lawyers..."

and

"The session lasted only 40 minutes. John Ramsey was noncommittal about when he would talk with police again... Months would pass before he did..."



So you are wrong on many counts.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The point is that the tough, trigger happy, stupid cops from Boulder, including Beckner, had decided, and jumped to the conclusion, that the Ramseys did it right from the start. John Ramsey was not going to be forced into any false confession because he wanted to go home though he did agree to stay in Boulder.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner refused to answer Lin Wood's question about a media blitz strategy related to John and Patsy Ramsey and Burke, even though detective Steve Thomas testified the strategy existed. Attorney Lin Wood made the following statement on Larry King Live on November 12 2002:

There was a plan, and it was a plan that was....it involved the FBI.. it involved the Boulder Police Department, and it was a plan to publicly assassinate the character of the Ramseys by leaking information, misinformation, false information, in an effort to somehow pressure them and coerce them into potential confession..

Because they couldn't find evidence to support a charge against them, they decided they would somehow coerce a confession, because that's who they believe did it. It was always about the speculation and belief. We know who did it, we just got to prove it. We can't prove it? Let's see if we can break them. That's not how our system of justice is designed to work.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to add quote tags and link: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/23/lklw.00.html

These recent lawsuits against CBS do involve legal technicalities. For one thing the libel law of one state in America may differ from another. Personally, I think Fleet White is a thoroughly nasty piece of work who has got away with murder. There is a bit of background to this libel business at:

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 4 and to add quote tags.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting quote from the 2012 book by Robert Whitson called Injustice,, who used to be a Boulder cop and was at the Ramsey case crime scene:

The three frustrated individuals mentioned in Beckner's letter were investigative team members Lou Smit, Attorney Trip DeMuth of the Boulder District Attorney's Office, and detective Steve Ainsworth of the Boulder County Sheriff's Department. Their information indicated the Ramseys were innocent, but they were repeatedly told not to share their information with anybody. Smit, DeMuth, and Ainsworth were denied the opportunity to present the intruder theory to: (a) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during a meeting at the FBI headquarters in Virginia; (b) the team of legal experts, during a presentation at the Coors Events Center in Boulder, and (c) initially the Boulder County Grand Jury.

Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Ainsworth appeared on NBC's Today Show in May 2001 to support the intruder theory. I need to emphasize this point. The only reason Lou Smit, Trip DeMuth, and Steve Ainsworth appeared on the Today Show was because John and Patsy Ramsey had been publicly crucified and accused of murdering JonBenet in the news media for four years, without proof they had murdered JonBenet. It was time for somebody to stand-up for John and Patsy Ramsey.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to add quote tags

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is another interesting quote form that Robert Whitson Injustice book from Whitson who was actually at the Ramsey case crime scene:

The movie Ransom was showing in theatres. I thought somebody was copying the movie, which is why I immediately called the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance. I called the FBI at about 7:15 a.m. and spoke with their answering service. An agent returned my call at about 8:30 a.m. and we scheduled a meeting at the Boulder Police Department for 10:a.m. Since the case appeared to be a kidnapping, my focus was on JonBenet's safe return home.

Upon arrival at the Ramsey's house, I observed several adults standing in the kitchen. A detective said they were friends of the Ramsey family. I let these people stay since they were comforting John and Patsy. This was a crime scene mistake. Although this decision was made out of compassion for John and Patsy, I should have removed these people from the Ramsey's house and secured the house. John and Patsy needed to remain in their house since the kidnapper was supposed to call them. Remember, we did not have cell phones or caller identification like we do today.

I was advised the Ramsey's house was searched by the Ramsey family and Boulder Police Officers without any sign of JonBenet, or visible evidence, other than the ransom note. In Colorado, DNA evidence was a new concept when this case occurred,. At that time, it was not standard practice to consider evidence for DNA purposes. The two detectives and I responded to JonBenet's bedroom. I did not see any physical evidence which needed to be processed immediately. Therefore crime scene tape was placed over the bedroom door and I specifically told John Ramsey nobody was to enter John Ramsey's bedroom.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to add quote tags

 

[Senex]

The brother may have killed her, but I personally was ashamed that I watched the show.

 

[Hard Cheese]

And you would be wrong.

No, I would be correct. What people know and what people do are two separate things.

Untrained individuals presented with stressful situations usually panic and freeze in place. There would be few situations more stressful than a parent discovering their dead child.

That may well be so, but that doesn't exclude a) people who *don't* usually panic and freeze, and b) someone who is already is aware of the event prior to the "discovery" and knows full well what they are doing to the evidence

I do not fault any family member that would react similarly to the manner Ramsey reacted.

Fair enough, but if a person has a number of specific reactions to that situation, and each of those reactions has the effect of contaminating evidence, do you then consider that under item b) above, or do you just dismiss it, on the basis of "a person acting under stress"?

 

[Hard Cheese]

..Why yes: yes you did. For the casual reader of this thread, here is what I actually said, full context added back in.

"I'm not handwaving anything away. You aren't actually demonstrating anything. Mr Ramsey's complete and utterly predictable and understandable reaction to seeing his daughter lying dead in the basement also may or may not have "contaminated the evidence." It could well be all a carefully staged plan to deceive the investigative team. Or maybe it wasn't. "

I'm well aware of what you said. I'm well aware of "your point." The reality is that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WE DON'T KNOW WHO MURDERED JON-BENET.

Correct. But CBS put together a scenario presented in a documentary, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Feel perfectly free to have your own point of view.

.
You are missing the point. This is your belief:

"After seeing this, I'm pretty well convinced now that there was no intruder. The brother killed her, either accidentally or unintentionally, and the parents covered it up by staging the scene to look like an intruder murder."

This is smartcooky's position that you agreed with. You posted four reasons to support this belief. One of those reasons was:

"2. Mr. Ramsey is obviously not a stupid man, he is a successful businessman. I don't think there would be too many people, particularly movie buffs, that don't know that you should never interfere with a crime scene. Don't touch anything. Yet he not only removes the tape from JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, he moves the body! If you have had a family member murdered, you want to find the perpetrator (Patsy said this directly on national TV), so you should be being careful not to disturb any clues - it's in your own best interest. Yet JR does the complete opposite, contaminating the crime scene as much as possible. A cynic might say that he made sure he touched the duct tape and the ligatures in case he had left fingerprints on them earlier."

None of what you describe, IMHO, sounds out of the ordinary at all for a father who has just discovered his dead daughter lying in the basement of his house. You've just described someone who is in grief, who is making decisions and doing things that a rational, uninvolved observer might not have done.

IYHO. IMHO it also is nothing out of the ordinary for someone who already knows that the body is there before the "discovery", and who knows very well what they were doing. Which would be the case if the events of the CBS documentary were true.

.
It is also entirely possible that he was faking it and it was all part of an elaborate conspiracy theory. But these mere actions alone do not support that theory.

Correct. But the base premise of the documentary was that Burke killed JonBenet and the parents covered it up. Then doesn't what I am saying fit in with that base premise? You can hardly claim JR is in a state of grief if he knew she was already dead 12 hours earlier.

And your gut-feelings after watching an interview are just your gut-feelings: they aren't indicative of anything.

I took absolutely no notice of all the weird behaviour and lack of remorse shown by Burke in that interview...to me, he is just a weird kid, and if FBI profilers think they can determine anything from his responses or behaviour, then good luck to them - they know much better than I do. What isn't a gut feeling is Burke's avoidance of the photo of the pineapple - he refuses to acknowledge an item that there is hard physical evidence of him having handled. I just don't see how you can explain that away.

Why don't you just be honest: and state that "its your gut theory that the brother did it." Because that really is all you've got.

My position is the same as it was from the start - that the CBS documentary provides a plausible explanation of the events. Certainly better than mysterious intruders with grudges, short memories, and a burning desire for Mexican pesos.

And what you suggest is absurd. No matter how many movies one has seen you cannot prepare yourself for finding your dead daughter lying dead in a basement.

I don't know why you want to keep making that leap, but stop doing it. If Burke has bonked his sister on the head with a flashlight, and John and Patsy covered it up, *there is no "preparing yourself" required*. They already know she is dead.

No matter how open I am to the suggestion that the Ramsey's are involved in this your entire line of reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. It is deserving of mocking. Just because they have a movie screen in their bedroom and just because they watch movies does not mean they can suppress their emotions when they are confronted with the most traumatic thing any parent could possible encounter.

This same stupid leap of logic, because if they are involved then they have already encountered "the most traumatic thing any parent could possibly encounter" - 12 hours earlier.

You've publically accused someone of murder. That isn't a *********** laughing matter.

You'd be wrong about that, JR didn't murder anyone. CBS accused Burke, I think he is going to sue. Has he done it yet?

If you are going to do that I'd like to think you would have something stronger to back you up than "they liked to watch movies but they didn't follow the script."

What backs me up is the credentialed people who investigated the case and presented a plausible scenario on national television. Do I believe them or some random internet dude?

 

[banquetbear]

Correct. But CBS put together a scenario presented in a documentary, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Feel perfectly free to have your own point of view.

...but what didn't the CBS documentary show you?

IYHO. IMHO it also is nothing out of the ordinary for someone who already knows that the body is there before the "discovery", and who knows very well what they were doing. Which would be the case if the events of the CBS documentary were true.

Well yeah. Thanks for finally realizing that we are debating opinions.

Correct. But the base premise of the documentary was that Burke killed JonBenet and the parents covered it up. Then doesn't what I am saying fit in with that base premise? You can hardly claim JR is in a state of grief if he knew she was already dead 12 hours earlier.

I didn't quote the documentary. I quoted you. If you don't want to back up the words that you said then just don't back them up. Don't blame it on the programme.

I took absolutely no notice of all the weird behaviour and lack of remorse shown by Burke in that interview...to me, he is just a weird kid, and if FBI profilers think they can determine anything from his responses or behaviour, then good luck to them - they know much better than I do. What isn't a gut feeling is Burke's avoidance of the photo of the pineapple - he refuses to acknowledge an item that there is hard physical evidence of him having handled. I just don't see how you can explain that away.

Firstly: can you provide this video that you are talking about? Secondly: I don't need to "explain it away." I'm not accusing anyone of murder.

My position is the same as it was from the start - that the CBS documentary provides a plausible explanation of the events. Certainly better than mysterious intruders with grudges, short memories, and a burning desire for Mexican pesos.

"Plausible" is simply your opinion. IMHO from what I hear the documentary had so many holes in it you could fly a starship through it. It certainly didn't bring anything new to the table.

I don't know why you want to keep making that leap, but stop doing it. If Burke has bonked his sister on the head with a flashlight, and John and Patsy covered it up, *there is no "preparing yourself" required*. They already know she is dead.

But if they didn't: and all the physical evidence points in this direction, then they didn't know she was dead. It isn't a leap.

This same stupid leap of logic, because if they are involved then they have already encountered "the most traumatic thing any parent could possibly encounter" - 12 hours earlier.

I'm not making a "stupid leap of logic." Apart from a "cobweb" (and the existence of that cobweb does not preclude the intruder theory) and your "gut feeling" there is no physical evidence to back up your theory at all. Others in this thread have repeated several times the physical evidence that points to an intruder.

You'd be wrong about that, JR didn't murder anyone. CBS accused Burke, I think he is going to sue. Has he done it yet?

You've accused Burke. You've accused Burke of murder based on diddly squat.

What backs me up is the credentialed people who investigated the case and presented a plausible scenario on national television. Do I believe them or some random internet dude?

Now you are just appealing to authority. I was debating the words that you said: not the words that you claim these credentialed people have said. Did these credentialed people say "that people would know not to contaminate a crime scene, probably gleaned from a movie"? If they didn't: then those are YOUR WORDS, and it is over to you to defend them.

So if you want to cite these credentialed people to defend the words you have chosen to use in this forum, then cite them properly. I didn't watch the documentary and watching it is not a pre-requisite to posting in these forums. If what they said backs you up then provide the cite.

 

[Hard Cheese]

Firstly: can you provide this video that you are talking about?

It was a post-murder interview with 9 year old Burke and shown in the documentary. You can find it on Youtube.

Secondly: I don't need to "explain it away." I'm not accusing anyone of murder.

But you're quite happy to dismiss my reactions to it as "gut-feelings" without even having seen it...

"Plausible" is simply your opinion. IMHO from what I hear the documentary had so many holes in it you could fly a starship through it.

So you haven't actually seen the documentary I was commenting on, and you start going off like a pork chop. And what's this "from what I hear"? Where did you hear that, down at the pub?

It certainly didn't bring anything new to the table.

How do you know that if you didn't see it?

Surely you knew that John and Patsy Ramsey were implicated. So it should not been any surprise to you, if they were involved, that the discovery of their daughters body would not be any surprise to John Ramsey. You could have worked all that out without having seen it.

You've accused Burke.

No I haven't. I concluded from watching the documentary that their hypothesis is plausible. Before my last post, I think the only time I mentioned Burke was in relation to the interview video. So you are wrong again.

Now you are just appealing to authority. I was debating the words that you said: not the words that you claim these credentialed people have said. Did these credentialed people say "that people would know not to contaminate a crime scene, probably gleaned from a movie"? If they didn't: then those are YOUR WORDS, and it is over to you to defend them.

Which I already did, and told you where and how people might find that information out. Do you disagree with that statement then? "that people would know not to contaminate a crime scene" I believe that most people do know this, and I put it to you the most likely place they would know this is via popular media.

I didn't watch the documentary and watching it is not a pre-requisite to posting in these forums.

No, but it makes you look like an idiot when the title of the thread is "Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?" and the first post starts

CBS has just concluded a four-hour, two-night documentary in which expert investigators, including forensic examiner Henry Lee, reviewed all of the original reports and as much other material as they could get about the Jon-Benet Ramsay murder, and talked to numerous participants, including police officers and a grand juror. They concluded that her 10-year-old brother Burke smacked his sister with a Maglite -- he had previously hit her with a golf club -- hard enough to kill her, intentionally or accidentally

I make a comment agreeing with someone else's reaction to the documentary, and you start blathering on without even having seen it. Give yourself an uppercut.

 

[banquetbear]

It was a post-murder interview with 9 year old Burke and shown in the documentary. You can find it on Youtube.

...how about you provide it? Its the very least you could do.

But you're quite happy to dismiss my reactions to it as "gut-feelings" without even having seen it...

Yep.

So you haven't actually seen the documentary I was commenting on, and you start going off like a pork chop. And what's this "from what I hear"? Where did you hear that, down at the pub?

Why do I need to have seen it? Did it contain any information that isn't already known?

Why is this so shocking to you? Could you not tell from the words in this thread (like when I said "I have not seen the documentary") that I hadn't seen it?

You didn't cite the documentary. You stated your opinion. I'm addressing your opinion, not a documentary.

How do you know that if you didn't see it?

If it had bought something new to the table that was actually proper evidence and not wild-ass speculation Burke would be in jail. Burke isn't in jail: so there wasn't anything new.

Surely you knew that John and Patsy Ramsey were implicated. So it should not been any surprise to you, if they were involved, that the discovery of their daughters body would not be any surprise to John Ramsey. You could have worked all that out without having seen it.

What on earth are you going on about now?

No I haven't. I concluded from watching the documentary that their hypothesis is plausible. Before my last post, I think the only time I mentioned Burke was in relation to the interview video. So you are wrong again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11519277&postcount=432

Just finished watching the two part documentary "The Case of JonBenet Ramsay" on TV. After seeing this, I'm pretty well convinced now that there was no intruder. The brother killed her, either accidentally or unintentionally, and the parents covered it up by staging the scene to look like an intruder murder.

I agree.

That isn't a "plausible." Thats a "I agree, the brother killed her."

Have you now changed your mind? Do you now, not agree?

Which I already did,

No you haven't.

and told you where and how people might find that information out.

It isn't my job to find a cite for your assertions.

Do you disagree with that statement then? "that people would know not to contaminate a crime scene" I believe that most people do know this, and I put it to you the most likely place they would know this is via popular media.

What part of "stop trying to apply logic to a chaotic emotional situation" are you failing to understand?

Lets pretend for a minute for the purposes of debate that what you say is correct. So what? Why would that stop a father from behaving as Mr Ramsey did here?

No, but it makes you look like an idiot when the title of the thread is "Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?" and the first post starts

I don't have to watch "9/11 Loose Change" to debunk it. You haven't successfully challenged me on a single point: and you've only just now discovered I haven't seen the documentary. That says more about your skills at debate than mine.

I make a comment agreeing with someone else's reaction to the documentary, and you start blathering on without even having seen it. Give yourself an uppercut.

You will notice that everyone in this thread: including people who agree with your theory and people who have experienced similar grief and people who have worked in law enforcement have sided with me and not you. This is what I disagreed with:

2. Mr. Ramsey is obviously not a stupid man, he is a successful businessman. I don't think there would be too many people, particularly movie buffs, that don't know that you should never interfere with a crime scene. Don't touch anything. Yet he not only removes the tape from JonBenet's mouth, and loosens the ligatures, he moves the body! If you have had a family member murdered, you want to find the perpetrator (Patsy said this directly on national TV), so you should be being careful not to disturb any clues - it's in your own best interest. Yet JR does the complete opposite, contaminating the crime scene as much as possible. A cynic might say that he made sure he touched the duct tape and the ligatures in case he had left fingerprints on them earlier.

While you have been blathering about every other subject under the sun: I keep coming back to what you said here. Because this is what I was addressing. The removal of the tape from JonBenet's mouth, the loosening of the ligatures, the moving of the body: all of these actions are indistinguishable from the actions of a grieving father, and are not evidence of anything. The claims that "JR does the complete opposite, contaminating the crime scene as much as possible" are your claims. You said them. In this thread. So provide a cite that what JR did is the complete opposite to the norm. Cite what the "norm" is. Tell us how people normally react when they find the dead body of their daughter in the basement. Don't tell me "he should have known better because "MOVIES" rubbish. Provide some actual evidence to back your (not the TV Show's) claim.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Attorney Lin Wood questioned Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner during Beckner's deposition on November 26, 2001 (Beckner 2001), Beckner stated in October 1997, he was assigned as the Commander supervising the investigation of JonBenet's murder, which lead to his promotion as Chief of Police in June 1998:

Q. Prior to October 1997 when you were placed in charge of the JonBenet Ramsey investigation, your experience in homicide investigations back in 1981 to 1983 where you did in one some interviews, the other you're not really familiar with in terms of recollection and then in one case sometime in the 1994 to'97 time frame where you were the acting chief and therefore oversaw for a two-day time period the investigation into the homicide where the individual was shot in the chest when he opened the door? A. Correct

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4 and link to a page containing the full c&p material added: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-Mark-Beckner%92s-Q-amp-A-February-21-22-2015

According to Lou Smit, the Boulder Police Department presented information about the 911 tape recording during the meeting with criminal justice experts, which was one-sided, stating a voice, believed to be Burke Ramsey, was heard in the background during the 911 call. According to John and Patsy Ramsey, Burke was sleeping when the 911 call was made on the morning of December 26, 1996. According to Boulder Police Detectives, the Aerospace Corporation in California enhanced the 911 tape and heard a voice in the background on the tape. However, during this meeting with criminal justice experts, Boulder Police detectives failed to mention the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service examined the 911 tape recording and did not hear a voice in the background.. Lou Smit and Whitson separately listened to the 911 tape and they did not hear a voice in the background.

Beckner ordered Boulder Police Detectives not to work with Detective Ainsworth on investigations within the jurisdiction of the Boulder Police Department. Sheriff Epp supported Ainsworth by saying, " I believe that Steve Ainsworth is one of the best detectives I've ever seen, and I have full confidence in him and his abilities."

 

[newyorkguy]

Over the weekend I watched CNN's documentary about the murder and the aftermath. The conclusion seemed to be we'll likely never really know who killed her and I tend to agree.

I wondered, however, did Burke Ramsay ever take a lie detector test? The parents?