Jon Bonet Ramsey case - any opinions?

Did you watch that CBS special? I'll tell ya, it was really interesting how they methodically connected all the dots to make sense of the case.

I'm inclined to believe it was Burke and the parents were protecting him. It's happened b/f where a kid committed a crime and the parents protected him.

One of the things that the Ramseys did that sent my antennae to shoot up higher was when they refused to let Dr, Spitz, forensic pathologist in their home to analyze the evidence. Spitz was involved in many high-profile cases and the Ramseys knew of this man and his expertise. If they didn't, his career & reputation was certainly explained to them....and that scared them.

So, this lawyer is going to sue CBS for putting together this investigative team to try to find the killer of JonBenet and this Wood guy didn't like the results they came up with......Burke.

That should be interesting and what makes his lawyer think that CBS won't have their own team of lawyers, who'll kick his ass and they will b/c this Wood won't be able to disprove what they came up with....

You know who Alex Hunter's x-wife is? The idiot that another idiot John Edwards got involved w/and got her pregnant while married to wife w/cancer and running for president.....the National Enguirer caught them.....lol!

 

"Charade"? You call 4 people who are experts in their field, investigating a 20 yr old cold-case a 'charade' and you never even watched it on CBS.

I really don't think CBS is very worried about this Wood guy since they have their own team of lawyers. And, wouldn't Wood have to disprove the experts findings? Well, good luck w/that!

You don't have to remind me that an indictment isn't a verdict. We all know that......

What I had noticed is the Ramseys hung themselves w/words and behavior, which I have already posted, but you ignored it b/c it was about the Ramseys.......

Sorry, but I don't need to examine any knot since I wasn't involved in the death of the child......

I don't think it really matters if you don't know how that knot was tied.

You call the questionable behavior and words of the Ramseys 'cloak and dagger stuff'? A well-known forensic pathologist wanted to examine the crime scene and they refused his offer; the rambling 'ransom' note said he would behead their daughter if the cops were called, so Patsy called the cops; the Ramseys ordered their friends not to talk to the reporters & cops; the Ramseys themselves refused to cooperate w/the cops; the 'ransom' note was proven to have been written on Patsy's notepad and the list goes on and you call these facts 'cloak and dagger' stuff?........wow....... good nite!

 

Lin Wood is just huffing and puffing. He'll never sue CBS. Burke would have to be deposed and that'll never happen. It would be amusing and entertaining, though. Another "trial of the century", lol.

Yeah, I watched all the recent TV shows. I know better than to believe what I see on TV, but the CBS show certainly did make a case for it being Burke. For awhile I thought it was. But I've reverted back to it being Patsy. At this point in my mind, it's 75% chance Patsy, 25% Burke. I don't believe John had anything to do with it but had to protect his family, which he did, admirably, and still does, right or wrong.

 

So the DNA evidence, which shows about as incontrovertibly as anything can be shown that it simply COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE RAMSEYS, means absolutely nothing., They let their six year old try to be pretty, the perverts, they MUST have killed her for no reason

THIS is why I will never believe in the Jury system

 

Which DNA evidence? Be specific. I really want to know. Exactly which DNA shows that it simply could not be the Ramseys.

And what, pray tell, does jury have to do with it?

 

Wait, based on one sided information posed by CBS you convict the parents? Son?? Husband or wife?

She calls the cops so that makes her guilty? She contacts neighbors she knows and that makes her guilty?

If you are on a jury, you convicted them all with no defense presented by the Ramsey's. I find it strange how one sided some people can get.

I posed good questions. The garotte. Professional quality knot. Very well prepared. By some expert on knots. So tight on her that at the autopsy, it had to be cut off. A 9 year so despises his sister he comes up with that?

The experts did not convict. Why would i on a tv program I have not seen?

 

He says CBS has a right to respond. He expects there to be no legal response then he files the suit. He says the timetable is about 30 days.

 

If you convict based on TV, it destroys the jury system. And believe me, that sucks as well. I agree with posters who lost faith in the jury system the day they allowed OJ to not be convicted of murder. You have a much better case he killed Nicole Brown than you have that the family killed such a sweet child.

 

Attorney Wood is gonna make the same civil case he did in 1999,2000,when he
was successful in suing the New York Post for Defamation.
because of an article that suggested ... - The Brother did it -

 

CBS will try to claim they did not convict him on TV. I imagine CBS vetted it with lawyers first. So to me it is a toss up.

 

Could have been the parents, could have been the brother, could have been someone else, though I tend to think it was an inside job given the evidence.

Such as, the basement window was broken from the inside and not the outside.

The sketchy "ransom" note that was allegedly left.

The fact that Jon Benet never left that house. Her dead body was found in her own basement.

Abduction story just doesn't add up to me.

Yes, they always look at the parents first. Unfortunately, that is because most often times the parents ARE the ones who killed the child.

 

The Ramseys were cleared of this 2 years after Patsy died.
Watch a few youtubes and you will learn the cops already cleared the family.

[video=youtube;xc0v2U-pTac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc0v2U-pTac&list=PLKaPYhxmGkaxVBU-GZaigUlyTe0FZelt6&index=2[/video]

 

We already know that evidence collected at the crime scene had been highly contaminated.

 

Unless cops are in the tank for the parents, they are not guilty. Cops cleared all the Ramseys.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not the basis for them clearing them.

 

The cops don't "clear" anyone. That is for a forensics laboratory. The cops collect the evidence. That is all. The cops totally messed up and contaminated the crime scene, and allowed others to enter the crime scene and contaminate it as well.

Sorry to say that the "abduction" story just doesn't add up.

 

Some partial and degraded traces of DNA were collected from JonBenet’s underwear and fingernails. It was later determined to be male DNA, however, due to the damage and fragmentation in the samples collected, it was impossible to trace its origins. Indeed, the presence of DNA may be innocuous, as demonstrated by investigators who tested new underwear bought from a department store and who also found trace DNA, possibly from contamination at the plant.

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.

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

 

Oh god, I am talking like a layperson, not some technical guru.

She was never "abducted." But a person of interest who confessed died and never got charged.

Clearly the Ramsey family did not kill their child.

I heard this broke them. They spent so much money defending themselves they are reported to not yet recovered the losses.

 

Clearly? No, not clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

Though we will probably never know (because the police totally effed up the crime scene and the evidence), I feel the most likely scenario is that the mother did it. People don't like to believe that a parent could kill her/his own child, but it happens every day.

 

So why did CBS pick Sweeps Week for that special docuseries.Why was it
shortened from the original 3-part { 6 hr. } to a 2-part { 2 hr. }.
Maybe because the more CBS aired the less convincing their argument that
maybe the Brother did it.

 

From the link I posted above . . .

The ransom note was the first point of interest, especially as Patsy was initially suspected to have written it. It was written using pen and paper in the Ramsey home, meaning that the alleged kidnapper-murderer would have had to take the time to draft and write a two-and-a-half page ransom note, one of the longest in history, and even replace the pen and pad neatly where they had found it. Normally, ransom notes are terse and pre-prepared and are usually not written by hand. The $118,000 ransom figure demanded also corresponded exactly to the bonus John Ramsey received in 1996.

The language used in the note showed a decidedly feminine touch, for example, “The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested”. Moreover, the writer of the note started out addressing the note to “Mr Ramsey” but in the latter stages addressed him as “John”. Finally, the writer attempted to disguise their identity by misspelling simple words like “bussiness” and “posession”. However there was incongruence in the writing with more difficult words spelled correctly, such as “deviation” and putting the accent on the ‘e’ in “attaché”.

However, there was a vast difference of opinion between handwriting experts who analysed the ransom note. Those favourable to Patsy largely decided that the evidence could not support the conclusion that she had written the note, although most of them did not rule her out at its writer. In contrast, some of the ‘experts’ who came to the opposite conclusion, that Patsy did write the note, turned out to have questionable qualifications. The reliable experts were hampered in that they did not have access to the original ransom note, relying instead on facsimiles. Prevailing opinion in the field of graphology is that studying the originals reveals nuances and subtleties, such as pen pressure, that copies will lack.

 

lol.

Are you aware that the post you quoted didn't mention CBS? Guess not.

Are you aware the knot was a simple knot? A simple wrap around Patsy's paint brush? Guess not.

Are you aware that after seeing the evidence, the Grand Jury voted to prosecute? Guess not.

Only Alex Hunter didn't want to proceed. He should be in prison.

Bottom line:

Patsy was the worst kind of stage mother. THE WORST! And her little future Miss Whatever was wetting and crapping in her panties, something a future Miss Whatever never, ever does. Patsy was frazzled; Christmas and the upcoming trip did her in. When her perfect little girl wet her panties in the middle of an already hectic night, Patsy lost it. She didn't have time for that nonsense. She whacked her kid.

No, she didn't intend to kill her. I doubt she even intended to hurt her. She simply couldn't take all that dirty laundry at such a stressful time.

The End.

 

The debate has switched towards WHY DID CBS DO IT. Decide during Sweeps Week
to air a very accusatory special highlighting a very controversial case,knowing it
would gather interest and a TV audience.Then went ahead and treated the
airing as if a Mock Trial,making the case the Brother probably did it.
Of course that justifies a Defamation case.If the brother was instead,an older SISTER
to Jon Benet ... Gloria Allred would be All Over like a Duck on a junebug.

 

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jonbenet-ramsey/investigation

 

We are all discussing CBS since this is the basis of new claims.
The knot is complex.

The DA was deeply involved. You nor I are deeply involved.

I never convict off a TV show.

 

Some posters blame the mom.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not even a good plot for a movie. And it sure does not convict Burke nor the mom.