The wave of television shows and specials focusing on the grisly murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey is receding, but CBS’s docu-series The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey dropped a bombshell accusation in its last episode, which aired on Monday night.
The four-hour series featured some of the original investigators on the case, as well as a team of forensic experts headed up by Laura Richards and Jim Clemente, revisiting the events of December 26, 1996, when JonBenét was found dead in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado home. Her parents, John and Patsy, had been the prime suspects but were cleared in 2008. JonBenét’s older brother, Burke, was removed from the suspect list as a result of DNA evidence back in 1999.
Prior to the airing of the recent CBS series, the theory regarding the crime that seemed to hold the most water was that an intruder broke into the basement of the home and killed JonBenét. Testing this theory, the investigators for the CBS show used a painstakingly accurate recreation of the Ramsey home and discovered that it would have been “impossible” for this scenario to be true. In the special, Jim Clemente pointed out a spider web in the window, still intact after the alleged break in.
It seems that the CBS-hired team feels that Burke indeed killed his sister and that his parents covered up the crime, fearing losing not one, but both of their children. The investigators referred to an interview conducted with Burke after the murder which raised a number of concerns due to his odd behavior at the time.
After examining video interviews with JonBenét’s older brother, Burke, the team seemed troubled by his behavior. Speaking of his demeanor displayed in an interview Burke gave shortly after the murder, Clemente noted, “I haven’t seen any indication yet that this child has been through recent trauma.” After showing a clip of Burke acting out how the murder could have happened — hitting her on the head with a hammer — Richards noted, “It’s odd that he’s acting it out.” Clemente added, “On top of it, there is no emotion. No appropriate emotion at all about this happening to his sister.”
Family friend Judith Miller noted, “Burke had a bad temper. … He had hit JonBenét. … He hit her with a golf club.” In an interview with Burke that took place 18 months after the death, the then-11-and-a-half-year-old talks about how he slept through the crime, emphasizing how he sleeps “really deeply” and “never hears anything.” Clemente commented, “When he says ‘really deeply’ and ‘never hear anything,’ that’s overselling. … That’s deceiving.”
James Kolar, a former investigator on the case, discussed his theory that John and Patsy covered up the crime, potential cover-up by the parents, saying, “They would do anything for their children….[Patsy] said she would have nothing else to live for if she lost Burke….That seemed to me motive to cover up for Burke.” This, he posited, was the impetus for the ransom note, which some close to the case, most notably co-lead investigator Steve Thomas, suspect was written by Patsy herself (he previously was on the record accusing Patsy of the murder).
Burke Ramsey, who finally spoke out about the murder with Dr. Phil, continues to deny that he had any role in the killing. On the last part of his 3-part sit down, Burke was asked, point blank, “Did you murder your sister, JonBenét?” He responded “No“ and added, “Look at the evidence…or the lack thereof.” The 29-year-old said this while demonstrating the same odd behavior, smiling and smirking, that he has over the previous parts of the interview. Dr. Phil addressed this again on Monday’s show, telling viewers, “You must remember, until now, Burke has never spoken publicly about this traumatic part of his life. He was shielded for decades by his parents, so he is a bit nervous and socially uncomfortable.”
Burke went on to tell Dr. Phil that, ”People still can’t get that in their head that we didn’t do it.” He also said that he believes that JonBenét is with his mother watching over him, and said he talks to her sometimes. Burke “keeps the hope alive that [JonBenét’s killing] will [be solved in my lifetime]. I don’t know, but you gotta never give up.”
20 years have passed, and I wonder if this case will ever be solved. Lack of concrete evidence has plagued the case from the start, and televised theories and speculation can only go so far. It seems that, much like Making a Murderer, we may end up seeing a sequel to this story soon.
Photo credit, CBS, Getty Images
The theory that Burke did it (probably not even realizing what he had done) and that his parents panicked and covered for him is the most plausible scenario imo. What a horrible tragedy all the way around.
I agree. It ties everything in very nicely.
It does not explain the pineapple or the taser marks.
The show did explain both of those things. They found it was likely not taser marks, but an injury caused by a piece of Burke’s toy train tracks. They tested both of those things and the marks did not match a taser but did match the tracks. The pineapple in milk was a snack that the kids often enjoyed and they speculated that one or both of them were eating it before bed.
It very neatly explains both things, as Claire stated. There was a bowl of pineapple in milk on the table with Burke’s (and Patsy’s) fingerprints on it. When Burke was being interviewed by a child psychologist, he was asked to identify a picture of the table with the pineapple snack, and his reaction was very telling, IMO. He described everything but the pineapple, first froze up, and then claimed not to know what was in the bowl. He acted very agitated.
Claire — and the A&E special that aired recently had a forensic analyst state that it couldn’t possibly be the train tracks – that it was most definitely a taser. So frustrating.
Amilu, they showed that the tracks match the distance between the marks exactly. That’s pretty convincing to me.
Samtha, the A&E special did the exact same thing — but in opposite (they showed each item in relation to her wound and went into great detail about why it couldn’t be the train tracks), and it was convincing at the time when I watched it. I didn’t see the CBS special unfortunately. I’m not saying I believe one over the other is fact.
amilu, you should look up the A&E doc producers [edited to redact their names], who have been busted for using false info and fudging information for documentaries in the past. The Ramsey family was also involved in making the A&E special.
I put a lot more weight in the findings from the CBS doc, because it didn’t have shady producers, nor did it have to kowtow to the Ramsey family in order to air. Their experts are a lot more credible as well.
That said, I do think there was some confirmation bias at play. It seemed to me that they leaned toward Burke having done it to begin with, so specifically homed in on facts that indicated him.
There’s apparently around two more hours of material they cut (and are shopping to Netflix), so perhaps the confirmation bias is just from the editing, since the editors presumably knew the final conclusion and wanted to include more support for it.
I don’t know for sure, but I just get this strange feeling that her brother did it. Hopefully, I’m wrong.
Totally agree.
I agree too. And this would make it easy for him to answer “No,” when asked if he “murdered” his sister. He likely didn’t murder her but instead accidentally hurt her, and his parents went into crazy mode to cover it up. He may not even remember all the events that night at this point and could possibly be so brainwashed that he truly believes there was an intruder. There is at least one person who knows what happened outside of the family: Fleet White.
Who is Fleet White?
The Whites were very close with the Ramseys and were in the house the day the body was discovered. Fleet has since come out critical of the investigation.
Fleet has come out critical against the investigation not pursuing the family further and critical against the Ramseys unwillingness to cooperate. The moment he went to authorities with suspicions, John Ramsey accused him of being the killer, then his wife, because he recently found out from other people she was jealous of Patsy. Yeah, because jealous wives sneak into family homes and sexually assault their children in the basement or kill them and make it look like sexual assault. To me, that’s one of the biggest telling facts of the case that makes John Ramsey look guilty. I think Fleet knew what they did w/out having to be told – just from their behavior and lack of cooperation. It was the Whites’ home that Burke was sent to for days following the murder. I think he saw the lack of emotion, trauma, and grief in Burke and knew he did it. I saw it in the interviews…no grief, no fear for his own safety, no questions, no sadness….nothing….just “I hear my parents crying alot, but I’m just going on with my life”.
The two things that really stuck out in that interview of Burke were:
1) He was asked if he heard anything in thenight. HIs answer was no, but I sleep really heavy, never wake up. H was then asked if he heard anything in the morning. What did wake him up: He answerred “my mom going screaming and going psycho. Interviewer asked “weren’t you curious what was going on?” He said no. She said, “Your mother was screaming and going psycho, but you didn’t get up to see why?” He said “No. I figured they would tell me later.” Interviewer asked “what do you normally do when you’re curious about something?” He answered “I try to find out the answer”. She asked, “But you didn’t this time?” and he started physically curling up and writhing around in the chair again.
2) He was asked what his usual night time snacks are and it took him forever to admit “pineapple and milk”. Lots of skirting and beating around the bush but eventually narrowinig it down to “pineapple in milk.” He was then shown an evidence picture of the bowl of pineapple in milk on their counter. He was asked what he thought that was a pcture of. My goodness, he hemmed and hawed, writhied around, crawled all over that chair, bent way over with his nose an inch from the picture, but wouldn’t admit what it was. The interviewer asked “what do you think? Could it be cereal?” Burke said “No, the chunks are too big for cereal. I don’t know”. Eventually he admitted with that creepy smile, that it was probably pineapple. The behaviorist watching the interview said, “such a simple question and look how he’s reacting.”
Burke did it. He was 9 at the time. He would not have been prosecuted. But he would have gone into psycho analysis, been taken from them, and labeled the kid that killed his sister for the rest of his life. I actually feel sorry for John and Patsy Ramsey. I realize they wasted a lot police time, money, resources, etc. and made citizens fear there was a killer on the loose but that was a bi-product of them simply trying to protect their now, only living child. I don’t know what justice would be at this point. But for me, the mystery is solved.
I have always believed he did it. And for Dr. Phil to try to explain his laughing/smiling as nervousness, well ok. watch a video with Burke and cover up his mouth. watch his EYES. people that laugh/smile due to nervousness, it’s just that. Their mouths smiling but their eyes aren’t. His EYES are smiling (not like smizing, I’m not talking about the natural up turn of eyes due to being pushed up by cheeks because the mouth is smiling).
Well, Burke does not seem neurotypical. I think there are some reports that he’s on the autism/Asperger’s spectrum, though I don’t think that has been officially confirmed. I still don’t understand why his parents would have automatically tried to cover it up if he did accidentally kill his sister. Burke was 9 years old. How many people think a 9 year old would be imprisoned for an accidental killing? To me, the logical reaction would be to call police in a panic, tell them what happened and see if there was any way to get help for JonBenet. If they found out about the killing hours later, it still seems they would call the police and say the children were playing and one accidentally killed the other. To go through with the ransom note and all of that seems ridiculous. It indicates there was some very dysfunctional thinking in that family.
I agree that is was a strange reaction to try to cover it up, but 1) how do we know they knew the law about no child under the age of 10 being prosecuted for any crime. Maybe they thought he would be. Even if he didn’t go to “juvy”, he definitely would have been taken from them and have to live in a psych ward for kids. he would have been labeled a killer by the community. Patsy specifically said “if my son is taken away from me, I have nothing to live for.” She thought he’d be taken away from her. She thought he’d be taken to a scary place full of scary strangers. I also think they’d already been hiding his sociopathic behavior for some time. It’s fair to think they’d be judged for his actions b/c “they didn’t do enough about it before it went that far.” They knew he was violent, resented Jon Benet, and had outbursts. Worst of all was the tormenting with his feces. It wasn’t once or twice. It was an on-going issue. And it was done to torment his little sister. She gets into bed tired and anticipating comfort and contentment only to be met with a ball of his sh1t in her bed? He smeared it in her box of chocolates she’d received as a gift that day…that day. Christmas Day. She didn’t even know because she hadn’t had time to even get in it yet. The police found that. That’s tormenting….something vile and upsetting he could do to her to upset her and take away her comfort in her own home. They knew he was a nutjob, but they loved him and they didn’t want anybody to know he was a nutjob – for his sake, for their sake. They did really try to portray themselves as a perfect family. If you or I had a child with behavioral problems, I don’t think we’d be having 2,000 strangers touring our perfect Christmas home, but they did. Obviously perception was very important to them.
My thought was always the covered it up because it was clearly not accidental. An accidental murder is something a parent perhaps wouldn’t cover up, but a purposeful one?
Exactly! If he’s a sociopath – moreover a psychopath – and he planned the killing of his sister to be for Christmas for his parents to find, then he absolutely would have been taken from them and not let out until he was 18, if not later than that.
He knew that she liked the pineapple snack. He set his sister up and then killed her, in my opinion. And the parents knew that he was bad and in their hearts, they knew that he did it and meant to do it. But like y’all have said, they couldn’t let the public know that they had a psychopath for a son, so they covered it up and hoped it would go away. (allegedly)
that was always my theory on this. a brother jealous of all the attention and fawning his beauty queen sister got and one day he hit her a little too hard.
Agreed and it’s so sad. If it’s true that he hit her with the flashlight, my guess as to why the parents didn’t just call for help and say “our children were horsing around and one of them is hurt!” is because they knew he had some major issues and were afraid that he’d be taken from them. Whew, I don’t know how you get more awful than any of these scenarios.
And remember this key piece of evidence. Jon Benet ate pineapple hours before she was murdered. The bowl was on the dining room table and the finger prints on the bowl were burkes…. hmm….
The pineapple has always been my hang up. And pineapple in milk? Who eats that? I’d be willing to bet 95% of the pineapple eating population does NOT put it in milk. An intruder would NEVER do that.
The parents only need to be caught in ONE lie for the whole thing to unravel. JBR did not get carried to bed and stay there asleep. That was a lie. She ate pineapple that night because science says she ate pineapple.
Another lie – John was overheard by an investigator trying to arrange a flight to Atlanta shortly after JBR’s body was found. He said he had a business meeting there. BS. The family was set to fly to Michigan December 26th for vacation. Why lie if you have nothing to hide?
Side note but it is also interesting that with Making the Murder, a lot of viewers also believe the victim’s brother (and/or her ex-boyfriend) in that case had something to do with the murder. I think the brother in that case is strange too.
Seriously, those two got together and were (if I’m remembering correctly) deleting her voicemails before they called the police? Shhhhaaaaaaady!
I totally agree! The brother and the ex boyfriend were completely sketchy, yet neither was questioned or investigated.
This show is worth watching online. It explains everything, from the head blow to the worthless transfer DNA. I’d love to see Dr Phil watch this show and then defend his statements he made in regards to the Ramseys being completely innocent. Dr Henry Lee is very convincing about the DNA results being suspect – and the DNA is what Dr Phil claims 100% exonerates the Ramseys and proves it was an intruder.
…but it doesn’t explain the unknown adult footprint found on the suitcase and in the house. Of course they had to explain away with the DNA in the underwear because they have zero, absolutely zero hard evidence Burke did it. Their explanation, it could be a male in a factory setting, there is no proof that is the actual truth. Complete theory. It is just as possible it was the killer. Innocent people in prison because they are prisoned due to theory not actual evidence, cops/detective want to back up their false theory and try to discredit actual evidence.
So many people were in and out of that house that day though. They have admitted that the crime scene was left wide open and heavily contaminated. That could have been anyone’s footprint.
The parents were not really * cleared *. There was a District Attorney then, Mary Lacy, who made a statement *exonerating* the parents based on touch DNA (which the CBS series shows why that does not even matter). I believe more recently the current DA has said that Lacy actions were not really appropriate.
It is such a complicated case. There are a lot of web sites with some really comprehensive information on them out there and online discussions.
Burke and how he acted as a child, and now, Dr. Phil sort of * covering * for him, is all strange. Dr. Phil shares the same attorney as the Ramseys (Lin Wood who appeared on the show) which appears to be why he is so pro-Ramsey family (and how he got the Burke Ramsey interview which was set up as a preemptive strike to the CBS show).
This was a way more credible investigative show that Phils light interview of Burke. That was more like a love in. It really makes me wonder why after 20 years Burke is speaking. It makes me think the family knew what the CBS special came up with and wanted to counter act it. Phil got played I think.
Phil got paid is more like it. I’m sure that drew huge ratings for him. It was a big get for his stupid show. Dr. Phil will be ok. He knows what he’s doing.
I think there is a connection between Dr. Phil and the family–shared lawyer maybe? He seemed to have made up his mind about the family’s innocence prior to the shows, and conveniently ignored much crucial evidence.
Burke Ramsey seems to be following in his parents’ footsteps, media-wise. He claims to be “keeping hope alive” that his sister’s case will be solved in his lifetime, yet refused the opportunity to work with the investigators who were re-examining this case. Then he runs off to Dr. Phil, of all people, to give an interview telling his side. All of this is strikingly similar to what his parents did at the time of the incident.
I think that the scenario described on the CBS show is the most likely, and that he is guilty. I believed this before I ever watched the show, because it is frankly the only theory that makes sense to me. I don’t believe Burke’s smirking is now or ever was due simply to “social awkwardness”, I think it’s due to knowing the truth and feeling that he is pulling the wool over the eyes of the psychologists. Some people smile when they are lying, it is a “tell”. People will say he is “innocent until proven guilty”, but I don’t think he is completely innocent at all. He knows something, whether he actually committed the crime or not.
I agree with you about the smiling as a “tell” for liars, Tiny. I’ve read about it and seen it in real life situations, as well.
Dr. Phil is a client and longtime friend of John Ramsey’s longtime lawyer. They heard CBS would be airing the show regarding JonBenet’s murder and wanted to get ahead of what the likely accusation would be. Dr. Phil is so despicable.
Burke didn’t do himself any favors by doing the interviews with Dr. Phil….his demeanor was so strange and odd. And, then to watch those tapes of him being interviewed after his sister’s murder….smiling and laughing….I never thought Burke was a viable suspect until I watched his interviews…
FOR.REALS! whoooo let this fly? Who thought that was a Smart move?? All this does truly is give recall to every criminal profile tidbit that has seeped into public consciousness about how psychopaths like to brag
It’s almost as if John Ramsey and his lawyer wanted to throw Burke under the bus..
I think at this point they are smug and think they can talk their way out of anything. In the later interview with Burke when he was 11 1/2 , he acted out-right smug. The behaviorist watching the interview used the word “smart alec like he thinks he smarter than they are.” Why would he think that? Act that way? Because he’d gotten away with something really big and so he did think he was smarter than them. All he had to do was talk his way around it. He’s learned to be glib and he was obviously coached about when he went to bed and the pineapple. He did what his parents told him to do and it worked. It was suspicious, but he didn’t accidentally admit to anything, so he thought he won.
I think Burke has always been a popular theory –although I have, in the past, suspected Patsy too. I never bought the intruder theory. Doesn’t fit.
This documentary put forward the theory that while Burke was snacking on pineapple, JonBenét came downstairs and snatched some of his snack, causing Burke to hit her over the head with a flashlight. Cue cover up by the parents.
They also showed Burke’s interviews with the child psychologist where he was very evasive when questioned and seemingly not affected at all by his sister’s death. In fact, he laughed his way through most of the interview. Strange.
I think the crucial piece was the documentary showing a child could hit another child with enough force to (inadvertently) kill her. Some experts ruled out Burke because they didn’t think it was physically possible–the show demonstrated it was.
I agree. Most of the people who defended Burke claimed that a 9 year old child could never have inflicted such an injury, but the documentary made it very clear that this could, in fact, be done.
But the clincher for me is when they demonstrated how a stun gun would not have caused the marks found on JonBenet’s leg and side, but that these small wounds could easily have been made by a piece of one of the tracks from Burke’s electric train set. They compared the end of a section of the track to her wounds, and it was a perfect match.
Yes, the train track marks was the stunning piece of evidence. Debunking the stun gun theory was huge.
The creepiest part was when the interviewer asked the young Burke what that picture f the bowl of pineapple was and Burke just freezes up and prentends to not know. And how her body marks weren’t from a stun gun, but mostly she was poked and cut with his train track piece post mortem. Oy very!
YES! His reaction to the pineapple was very telling. He was really hard to read until he reacted to that. I think the investigators nailed it, that’s what started the fight that caused him to hit her and crack her skull.
But what happened after that is truly disgusting.
I REALLY want them to unravel that garrotte and test the DNA on the wound bits of rope.
I not only think he hit her with an eventual fatal blow, but I suspect he had something to do with the garrote. I don’t think he made that knot, he didn’t know how, but I do think he choked her because of the scratch marks around the noose – she wasn’t dead yet. I think he toyed with her body after she went down. I don’t think his parents knew what had happened yet because he took advantage of her losing consciousness to torture her. I think it all happened in the basement and nobody knew until he was ready to come upstairs and admit he hurt Jon Benet. I think the garrote was stage later by John.
The investigation was so badly bungled. My heart goes out to that poor 6 year old child. Short of a confession, I doubt we will ever learn the truth.
I think this is other real crime in all of this, besides the horrid death of a child. It was so terribly botched. I have read that it was botched in part because Bolder, at that time, had so few crimes of this nature (possible homicides), it did not even have the resources to properly investigate and ultimately find the truth. It seems a lot of evidence has come out to show that the Ramsey’s wealth and stature in the community also played a part in it being botched to the point that there will never be a solid answer. John Ramsey was able to go somewhere in the house, with the investigative team there, for 1.5 hours, and no one knows where he is. He then gets his buddy and they carry the little girl’s body upstairs and lie her on a living room floor? And even then he is not really pressed with questions. Crazy.
This stuff about “smiling and smirking” being suspicious reminds me of Amanda Knox. People just *knew* she did it because of her irregular behavior.
Some people act totally different than others. Big shocker.
I had Asperger’s, and I know when I was 9 or 10, if my brother died you wouldn’t have seen a normal reaction from me. I would have seemed emotionless. Different than Burke, but many would find how I would have behaved indicative of guilt. It’s meaningless.
Clemente also calls the guy saying he sleeps deeply as deceit. The hell? Maybe he does sleep deeply. Hell, he could be the murderer yet still be being totally honest about sleeping deeply and not hearing anything.
Also my parents yell all the time and if I heard my mom go psycho, I might well have stayed in bed too. I never checked on my yelling parents, it meant nothing to me.
The train tracks thing sounds like good work though.
This brother could well have done the deed. But the logic used here to support the notion is terribly weak. But TV shows have huge power, so this guy will have to live with a lot of added scrutiny for the rest of his life.
i don’t think that the intruder theory ever held any water tbh, the family was treated as suspect from the word go. trouble is there isn’t enough evidence to do anything about it.
Ive been waiting for Eyes For Lies Blog analysis of this and she delivered! https://twitter.com/eyesforlies/status/778355985048035328
Sorrry but this dude skeeves and im glad that im not crazy for thinking that! I totally feel like for all the strongarming the Ramseys did and how they’ve come off all these years they could have done that while admitting to some culpability and getting this guy some psychological help, as it is police was going to handle them with kids gloves and ensconcing their precious white well to do due process with their lives! Is almost like.. they put a curse on themselves by covering this up/stalling justice
Thanks for posting this link. Gonna check it out when I have time.
BTW, thanks for those that suggested the My Favorite Murder podcast, love it! Also anyone know if and when they will cover Jonbenet?
QQ, thanks for posting the link. I hadn’t heard of it before. I read it & agreed. This guy is chillingly creepy!
Every time I see pictures of that little girl it kills me. The way they dressed her up as an adult just makes me sick to my stomach. That poor poor child
Agreed Snazzy. My law enforcement colleagues tell me one of the most-watched TV shows in jail (especially for the child molesters) is Toddlers & Tiaras. And that’s IN custody. Parents who buy into these “pageants” need to realize they are sexualizing their children and that is so dangerous in so many ways…
Word!
Your law enforcement colleagues are talking bulldust. Child sexual offenders are not kept in general population and are most definitely not allowed media material depiciting children, let alone creepily sexualised depictions. In general population any male prisoner watching toddlers & tiaras would draw a massive target on their heads. Even if I didn’t have years of experience in the forensic mental health field I would know this just on common sense.
A heartbroken mother would never believe her own child could kill, let alone another of her own children. A mother jsut cant take that kind of thing, so probably tried very hard to believe anything else…..
Okay, he’s not just smiling, he looks giddy. It’s just wrong, however socially awkward one might be, to look so smug while talking about the DEATH of a family member.
He’s clearly mentally off. I get that it looks very suspicious, but I don’t think he can be judged as someone who’s all there.
I’m always a bit dubious about reading too much into how someone’s reacts after a death. There are many reasons why someone might behave in what seems an inappropriate way. However, previously hitting his sister with a golf club rings alarm bells. I have an older brother and he never hit me, never mind with a golf club, despite me being extremely annoying at times. I can understand parents acting to cover up. A horrible story all round.
Also, Burke apparently had “scatalogical issues” according to the CBS series. He left a ball of feces in JonBenet’s bed at some point. There was definitely something going on with him, I think. I agree…you can’t be too judgy about people’s reaction to death. I think there is somw evidence that suggests that in Burke’s case, there may be more than meets the eye. Don’t know if the truth will ever be completely revealed, though…
From comments upthread, it wasn’t just one time that he left something in JonBenet’s bed that should’ve been flushed in the toilet. He liked to torture her in that way.
Agree. This is the standard line on Dateline-type shows, which in many cases is because the killer is trying to cover for him/herself. HOWEVER, some people, when talking about a traumatic event, are filled with panic, are awkward, don’t have access to their emotions, hide their discomfort with smiles and laughter, and just generally behave in all sorts of ways that you might find odd.
CBS did not hire this team. They made the documentary and sold it to CBS. Listen to Jim Clemente’s podcast, “Real Crime Profile” for more information.
All this coverage is so sad and exploitive, it’s going to remain an unsolved mystery. I lived in Atlanta and friends had kids in class with Burke (they moved back there a year or so after the murder). By accounts he was very socially awkward, thought was he likely has Aspergers or some form of autism, but also he wasn’t prone to violent outbursts, just withdrew. I also met Patsy Ramsey several times, worked in the hospital where she was having chemo treatments, and it’s difficult to imagine her harming anyone. She was really lovely, no surprise had an air of sadness around her, and she was incredibly kind and gracious to someone who verbally attacked her when she was walking from the parking lot.
I don’t think Patsy would have harmed anyone, I think the poor woman desperately tried to protect her only living child under horrific circumstances.
I agree.
It is not unusual for kids who are very violent at home to “keep it together” or withdraw at school or in public. I’ve been a child therapist for almost 15 years and I’ve worked with kids who have killed and attempted to kill their families. Some try to kill their families by smearing feces into others food. Young kids can kill and present as perfect angels to the world and these kids enjoy the game of it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had kids gloat over snowing “sucker adults”. Also socially awkward behavior is not exclusive to the autism spectrum. The diagnosis constitutes much more than that.
I agree. Also you see these serial killers who were very respected in their communities and the people who knew them were just shocked that they committed those heinous crimes.
Thank you for that. People feel so comfortable giving an armchair diagnosis, when Autism Spectrum Disorder (and formerly Aspergers) isn’t just about social awkwardness. It’s just one single part, and at least according to our psychologist, it’s not the biggest part of an ASD diagnosis, which is actually “rigidity”.
I had a friend at Uni. He was a quiet shy guy. His sister was in our class also. She was afraid of him but couldn’t really explain to us exactly why. Anyway, once they invited us for lunch at their house and their mother jokingly told us that things at home had to be done as he wished and he actually sat there like a king and his mother and his sisters were all hovering around him at his whims. I don’t think he had any kind of mental illness as far as I can tell. The boys liked him. But at home he was a nightmare. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Yikes. Dude is creepy. He sounds like a nine year old too.
Sociopath? Or some other mental defect? I really hope this man-child does not reproduce.
Call him creepy all you want but the way you state that he sounds like a nine year old, use the term ‘mental defect’ and then ‘man-child’ is a bit much.
He may be on the autism spectrum. Phrasing things the way you did is cruel, and quite frankly, unnecessarily flippant.
He’s describing the behavior, not diagnosing autism. Would you be so upset about the terminology if Burke had been tested and was absolutely not on the spectrum? I doubt it. He is strange, autism or not, and describing his behavior is ok, IMO.
He may very well NOT be on the Autism spectrum….at all. Nowhere does it state on any report or interview that Burke has Aspergers or any form of Autism. Some say he acts like it, but there is no proof. IMO he is not Autistic or Aspergers. He is a sociopath and it’s typical for them to have inappropriate reactions, smile, smirk, etc. because they are creeps. You’re projecting this Autism thing and talking like it’s fact. It’s purely conjecture. Chances are, since most think he’s guilty, he’s simply displaying sociopathic traits.
Burke bares a strikingly creepy resemblance to Elija Woods’ character in Sin City. I don’t think we can really say if he did it or not but he comes off as an oddball in this interview. Maybe that’s just what growing in the midst of such a tragedy does to a person.
Ugh, shudder…
Thank you! I keep thinking he looks like Elijah Wood but no one else seemed to have commented on it. It’s creeping me out (among other things)
I had SO many issues with this show. I’m not convinced the Ramsey’s did or didn’t do something or that Burke did or didn’t do something, because I just don’t see enough definitive evidence. BUT, my major issues with the show were this:
1. That 911 call “science” was complete and utter fantasy. You cannot hear anything, and to speculate what they did or did not hear is 100% speculation. The conversation with the 911 operator was interesting… but her story didn’t even match theirs. So, ultimately just further instilled in my mind that its 100% theory with no real evidence
2. The ransom note, along with the pineapple, is in my mind the biggest evidence against the Ramsey’s. The experts spent a lot of time pointing out how weird the note was, which it is. They spent ZERO time analyzing the handwriting, discussing fingerprints, etc. So what you’re saying is, you have a weird note, written on Patsy’s notepad in a home that over 2000 people had been in just 48 hours prior for a holiday party. Okay.
3. Say with me together, folks, DNA DOES stick to blunt objects that are used to beat human beings to death with. Period. “Skin is elastic” doesn’t equal no DNA on a flashlight that was used to bash a little girls head in. Henry Lee’s face when the “expert pathologist” said that was priceless, and the editing was obvious that he didn’t agree. Because its scientifically impossible, that’s why! I get that that flashlight sitting on the kitchen counter next to a bowl of pineapple is convenient and a big coincidence… it doesn’t change the fact that there would be DNA fragments embedded in the creases where it screws the top to the shaft, or where the plastic/glass meets the metal.
4. How do you not even mention that they found fibers from that suitcase next to the window on her clothing? Someone tried to shove that little girls body into a suitcase. I’m not saying that equals intruder, but I hoped this who would be more detailed, and it wasn’t.
5. The theory that the garrot was staged doesn’t explain the nail marks Jonbenet left on her own neck or the type of bruising that was incurred as a result of that injury. People who are dead don’t claw at their own necks. I hope they explained that in part 2, because I didn’t like the way they didn’t even bother to mention it. Again, sloppy investigating.
I didn’t watch part 2 because I mistakenly believed it was on NEXT sunday. I’m most interested in knowing how the DNA transfer is explained, since the clothing it was found on was from different manufacturers and sources. I’m also interested to know how they explained the “stun gun” marks on her neck/face, and the pineapple, THE PINEAPPLE!!! Mostly, when I realized this was the Kolar show I was completely turned off. The evidence wasn’t strong, it was 90% theories and that’s just sloppy to me. I thought this was going to be more analyzing from every perspective, and it was clear from the first 5 minutes that that wasn’t the case.
EDITED: Forgot to mention, I am COMPLETELY disturbed by the lack of due process in this case. Burke Ramsey has not been tried in a court of law. Furthermore, this “evidence” wouldn’t be nearly enough to obtain a conviction, even if all of it were allowed to be admitted into court. Imagine for a moment the Ramsey’s were innocent. The Boulder PD tried this in the court of public opinion, and essentially ruined the rest of their lives. They were never able to rebuild. Now, imagine they are guilty. Is this what justice looks like? No. It’s not.
Thank you, I watched both parts and found the investigators to be very one sided. The idea that the DNA on her underwear was fom the manufacturer is pretty far fetched, that theory would only work if the underwear had never been washed before. There were so many holes in the investigation it left a lot of doubts for me
I agree…who doesn’t wash new underwear before wearing it? Also, was wondering why they didn’t mention the marks on JonBenet’s neck that appeared to be her trying to struggle to get the garot off of her neck. I thought the three part series on the ID channel was much better than this CBS show. That being said, Burke is an odd duck….
A kid who got the underwear on Christmas morning and desperately wanted to wear it, that’s who.
She was wearing underwear that was a gift for her older cousin. So brand new and, yes, probably unwashed. My kid demands to wear things “right away” all the time.
@bridget and @tracking how do they explain the same dna that was on her underwear also being on her long johns?
I watched the A&E special and the ID special on this case. One main point that stuck out to me is that 2 days before she was murdered, the Ramsey’s had a Holiday Walk Through for their house where around 1500 people went through their house to look at the Xmas Decorations. I think that the murderer was on the walk through – got a good look to see where the bedrooms etc were and stole paper from the note pad for the ransom note…just a theory. With the DNA on her underwear – the same DNA was found on her long johns so there is no way it could be from the Factory. I personally don’t think they did it.
Same DNA on the underwear and long johns was concluded to have been transferred – rubbed onto each other. They proved it happens by showing it. They showed the points that matched on the two DNA samples. They talked about the flashlight not only having no stranger fingerprints or DNA on it, but having none from anyone. No fingerprints from the family, even on the batteries. It had been ‘cleaned’ or rubbed down.
The questions being asked here show you didn’t watch the CBS special because it answered all these questions. If you watch it, it will not only answer your questions, but will debunk every other theory presented. They did not have an agenda – these were forensic and behavioral scientist from all over teh world who have nothing to gain either way. They have no connects to the Ramsey’s, the community, no same church or business associates. And yet, they all concluded individually that the evidence points to Burke – no feelings, beliefs, thoughts about it, but simply that the evidence points to Burke.
What would be conclusive is if if the evidence were tested now with the newer forensics and technology, but the evidence isn’t being shared and I don’t understand that. The FBI and 2 police officers quit the case because of the DA’s forcing his hand. Does he have the evidence now? Where is it?
They can do lots of things with acoustical analysis and this show wasn’t the first one to do it either. You can deny it all you want to, but I’ve seen it done in another situation and it’s amazing what they can pull from audio files.
The only thing I agree with you on is that Burke doesn’t need to be tried in the court of public opinion although he, like his parents, have purposefully dodged investigators for decades (proving that there’s a different set of laws for the rich).
Yes, they CAN but in this case there wasn’t anything there. It was literally swishing noises. It was like watching one of those ghost hunter shows on TruTV. Pure speculation. Notice they didn’t match Burke or John Ramsey’s voice to what they heard, the investigator just said he “recognized it.”
Also, the most suspicious part of that 911 call was the LACK of noise after Patsy “hung up.” No running around yelling no panicked shrieking or cries in the background. Just random noises. THAT to me is more suspicious that anything else that they played.
He was under the age of 10 at the time, therefore not deemed criminally responsible/capable with respect to mens rea. He can’t be charged now either, but his father may still be for perversion to the course of justice or accessory after the fact.
What I found so disturbing was the revelation of Burke putting his feces in Jonbenet’s room. I don’t recall this detail ever being released before, but it’s an indicator of severe mental disturbance.
They could still charge him, the police could also just issue a statement alleging that the did it and closing the case. They don’t have enough evidence to justify either. They also don’t have enough evidence to charge John Ramsey. That’s my problem, I don’t think its right to charge people in the court of public opinion (and yes, I am laying this at the Boulder PD’s feet, they admitted to leaking false information related to the case to the press) if you don’t have enough to take them to court. I believe in the rights afforded to us in this country, and I think its an incredibly dangerous road to go down.
I just want to add, that it is highly unlikely her parents would stage the garott strangling, while she was still technically alive. Surely, they would be holding on to hope that they could help her?
Excellent point, yes, totally agree! In order to believe the theory of the Boulder PD (which is that the parents did it but it was an accident) or this theory that Burke did it (but it was also an accident) you have to believe that Jonbenet was dead when she was garroted. I don’t believe that because dead people don’t leave claw marks on their necks. Brain dead people don’t, only dead for 10 minutes people don’t.
The garrot alway puzzled me…if it was the parents, why wouldn’t they have just used a rope to strangle her…the garrot always made me think it was some sex pervert with a garrot fantasy…
I thought it had already been established that she garroting happened BEFORE the blow to the head as that would have rendered her unconscious? The scratch marks on her neck show she was conscious and fighting to breathe.
@Betti that’s what science says, but the Boulder PD theory and the CBS show’s theory was that the garrot/strangling was just staging after she was already dead. They didn’t address any evidence to contradict it, of which there is plenty.
1. I do think there is some voices on the 911 call after Patsy supposedly hung up. And I agree with investigators, why would Patsy have hung up on the call in the first place when most people stay on that line until whatever help they are requesting has arrived.
2. I think they did not analyze the fingerprints or handwriting because of time. This show was supposed to be 6 hours and it got bumped down to 4, so they have researched it, but it was never shown on TV. I did like the way they had the investigators write the ransom note out and how long it took them. Sort of kills the intruder theory.
3. So was DNA ever tested on that flashlight? Was there nothing found on it?
4. I think the Ramsey’s did try to put her in the suitcase and then decided not to leave her in there.
5. True, they did not explain the claw marks at all. I saw on another news story about this that she had to have been alive enough for her brain to send signals to her hand to claw at the garrot to free herself and that she had to have been hit in the head after the garrot. Could the Ramsey’s have taken her hand to make the claw marks to stage the scene?
The DNA testing of the underwear just out of the package was interesting to me. It showed that there is DNA on there even if it wasn’t any of the family members. I agreed with them that she was not assaulted at all.
The whole thing about Burke previously hitting his sister with a golf club AND him putting his own waste in her bed and on her candy earlier that day seems like a red flag for jealousy or some other disturbing factor. I think she came downstairs that night after waking up and snatched a piece of his pineapple and popped it in her mouth and he took after he with the flashlight that was right there and whacked her on the head, not meaning to cause the damage he did. Burke claimed that he was a really heavy sleeper, but he was woken up when his mother came in there to look for his sister, and he could just go back to sleep after seeing his mom in such a frantic state and not be concerned about what was going on? Uh…no way. Kids are too inquisitive.
Why can’t John and Burke be investigated now? Why can’t they be ordered to take lie detector tests or brought in for more questioning? Is there ever a statue of limitations for something like this? Obviously they know something and they can’t hide behind their DA forever.
I don’t THINK Burke can be charged now because he was nine when it happened, and even if he did do it, he couldn’t be held responsible for the crime. I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea. If he came out right now and said he did it, what could actually happen to him? His dad is a different story, because surely he could be charged with the cover up part.
You make some great points, here’s my thoughts on them:
1. Agree to disagree, I don’t think that there was anything there and I felt that the 911 operators insistence on what she heard only made it more confusing since that’s not what the investigators “heard”. It felt like they spent 30 minutes on this part, and that leads me to…
2. If they cut it for time it was a big mistake. The number one issue with the their theory is the lack of physical evidence supporting it. Why not take the opportunity to try to prove you have some? In previous investigations they have found some characteristics int he handwriting of the note with Patsy’s BUT even the Boulder PD’s people admit that they cannot say definitvely and some have said theres not reason to believe it was her writing at all. The intruder theory actually says that they believe that someone snuck into the home while the Ramsey’s were at that holiday party then killed Jonbenet after bedtime. That would leave PLENTY of time to write a crazy ransom note.
3. It was! Dr. Lee pointed that out on the show, and that’s when the older pathologist tried to say there wouldn’t be DNA on it because “skin is elastic.” Dr. Lee’s point was that a similar flashlight could have been the murder weapon, but it could not have been THAT flashlight, which the Ramsey’s said did not belong to them and they did not know where it came from. One of the investigators on the show even said “I think some police officers said it was theirs” but there seemed to be confusion on that front. My overall point is that I didn’t trust anything that pathologist had to say after his bonehead statement that “skin is elastic” and therefore no DNA would be on that flashlight.
4. Possible. But why wouldn’t they just take her out the front door? They couldn’t have planned on smuggling that suitcase onto their private plane to fly to Michigan the next morning, because they knew the pilot, he was a family friend, and he would have said “Where’s Jonbenet?”
5. Faking the claw marks is highly unlikely. The angle would be hard to fake, but the pressure would be even more difficult when you consider the blood flow implications of the pressure from the rope and the desperation to remove it.
They CAN still charge anyone in this case. The police could also make a statement alleging what they believe happened and announcing that they are closing the case. There’s simply not enough evidence to do any of those things. There’s no statute of limitations on murder, but Burke was young so it would have been a different charge.
Agree they def seemed to have been working with one theory in mind as opposed to being open to other possibilities. Not saying I don’t agree with it but their investigation seemed biased
That was my biggest issue. I also really expected this to be more well rounded analysis and so it was just a big disappointment for me. I don’t know who did it, because there’s just not enough evidence for me.
I think it is highly likely that Burke did it, but I watched both episodes of this show and I think it was a bunch of conjecture and guess work. They had a theory going in and they ignored or glossed over any evidence that suggested anything other than their theory. They didn’t have access to the actual evidence, so they faked it and made that say what they wanted it to.
I’m assuming that because of his age at the time, Burke couldn’t be charged even today, but I would imagine that a show like this that heavily pushed their opinions so hard could hurt any possible prosecution of the father if they were ever to decide to try him (and I don’t think they ever will. I mean, I would get kicked off a possible jury just for having watched it, wouldn’t I? Again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea how that actually works.
Thank you! That was my overall feeling as far as the “guess work” and conjecture. I don’t know either way, I see evidence for and against and I’m just not convinced one way or another. More so irritated that I thought this was going to be better done and that the case is still unsolved.
Agree that it was one-sided and it seemed to draw conclusions without proving the point. All that discussion on how the blow to the head would have basically left her brain dead was used to prove that she was dead before being strangled. Why??
The discussion of the ransom note – no discussion of how handwriting experts did not agree and would not testify to the fact that Patsy wrote the note. And they used the fact that it was a 3 1/2 page letter to “prove” that an intruder couldn’t have done it. The intruder theory has many people believing that someone was in the house waiting while the family was at the party. Plenty of time to write a long letter that says she is kidnapped which may have been the plan. If you were going to stage a kidnapping to cover up your child accidentally killing a sibling, why would you write a very odd 3 1/2 page note? Wouldn’t you keep it short and sweet so it couldn’t be traced back to you?
The DNA evidence section of the show “concluded” that all the DNA was from the persons manufacturing/packaging the panties, and that her wearing them with this trace evidence already on it explains that it was also found on the pants she was wearing.
I will grant them that the broken window and the remaining cobwebs making that virtually impossible as an entry point was convincing, but I was surprised that this group of skilled investigators didn’t actually prove anything to me.
Oh, and the “friend” of Patsy who smeared her and the family on hearsay, wonders why she was exiled when she “opened the door to reporters”? Lovely friend.
Anyway, I don’t know who killed JonBenet and the fact that this is still an unsolved case makes me angry.
@Karen you make so many excellent points I forgot to raise!!
Overall, “I was surprised that this group of skilled investigators didn’t actually prove anything to me.” is 100% how I felt. I really thought that they would have more.
My issue with the case against the Ramsey’s had always been the heresay and speculation related to their behavior. Why should I care about this random woman’s opinion on Jonbenet’s hair color? I had VERY similar hair growing up, bleach blonde one moment and almost black the next. I assure you my mother never used dye.
also, they never explained why they couldn’t match the rope or duct tape Jonbenet was restrained with to anything inside the house. So, were supposed to believe that John or Patsy Ramsey used rope and tape from the house to stage the scene, then left in the middle of the night to get rid of it, but decided that they would leave here body there with an insane ransom note? Doesn’t really make any sense…
@Anon
I thought that woman was a pointless interview. She was obviously biased, and the stuff about her hair? The girl did pageants and a LOT of those kids get their hair dyed. Admittedly, I find the whole kiddie pageant thing to be weird, but dying your six year old’s hair isn’t exactly poof of murderous intent, and certainly not a crime. It seemed more like they were trying to smear them.
If Burke hit her with a golf club hard enough to leave a noticeable scar, was it still there when she died? Are there pictures of her after it happened? Did the school note it? Two years ago, my daughter fell at home and hit the corner of a table in such a way that she got a cut under her eye. (She tripped on Captain America’s shield, and blames him for it to this day, even though SHE left the shield there.) She didn’t need stitches, but she had one heck of a black eye and her Preschool actually called us about it.
I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but they just let the woman throw out the accusation and provided no proof to back it up.
Re 3: While I’m not entirely convinced the flashlight was the murder weapon, it is entirely possible that there was no DNA for any of a number of reasons:
a) It was wiped down.
b) It’s simply not a good material for retaining DNA (not everything is).
c) There was a small amount of DNA, but the swab missed it. (No blood = no clear sign of where to swab … easy enough to miss.)
d) There was a small amount of DNA, but checking for prints destroyed it. Swabbing for DNA ruins prints, so you’d want to check for prints first, but many of the fingerprint techniques degrade DNA traces.
Regardless of who you think the murderer was, do you not find it a little weird that there’s a flashlight at the scene, with no prints or DNA, that the family denies owning?
Re stun gun: the doco’s explanation is that the marks match the tracks from Burke’s train set, not a stun gun.
Re pineapple: doco’s explanation: Burke makes pineapple snack, Jonbenet comes down and steals some, he gets angry and kills her. What’s your pineapple explanation?
That doesn’t really compute. Even Dr. Lee said in the doco that there would have been SOMETHING left on that flashlight. “Wiping down” and removing DNA is actually much harder than it looks, especially on a device that has “seams” and “crevices.” The place where the glass or plastic meets the metal for example. Removing ALL trace DNA from an object used to beat someone is pretty damn difficult. Scientists are TRAINED to test in the most probable areas for the DNA. They tested every possible point on that flashlight and didn’t find anything. It COULD have been another flashlight, but I wouldn’t die on the hill that its this one.
Re stun gun: Did you watch the A&E special? They measured the EXACT tracks from Burke’s train. They weren’t a match.
Re pineapple: THIS is the exact reason im not convinced the Ramsey’s weren’t involved. Why lie about the pineapple? I’m not convinced about the intruder theory because no one has explained the pineapple. I’m not convinced about the Ramsey’s are guilty theory because it ignores the source of the tape, the source of the rope, and the claw marks on her neck. Moral of the story, when I find a theory that can answer every piece of evidence with a reasonable conclusion that is supported by the rest of the evidence, then we’ll know who did it. Until then…
How about washing the flashlight, or dipping the entirety of it in something like an alcohol/cleaning solution? I think that would likely remove most of the DNA, even from crevices.
Still Re DNA: Since the scalp wound wasn’t visible on autopsy (no blood), we’re not talking about large amounts of DNA. BTW – that’s what he meant by “skin is elastic”. It’s not some shoching/weird claim, it’s a pretty basic fact: you can break bones without doing much damage to the skin. Heck, I’ve experienced it first hand – accidentally whacked my hand against a shelf hard enough to break my finger … no visible external damage, since the skin “gave”, but the bone certainly didn’t. I probably left a few skin cells on the shelf, but not many.
Also, in this case, the blow would’ve mostly hit hair, rather than skin (hair itself doesn’t contain nuclear DNA, only the roots do).
Combine those two facts and you’d only expect a few skin cells on the murder weapon (whatever it was).
And, if there were only a few cells to start with, then it’s easy to believe they were wiped off, missed or damaged (by whatever fingerprint technique they used). Especially since we’re talking about a crime that occurred 20 years ago, when technology wasn’t at today’s level.
It would be completely different if we were talking about a weapon that’d theoretically be covered in blood. You’d almost certainly find DNA in that case. But that’s not the scenario here.
@ emilybyrd: Definitely not alcohol. You actually use alcohol in the lab to purify/concentrate DNA. Bleach would work.
As Lucretia says a blunt force trauma very often does not break the skin at all and that sort of blow could quite easily leave very little DNA on the flashlight and despite what TV cops shows will have you believe it’s really not that hard to clean something small, enough to remove DNA, even something with grooves and crevices especially when blood isn’t an issue.
I have never bought the intruder story. Child abductors/sex offenders abduct children or the children are assaulted where they’re found (usually in bed) offenders don’t take them to a seperate part of a home where other family members are and murder them in situ, if they *accidentally* kill a child in the attempted abduction/sexual offence they abscond, they do not take the time to move the body to the basement and write a long ransom demand. Both significantly increasing detection at the time and the likelihood of leaving evidence of their presence.
Obviously there are exceptions to the rules (however an exception to the above would be extremely rare) but added to the clear falsehoods given by her parents about the poor girl being asleep when taken into the home and not waking you have the whole pineapple thing, as someone mentioned above what intruder would, in addition to taking time to remove his victim to another location in the same home AND the note writing, happen to think he’d make his victim a quick snack, a snack that almost no person would ever think to make. How many people would ever think to put pineapple in milk? That’s a very odd and specific snack to casually make a child who you are attempting to abduct or assault, an odd and specific snack that the child calmly ate.
I can’t understand how anyone could ever believe the intruder theory. Leaving the occupants of the house. Parents committing crimes to cover up for their spouse happens, even when the victim is their child although lifelong cover ups are rarer, covering up a crime committed against one child by another is more common than people would be comfortable with and is something much more likely to be taken to ones grave. The instinct to protect a child being so much stronger than to protect a spouse. If I had to put money on it, it would be on the brother hands down.
Without a confession though the chances of this crime ever being solved are minute to non existent sadly, the police screwed it up from the get go and that should weigh on all their consciences.
Good post and the so called documentary was ridiculous. Actually can’t believe people give it any credit. They conveniently left often a lot of the actual evidence but conveniently try to explain away the piece evidence most people remember. It was laughable when one of them theorize they just made a garrote to make it look like a murder scene. A garrote with her hair in it. They never once mentioned her finger marks on her neck where it looks like she was trying to take it off of her throat. Oh and not only were fibers found near the suitcase, a footprint was also found on it, similar to another unknown footprint found in the house.
The marks on her neck were not from clawing at the garrote. She was unconscious when the garrote was used. There’s an indication that her shirt was pulled tight against her chest/throat from behind–it left a triangular mark. The fingermarks on her neck were from trying to pull her shirt away from it–not the garrote.
Also, the footprint in the basement–Burke admitted to owning the exact kind of boots that made the print. This directly contradicts earlier statements by Patsy and John that none of them owned those types of boots.
For 3, the pathologist wasn’t saying that there wouldn’t be DNA evidence on the flashlight; he was saying there wouldn’t be blood–because the skin wasn’t broken. It cracked her skull but didn’t break the skin.
As far as I know, the flashlight was never tested for DNA. Perhaps someone can verify or disprove that.
This.
The show was horribly one sided, I watched the first episode, didnt know it was on Monday either, BUT I wouldnt have watched it. The biggest thing that they didnt discuss was the claw marks on her neck that was clearly explained in the A&E documentary about her grabbing at the rope as she was being choked. This show was a joke and I hope Burke ends up suing CBS.
Anon, I can’t help noticing that you have been such a vocal advocate for the Ramseys again and again — not only on this thread. It has begun to seem like a personal crusade or a professional assignment.
Why can’t we just let this poor girl rest in peace? My goodness. I get sick every time I see those headshots of her plastered everywhere. She was a child. JFC.
Kolar’s theory is close, but incorrect IMO.
Based on her own handwriting samples, it was pretty much proven that Patsy wrote that fake “ransom” note. Who else would have been privy to the fact that John had literally just received a $118k raise and that was the amount specifically requested.
IMO and many others- I think Patsy did it in a fit of rage after Jon Benet had wet the bed earlier that evening and that is was not premeditated. Then, both Patsy and John panicked and covered it up and staged the scene.
LAPD Prosecutors admitted the Police really messed up the case from day one; not taping off the crime scene, allowing friends and family in the home the day after XMas.
I do not believe Burke had anything to do with killing his Sister. He had always displayed a little bit of a strange, introverted and emotionless behavior in that family bc it was clear Patsy lavished all the attention on Poor Jon Benet.
Can’t explain the sexual abuse – hate to think it was a family member but 9 times out of ten- sexual predators are family members or those in close relationships with their victim. Relatives, friends, mentors.
This case will never be solved ever. LAPD and many former authorities involved know who did it too, and she is gone now. And John Ramsey knows too. Not sure how he lives with it.
Of course, these are only educated guesses based on public information about the case and speculation but thats my take. I do not believe the intruder was a stranger to this family and never have.
Also- ANON’s post above is spot on. It always bothered me that John and Patsy lawyered up so quickly and seemed to literally manipulate Every aspect of this case with expensive legal wrangling, lies and denial even though they were both truly the prime suspects from day one and that Burke has indeed been denied his due process.
I believe that Burke killed his sister as I don’t believe Patsy would have struck JB with the flashlight. However, if JB took a piece of Burke’s pineapple, as it was theorized in the show, and he was in a rage, I can totally see him grabbing the flashlight and swinging it at her. I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill her, though he sure didn’t have any problem with her being dead per the interviews they showed when he was young.
I don’t believe Patsy did it. She loved her daughter and invested a lot of time and money on JonBenét, particularly when it came to all those child beauty pageants. Patsy was a beauty queen herself when she was younger. Perhaps she was living vicariously through her daughter. It surely must have pleased her that JB was carrying on the tradition. To spend all that effort and care on her daughter, with no prior history of abusing her, then to kill her in a fit of rage over a small thing – no, that doesn’t make any sense.
Furthermore, if Patsy had killed her daughter, do you think John would have remained married to her? Or let’s reverse it: if John was the killer, I doubt Patsy would have tolerated being around her child’s killer. Either way, that marriage would have imploded.
It makes more sense that Burke did it and his parents spent all their power to cover it up to protect their remaining child. They already lost one child – they weren’t going to lose another. The amateurish ransom note, the staging and moving of the body, the fact that Burke was sent away when the police were conducting their investigation (making Burke unavailable for basic questioning), all these things point to the Ramseys’ attempts to steer authorities away from the real killer. Burke was the one with a history of negative behavior towards JB. Let’s not forget he once hit her with a golf club and he smeared feces on her possessions more than once.
I have always had a gut feel from Day 1 Years ago that Burke killed his sister . Many people dont get how cruel , jealous and strong young boys can be toward younger siblings. Sadly I know this first hand between the ages of 6-10 , I was beat up bullied tormented and tortured by my older brother ( and no not in a kids will be kids way ) a sick evil jealousy that included being suffocated/smothered by a mattress, throwing a box full of dirt /crabs in my bath it graduated to sexual abuse which was when all the abuse finally stopped as I summoned the strength to tell my Dad. What did my Mom do …Nothing , she couldn’t wrap her head around her son being a monster so she just pretended it didn’t happen
So yeah thats been my theory for years even before this came out
I’m sorry about what happened to you, but you’re very right.
Even if I don’t personally believe Burke did it, I do believe he was perfectly capable of hurting her or even wanting her dead.
Very sorry that happened to you. Glad it seems you had your father believe you even if your mother couldn’t.
Sibling abuse is most definitely real and sadly often excused and waved off as kids being kids, but there are significant differences between the usual kind most of us with siblings went through and the problematic kind that you faced.
Severity of incidences is one part of it but so is intent and remorse. Even in the most rambunctious sibling relationships, when one child is clearly hurt (again in a manner more serious than the usual childhood slapping/pushing/kicking) generally the offending sibling is remorseful. I know of one family of 5 boys all within one year of each other who took the kids will be kids things to pretty high levels, but when one stabbed the other with a pair of scissors one day, the immediate shock, fear and regret of the stabber was apparent. When this remorse is absent and the abuse escalates it’s a sign for serious concern and intervention.
That Burke was repeatedly using feces to torment his sister at age nine should have see him receive expert psychiatric intervention. That is extremely rare and shouldn’t have been ignored as it appears it was.
I have read almost all there is to read over the years on this case, and I am also a practicing child and family therapist. I doubt Burke killed JonBenet, for a number of reasons…but I do think Patsy was responsible. I think she struck or pushed JonBenet in anger after getting the child up to toilet her. JonBenet’s autopsy showed that she died of strangulation and not her head injury. I don’t know of many nine year olds who would fashion a garrote after injuring a sibling, to finish off the murder…at least not one who wasn’t already killing animals and firesetting. And even then, it would be a stretch.
There is no evidence from anyone that Burke had violent enough tendencies to go through with what was likely a fairly long process of killing JonBenet…probably several minutes. It is a much more likely scenario that Patsy injured JonBenet, believed she was dead, panicked and staged the scene.
Kidnappers do not leave their only negotiation piece dead. And child sexual offenders are not out for ransom- they are there to harm the child. The note was pure fabrication on the writer’s part…and I fully believe Patsy wrote that note after she killed JB.
I’m sure Burke has had a lifetime of pain, guilt and emotional horror and clearly his affect is very odd…but this does not make him a murderer. Most likely, just a man who never really aged past the biggest trauma of his life, along with likely being on the autism scale.
Burke was probably happy she died, but that doesn’t mean he killed her. What you mentioned about the strangling is very true and it hasn’t been addressed.
I’ve worked in forensic mental health, including with child offenders, for over a decade. My partner has over 15 years experience as a child and adolescent psychiatrist, working with extremely disturbed kids. I’m curious as to why you don’t believe Burke did it as we’re both pretty convinced of it.
I’d agree that the staging was carried out by the parents rather than Burke (in an attempt to not lose 2 children) but as I sad I’m curious as to what your reasons for thinking he wasn’t initially involved were, also what about his presentation makes you think he’s on the Autism Spectrum because other than the very misunderstood view of people on the spectrum and their emotional affect I don’t see it at all.
What the … really? I mean I get it, this man gives an interview so it’s sort of fair to talk about him. Sure. But is there ANY evidence he had something to do with his sister’s murder? Any? Because “he’s weird” and “there is no emotion” and “he used to hit her” doesn’t count. For the love of god. He may have done it, who the hell knows. But people are reaching. My sister once went after me with a wooden broom. For a 7-year-old that’s pretty harsh. She didn’t murder me afterwards. I giggle in terrible situations. I’ve never killed anyone. Good god.
Have you heard of the case of Darlie Routier? She was convicted of killing her kids mainly bc of how she acted after the murders, personally I think she is innocent, but it shows what little evidence can sway people.
I discount anything about the Dr. Phil interview. People react in weird ways. Like you, I have a problem with giggling in terrible situations. It’s a nervous reaction and not something that can be helped.
There’s actually quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that supports Burke being the one who struck Jonbenet over the head. People base it on his history of aggression toward Jonbenet (hitting her in the head with a golf club hard enough to scar, for example) and his strange behavior at the time.
He regularly smeared feces in Jonbenet’s bedroom. Their housekeeper told the police that he left a grapefruit-sized ball of feces in Jonbenet’s bed. The chocolates Jonbenet had received for Christmas had feces smeared on them. Scatological issues are a sign of severe emotional issues. The fact that he was directing this behavior at Jonbenet is troubling.
Jonbenet had pineapple in her intestines that she would have ingested not long before death. There was a bowl of pineapple with Burke’s fingerprints on the table, indicating that he’d been downstairs eating it for a snack that night. That puts both of them downstairs in the kitchen around the time of the murder.
When he was interviewed as a child, he tells the psychologist (I believe it was a psychologist) that he knew what happened to Jonbenet. He went on to say that she was probably hit over the head with something. Of note: it’s not clear to me when in the timeline he was interviewed. It wasn’t revealed until the autopsy that Jonbenet had suffered a catastrophic blow to the head. It may or may not be information Burke should have had access to at that time.
He then went on to act out hitting her over the head.
When shown a picture of the pineapple, he freezes up and claims he can’t identify it. This is shortly after saying that he loves pineapple for a snack.
The marks on Jonbenet weren’t made with a taser; they were likely made with Burke’s toy train track.
There’s a whole lot more, but thinking of this case is making me feel sick. James Kolar wrote a very informative book that goes deep into the evidence and investigation, if you’re interested.
The crime scene was so badly handled by the police force that I don’t believe they’ll ever solve it. I’m not saying it’s all the police’s fault but they lost control of the crime scene almost immediately and valuable evidence was lost as a result.
I saw the Bateman in his eyes when this video first made the rounds. I couldn’t get past the first few questions, you can just FEEL what he is. Or, maybe, it’s a survivor PTSD reaction. The thing is, predatory psychopaths like that aren’t born. He was made into what he is in the care of those parents.
Like I said above, I think that it is very possible that Burke didi it, but I don’t think the show proved it at all. It was all guessing and twisting things to fit their story, while ignoring things that didn’t.
I certainly don’t buy the theory that the mom did it in a rage over wetting the bed. Has anyone found any evidence to suggest she had these types of issues? I’ve missed it if they have.
Here is my biggest problem, though, and I can’t seem to find an answer to it. If Burke accidentally hit her with the flashlight, what happened to the blood? Presumably he didn’t chase her down to the basement and into the room she was found in and killed her there, and head wounds bleed a LOT. I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that she’d been dead for much longer than their story suggests, so how did they get that blood cleaned up so quickly without the obvious smells of cleaner and such? I spent a summer in college working for a company that did flooding, fie, disaster clean up and I worked specifically with biological situations (Mostly suicides or natural deaths, but the occasional crime after the scene was released) The clean up process stinks, and you have to do it a certain way to do it correctly.
If he accidentally hit her with the flashlight and killed her, I don’t see how it possibly happened. Again, not a lawyer or a crime scene person, so I’m happy to be educated by someone smarter than me.
THIS. It’s also VERY difficult to remove trace evidence. Also, red blood in a white kitchen with white grout on a black and white floor? No way. That flashlight would have been covered in DNA, too.
Blunt force trauma often doesn’t break the skin and its actually not that hard to clean a small instrument enough to ruin the chances of getting DNA from it, especially when there’s no blood or other fluids involved.
There was no bleeding scalp wound like you’re thinking.
The blow fractured her skull, but didn’t break the skin. Even on autopsy there was no visible trauma to the scalp. The bleeding was subdural (under the skull lining).
Exactly. James Koller did an AMA in which he states that the head injury wasn’t seen until (graphic, sorry) the scalp was pulled back during the autopsy.
Here’s the AMA for anyone who is interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/
See, this is why I pointed out that I am not someone who would know this stuff. Everything I know about crime scenes I learned from CSI shows. There is always blood spatter or something on that show. Thanks for the info. 🙂
You’re welcome 🙂
And now I’m imagining an episode of CSI where they DON’T find miraculously helpful forensic evidence. “Hmm, looks like the guy wore gloves and cleaned up with bleach. Unhelpful bastard didn’t even track in any unusual insects and traces of rare mud. Guess we’ll just catch up on the filing today.” Don’t think it’d rate too well.
If only the world was like CSI/Law & Order. Sadly as Lucrezia says, in real life it’s rarely as neat and even the stupidest of criminals often don’t leave much in the way of incontrovertible scientific proof of their guilt lying around the crime scene.
While we’re on the subject, just once I’d like to see a case where the TOD is as precise as on procedural dramas. That’s said I still watch them, in the same way my friend who is a surgeon watches hospital dramas, half trying to suspend disbelief and half laughing hysterically.
Its extremely odd that the parents didnt give a police interview, until 4/5 months later. Wouldn’t you be working with the police, to do anything possible? Yet the parents went to the media straight away. And the father disappearing for an hour, at the crime scene? WTF?
I have followed this case for years and I hate to say this, but I don’t think it will ever be solved. One of the reasons it’s such a tragic mess is that the evidence is pointing every which way. They have DNA that points to males outside the family, and have had it for years, but that evidence hasn’t solved it. Certainly the Boulder Police Dept. has their part to play and they did lots of things wrong. The crime scene was hopelessly compromised. You never move the body, or let anyone else do that. Why wasn’t there a detective with John Ramsey when he found her? They would/should have prevented him from moving her.
I have too much to say on this subject, so I’ll point to the thing that bothers me about it the most: “The brother killed her accidentally” summation. It’s awfully convenient and the parents’ weird behavior can fit that theory. There were many screws loose in that family. And I think Burke showed some signs of Asperger Syndrome on that stupid Dr. Phil show, but that doesn’t mean he killed his sister. Firstly, I have never been convinced that a small nine year old child could inflict such extreme injuries. The CBS show was compelling, but left some enormous holes in the Burke conclusion. If Burke hit JonBenet with a flashlight in a flash of anger and knocked her unconscious, what did everyone do next? Do they think that Burke was inclined or able to move his little sister down to the basement? Because I don’t. Most of all, that theory explains none of the other things that were done to this poor precious child. Burke strangling her with a garrot, leaving marks on her that could have been caused by a stun gun or a piece of toy train track? Highly unlikely is too weak a phrase for this. That would mean the parents did this as part of their cover- up. Who else was there to cover up for? All the injuries that were done to this little girl do not add up to Burke. So I would like to know what the Richards and Clemente team think about that—-I don’t recall them saying anything about who inflicted all those horrific injuries on JonBenet. Even though I think Patsy was an actress and a phony person, I can’t picture her piling injuries on her daughter in a frantic attempt to cover up. Strangling, tasering, taping her mouth with duct tape? I’m amazed that any TV network would present this show and “name a suspect” without addressing these very serious injuries. If JonBenet died from the head Injury, the rest of it was very bizarre overkill.
Finally, the weirdest thing in this case, to me, is the ransom note which wasn’t. That note makes no sense at all, unless Patsy wrote it. Is there an outside person who would lollygag around the house where they had just killed a child, and write a nearly three page note, using paper and a pen that was right there at the scene? Suppose there had been no paper and no pen? What was the intruder going do then?
I respect the investigative team very much, but I would expect better from Henry Lee, Laura Richards and Jim Clemente.
I don’t know who are the investigators, but I agree with everything you said.
I watched the show but have not yet seen Burke on Dr. Phil’s show. But I have to say that watching his interview with police psychologists after the murder was extremely uncomfortable. It was clear that he felt no grief, sadness, fright or worry. He actually seemed REALLY happy and REALLY ready to put it in the past. I understand he was only 9 years old, but I have 4 nephews who are close to that age and I KNOW they would be DEVASTATED if something happened to one of their siblings. Maybe Burke was more childish because he was more sheltered, I don’t know. But his behavior after the fact WAS NOT NORMAL AT ALL. It just wasn’t. And I understand that there is no “normal” way to act when someone close to you has been murdered, but “Gleeful” is definitely NOT one of the ways one would/should act if they were sad about it.
The claw marks were explained as JB grabbed pineapple and ran. Burke grabbed her shirt to stop her. She clawed at the neck of her shirt. Then he swung the flashlight.
There is actually a ton of evidence in this case. The idea that there’s a lack of compelling evidence is something the Ramseys’ lawyers and PR people have been putting out for years. It’s disinformation designed to cloud the issue.
I find it very telling and sad that both Burke and Jonbenet had scatological issues. Something very wrong was happening in that house prior to the murder.
This is hard for me to stomach. After this all happened, the Ramsey’s moved to Atlanta and rented a house close to the Governor’s Mansion. They joined the church that I grew up in, Peachtree Presbyterian. Patsy was in my Mom’s Wednesday Morning Bible Study… Burke went to Lovett (my School’s rival). My friend, from Church and softball teams, ended up dating Burke for a while, so I got to know him some… This just…. 🙁
To me, it seems very clear that when Patsy called 911 and then later, when John found JonBenet’s body, they already knew their daughter was dead – it seems obvious that John knew JB was in the basement (he said she was in there even before turning the light on).
The Ramseys’ behavior and lack of cooperation were uncanny. The crime scene was obviously staged. The ransom letter was faked. Besides I don’t believe in the intruder theory. The investigators proved that no one entered through the basement’s window.
It seems doubtless to me the Ramseys had something to hide. The question is to know what.
Let’s talk about the Burke theory. Burke seems to have been a disturbed child and his behavior during the interviews after his sister’s death is indeed strange but I’m not sure it’s fair to draw conclusions from them. Children are resilient and find ways to cope with the unspeakable, so maybe it was his way to cope.
The investigators ‘demonstration with the boy and the flashlight was bloodcurling and the pineapple thing is bad for Burke but I have a really hard time believing that a nine-year-old boy could have killed his little sister in such a violent way (besides, they are not sure the flashlight is the murder weapon). But I do believe he knows what really happened and that he is maybe protecting his parents.
If I understood well (I’m not American and I don’t know the US legal system well), even if Burke did it, he could never have been prosecuted for it because he was under ten at the time. Does it mean that he could confess his crime now and still not be charged for it?
If he admitted to it now then by proxy he is implicating his parents in the cover up so his father would be prosecuted (being the only parent still alive).
Thanks for your answer, Betti 🙂 This my theory actually, that John or Patsy accidentally killed JB, panicked and covered it up with the help of the other. Burke knows it and is protecting his father and his late mother’s memory.
I keep returning to the intruder theory. I can’t imagine the parents protecting the son Burke if they knew he killed JonBenet, even if it was accidental. Wouldn’t the parents be concerned for the security of others (and themselves) around Burke??? ….and wouldn’t they be concerned Burke would tell the story someday of what really happened? The issue of the golf club hitting JonBenet was the fact she walked up behind him and presumably Burke didn’t see her.
As far as the windows in the basement, was it only the one window (middle window) which could open? The investigators keep focused on the middle window with the cobweb so I’m guessing only the middle window opens. Perhaps the intruder went through one of the other windows?
Another fact: others in Boulder had keys to the front door- the housekeeper and perhaps assoc of John Ramsey. Whomever wrote that ransom note was aware of John’s work bonus.
One question about the intruder theory: how did John Ramsey find her body, in that case? Did the intruder slip back in and place the body in the basement?
That morning, a police officer went through the basement, as did Fleet White, prior to John “discovering” her. If John Ramsey saw her immediately, with no light on, how did the other two miss seeing her?
Also, John was gone for something like an hour that morning, and no one can account for his whereabouts. This was after Fleet White and the officer walked through the basement and before Ramsey discovered her.
When it was suggested that they search the house from top down, he immediately went to the basement instead.
How does any of that make sense with the intruder theory?
ETA: as far as the window goes, I believe the other windows were all locked on the inside and that one was supposedly open. John had locked himself out of the house previously and broke that window to get back in.
A police officer attempted to open the door of one of the rooms in the basement but the doorknob was jammed. Turns out JonBenet’s body was just five feet away from the other side of that door. John Ramsey was not with the officer at that time and while the officer was attempting to open the door, John and Patsy’s friends were arriving at the house. The officer skipped the door then turned his attention to other areas in the basement.
John Ramsey found the body by 2pm and brought it upstairs and placed it beside the xmas tree.
For anyone interested, I found the timeline of events.
-Fleet White searched the basement sometime between 6 and 7 AM. He looked in both the train room and the wine cellar room where Jonbenet was found. He didn’t report anything blocking the door, nor did he see Jonbenet.
-John Ramsey went into the basement by himself somewhere between 7 – 8 A.M. Claims a chair was blocking the door and that he moved it. Why didn’t he find Jonbenet then? Not sure.
-Officer French searhed the basement after approximately 8:10 and reported no chair blocking the door. He didn’t, however, look into the room where Jonbenet was, stating that there was a latch at the top of the door, which meant it couldn’t have been used as an exit. At that point, he was only looking for a way in and out, not the child.
I had a longer comment that must have been rejected (probably shouldn’t have written it while I was nursing on no sleep in the middle of the night!), but according to John Ramsey’s interview, there was a bar stool in front of the door, not a jammed doorknob. Neither the officer nor Fleet White reported the stool blocking the door, but it wouldn’t have been difficult to simply move the stool out of the way and open the door, which is what John Ramsey says he did.
Another point – the stool was apparently on the opposite side of the door–how would an intruder have put it there, then gone back inside the room to get out?
Another thing that disproves the intruder theory, to me, is the layout of the house, particularly the basement. It’s a confusing warren of rooms down there, and in the middle of the night, it would have been dark. You have to open a grate and drop down to even reach it. If an intruder did do it, it would have had to have been someone very familiar with that house, not someone who merely did a walkthrough or visited occasionally.
There are 3 things that make me feel like Burke actually did kill JonBenet: 1) The footage of Burke being questioned 2 years after the murder about the pineapple in the bowl on the dining room table. He clearly was traumatized by the sight of it. 2) The interview John and Patsy gave the day after the murder, saying they were a loving and “gentle” family…who says that? And 3) the new revelation that Burke had not only hit Jon Benet with a golf club days before, but had also defecated on JonBenet’s bed and Christmas gifts. Why was this information withheld for 20 years? It was clearly a cover up by the Ramsey’s, as well as the Boulder District Attorneys Office.
Apparently, Burke is going to sue CBS. Hope the attorneys can get him on the witness stand.
I had never thought Burke would have had anything to do with hurting Jon Benet until I watched the CBS show. The feces and golf club swing were awful to learn, but the most disturbing bits of evidence were the interviews with Burke. My son is 10 years old, and while we are not strict in the discipline arena, if he were being interviewed or spoken to by ANY adult, he would sit in his chair and show appropriate respect and emotion. Until we had our son, I might have thought that this is how kids act – can’t sit still, etc. – but I am telling you, this was one disturbed (not simply autism or Asberger’s) child, and his actions and emotions do not fit in line with someone who just lost a sibling.
Well, there ya go, Burke, lesson learned: No good deed goes unpunished. HOLY sh!t, I have two sons and no doubt of I lost one of them I’d say something along the lines of, ‘If I lost (other child still alive) I don’t know what I’d live for’ – that passes for motive?! Has he harmed anyone since? Any history of serious violence? Why are we talking more about this 20 year old murder and publicly indicting a (then) child when what we should be talking about is #terencecrutcher. Will we be talking about him in 20 years?
It makes absolutely zero sense that when you wake up and find your kid gone, you just let the other kid sleep. And he doesn’t even want to get up to see what’s going on. Huh??? No way. You’d wake the other kid up and say, “Where’s your sister? Have you seen her? When was the last time you saw her? Did you hear anything??”
Most parents would have turned every single light in the house on, woken up everybody, banged on the neighbor’s doors, and left no stone unturned.
Everything about Burke’s behavior in the scenario the Ramseys were trying to sell makes no sense.
Agree. Add to that the ransom note, which is one of a kind, and makes no sense, given the circumstances. What intruder sits around in the house writing a ransom note for a child that’s already dead? Why not remove the child in the hope of at least getting the money?
I wonder about the significance of the heart that was drawn on JonBenet’s hand. I feel that is a clue to her killer(s) that is not often discussed.
Burke’s inappropriate social responses with Dr Phil and the story about smearing excrement when he was a child definitely suggest that he is somewhere on the Autism spectrum.
I guess when I think about all the poor children, usually people of color, who have died in Chicago alone with no publicity at all, the fixation on this one crime and one little, blond, blue eyed rich girl makes me mad.