The 'pretty people' and the affluent are always fodder for gossip. People love scandal and to watch their stars fall.

Then there's the perception of a 'pageant mother exploiting her young daughter'. The appropriateness of all that brought a lot of attention and uproar to the case, with videos of her little grown-up self filling the airwaves. Then she is sexually assaulted and murdered ....

They also have a lot of money, know-how and probably local influence to keep her story in the news and to put attention on the case to find her killer, can offer $100,000 rewards and hire the best detectives to investigate and clear them as suspects.

It's a made-for-Hollywood drama, full of the kind of details lots of people find scintillating, unfolding in real life.

OPINION: I disagree with so much that is being said up thread. The evidence doesn't bear out the family doing the crime all. So there is no need to buy anyone. Her mother was in pageants when she was young. Naturally, her daughter would be interested in it. And what girl doesn't want to dress up? Pageants aren't inherently abusive. I marched and loved it, so when my son got a chance too march, he tried it. I'd already piqued his interest just by loving it. Cops have children who grow into cops. Educated people have educated children. And I have a family member who was murdered and is well known nationally. You don't get to choose everything the press does. Just one opinion

rob333.....did you see the "after-phone-call-conversation" that was recorded when the Ramsey's thought the 911 call had ended? Makes them look "very" guilty, but not of murder....for the cover up. They didn't want to lose another child. As of right now....I'm convinced the son did it, by accident.

Nicole, where did you find the after-call conversation that makes them look guilty?

This is what I find, dated 2003:

http://www.today.com/news/new-video-audio-ramsey-case-2D80554305

'Just what happened after Patsy hung up the phone has been debated in law enforcement circles. One former Boulder police detective, Steve Thomas, believes after Patsy hung up, the phone didn’t really disconnect.

In his book, “JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Thomas claimed that by enhancing the tape you can hear John and Patsy talking to their son Burke. He claims that’s important because the Ramseys reportedly told police their son was asleep at the time of the call. If true, Thomas claims it suggests the family was altering their story right from the start.

But both the FBI and Secret Service — who examined the tapes — said such a conversation could not be heard.

NBC News had the tape tested by experts at two different labs that examine 911 tapes to see if there was any conversation after the hang up.

“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City.

David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says.

During an interrogation about the call, Patsy Ramsey questioned one of the Boulder police detectives about his assertion there was a conversation after she had hung up the phone.

Police: “Was there any conversation immediately following your last word to the dispatcher?”

Patsy: “I don’t remember. I was out of my mind. My child was missing. I was trying to convey that to the person on the other end of the line. OK? I don’t remember. If you have it on tape, and you’d like me to hear it, I’ll listen to it and see if that jogs my memory.”

Police: “It’s on tape.”

Patsy: “OK.”

Police: “OK.

Patsy: “All right. Well if you’ve got it on the tape and we can play it, then I will try to help you. But I can’t remember which end was up about that time.” '

I was really uninterested but ended up watching this last night and I have to admit some of it was really interesting. The 911 call was interesting but Nicole, I don't think the boy did it, I think Ramsey Sr. did it. The reason is because the boy asked, what did you find? Senior responded, We're not talking to you and Pasty said, what have you (or we) done?

Snookums, did you watch the documentary last night? It was on there.

Burke keeps getting blamed. Would a 9 year old boy even know about sex or anatomy to be using a paint brush handle like that? I think not. (ETA: This was 1996)

The parents passed lie detector tests. There was foreign dna of one male on her body/panties and under her fingernails.

Lukki, I think those statements can be interpreted in other ways that do not incriminate them in having murdered her.

According to Today, above, the FBI and other analysts concluded there was no intelligible audio beyond the 911 conversation.

No I didn't watch it. I don't get TLC. I think there's something on CBS tonight if I catch it.

If there is a clear recording of a post-911-call conversation, why was the tape analyzed and that theory discredited by the FBI, Secret Service and two other independent analyses by NBC in 2003. Either you can hear it or you can't.

I watched the show last night. I thought it was highly speculative and very damning for the family. DNA cleared the family several years ago. What did this show hope to accomplish other than sensationalize a cold case? Disappointing.

-------snookums2----------this is the after 911 transcript I found online. Why is John Ramsey NOT speaking to Burke? or Burke wants to know whats going on and "is" innocent....? It's a mystery to me...yet the parents say Burke was asleep in bed when this call was made. Why would they lie about "that"?

1. " 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice. Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother.
2. " 'Please, what do I do?' Burke said.
3. " 'We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say.
4. " Patsy screamed again. 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.'
5. " And then, more clearly, Burke said, 'What did you find?'

You've got two severely stressed parents in a panic. Burke shows up and is interrupting, pestering, wants to help or something. He is basically being told this is a conversation between he and Patsy, they're busy, to be quiet, let them be.

I find it completely plausible under the circumstances and their states of mind that they don't remember everything that happened or the correct sequence. It doesn't mean someone is lying. If he was, in fact there, he might also have shown up at the close of the call, not when it was being made.

They're looking for her!

ETA: She states in the Today interview material that she did not know which end was up.

The 911 operator claims she sounded rehearsed on a Rolling Stone interview years later after the gag order was lifted. I read the transcript on the Today show link. Although I can't hear it, the conversation itself sounds totally credible to me. She is frustrated with the operator's questions in a completely realistic way as it relates to her trying to get help for her daughter. That is a natural reaction and isn't really the kind of thing that would be faked. To the contrary, I think.

Again with the 911 operator on interview: 'What bothered me immensely, [was] it sounded like she said, 'OK, we called the police, now what?'"

The operator sounds like an idiot.

I agree there was a lot of speculation, but at least most of it was the result of the consultants' input based on their experiences. The people they have brought in to review the evidence are all seasoned, highly qualified and well known for their expertise. I tend to watch forensic shows anyways so that's why this program caught my attention. I was interested in watching the process and hearing the conversations as they (the consultants) tried to figure it out but the woman and that wierd guy didn't impress me at all.

Snookums, I think it was on CBS in our area (on Dishnetwork anyways).

The part that has bothered me about this case is that first the father was missing for 1.5 hrs, then he was over heard making plans to leave the country almost immediately after he found the body, he went straight to the basement and her body when the officer said to search the house from top to bottom, he called out that he found her when his friend said the lights of that room were still off, then he moved the body, not once but twice so the crime scene was completely contaminated. It's almost like he sabotaged it and under those circumstances it would be hard to prove anyone did it.

This is the Conclusion running on CBS tonight. I don't find the show to be credible. It seems very biased. They have their minds made up and are following their theory. I don't like the affectations of the players. It feels like I'm watching a play with overly dramatic actors. Their intent seems to be that of painting a particular picture = guilt, no intruder.

Lukkiirish, how could the father be missing for 1.5 hours when he was there for the 911 call?

What I remember is that her body was found 7 hours later in the basement by the father. A friend had looked in the basement earlier.

He should not have handled her. Really dumb move but it's hard to imagine not touching or holding your child when you find them harmed or dead.

ETA: I used to watch the CSI shows (non-fiction) because the science is interesting. This show is just too biased for me.

I watched the CBS program and I thought it was very good. Especially the 2nd night. It explained how JB could have had that little piece of pineapple in her stomach.... After her dinner had already been digested. Burke was a strange kid with a penchant for smearing feces on her things. He resented the attention she got. They believe he was eating pineapple after she went to bed and she got up and came into the kitchen and snatched a piece and he hit her with the flashlight. He didn't mean to kill her. Like Nicole said, the parents wanted to protect him. The investigators in the program tested brand new parties straight from the package and found DNA on them... so DNA on her panties could have come from the factory. She was not sexually assaulted. The Ramsey's behavior was odd from the get go. They did not cooperate like they should have with the investigation. There was a lot more but I am typing on a phone and it is tedious.

We saw last nite's episode.

Burke is guilty as sin. I can't believe that he was so distanced, cold, impersonal, and unaffected by his sister's death just 13 hours previously. If he was 10 and not 9, he could have been interviewed, questioned. What a shame.

nicole, I haven't seen it. I'm not into deciding the guilt of someone I can't talk to and evidence I can't mull over. I believe in a higher judgement and no one truly gets away with murder. It's out of my hands! I know what has happened in my (now ex-)husband's family with the murdered family member and the slander that is spoken about the victim. People say the ugliest things and they couldn't be more untrue. It sickens me to know the things they've said about them and how much it all hurt the grand parents.

Going to add this. #3 could simply mean she was yelling at the murderer without them being there, for instance. That is, she could be saying she's not directing her comments towards her son and trying to let him know he wasn't the object of her anger. #5 and of course, Burke would want to know upset his mother so much. I can totally see me yelling, cursing, screaming at someone who isn't there and wondering why did someone do what they did to my baby. It's all out of context, and can be construed to fit how one wishes.

1. Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.' That was clearly Patsy's voice.
   Then, in the distance, there was another voice, which sounded like JonBenet's brother.
2. " 'Please, what do I do?' Burke said.
3. " 'We're not speaking to you,' Hickman heard John Ramsey say.
4. " Patsy screamed again. 'Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus.'
5. " And then, more clearly, Burke said, 'What did you find?'

Snookums, In our area, episode one aired Monday on CBS, two aired last night and three is airing (I assume) tonight.. In the first episode, the one and only FBI agent who was at the house as part of the initial investigation said that between the time he arrived at the house and the time the body was found Mr. Ramsey had left the premises and his where abouts were unknown for about 1.5 hours. When he returned, the agent suggested to the officer still on site that she keep Mr. Ramsey busy by doing a search while the police officer kept eyes on him so he couldn't leave again.

I have it recorded but was too tired to watch the whole two hours last night and ended up dozing. I have to agree some of it does seem like junk science, but the first episode did bring a lot of first hand history and knowledge to the table that you've missed seeing. It would be hard for me to watch episode 3 without having seen the first two.

I will be interested to see #1 if it airs again or is online. This one was like watching a tv drama. One where the ending is disclosed at the beginning and Colombo is solving it.

His daughter was missing, maybe Mr. Ramsey was looking for her. He must have said where he was or what he was doing by this time.

How could anyone possibly know that Burke was the one eating pineapple and JB stole a piece from him - so he hit her in the head with a flashlight. They know the flashlight was on the kitchen table too? That's a pretty odd place for a flashlight. Did they also speculate that maybe JB was in the kitchen eating pineapple and so saw the intruder?

I found it appalling the way the detectives claimed such things as Burke was overselling (guilty) because he said 'I sleep really soundly. I never hear anything'. Sad, sorry world.

Everyone is suspect in something like this and should be but that everyone seems so sure from the start that it was the parents or Burke is odd, imo.

In contrast to the Avery case where people want the felon cleared (sensationalism) in this case they seem to want the family to have done it (sensationalism). Things are more interesting that way.

Snookums, there just seems to be so many questions. The detectives observing the cobwebs that were left intact in the window that an intruder supposedly entered. The suitcase that was left directly under the window, no evidence like foot prints or disruption of foliage outside of the window, the 911 call that seems to show more than two voices on the recording, and the weird ransom note. The inconsistencies keep piling up.

These detectives are experienced and in their experience certain behaviors and speech have lead them down certain paths.

I think Burke unintentionally killed JB by hitting her over the head wit the flashlight.

I can see Patsy getting involved to protect her son. But for me, the tying up of JB, I can't fathom a parent doing this to their child, so this is where everything falls apart for me.

There was a kidnapping in the same state a few years ago where they interviewed the murderer. What he did defies logic. I don't know why the experts think they know every type of behavior and that there has to be some logic assocated with killing and torture. Sometimes people do this for their own entertainment.

It especially bugged me when they compared Burke's behavior to their own family, as if that is the only child whose behavior they observed. Every kid is different. Every environment is different. Every age and generation is different. Was there even a child behaviorist on that CBS team? I interpreted Burke's physical squirming as that of a child who has not had enough opportunity to move around and needed to expend some energy. I don't see significance in his inability to identify the pineapple in the picture 2 years later. It looked gross and food that is not photo-prepped often looks gross. I just saw a bunch of investigators that looked like they wanted to launch their reality tv careers.

We simply don't have enough evidence. People want answers so they make them up.

It's so darn confusing. All I know for sure is that she's dead, someone murdered her & someone knows the truth. But they're not talking.

That bugged me too Jane. FWIW, if I have to choose between the family being involved vs. a complete stranger - at the end of the day I still think a stranger was not involved here. The problem is that neither scenario makes complete sense, and neither scenario is air-tight either. But what was interesting to me is that some of the things they pointed out about Burke's behavior were, to me, non-issues. What 9 year old kid doesn't get squirmy? Or not answer questions clearly?

I was disappointed that the show wasn't more factual.

Like others have said, the evidence does not paint a completely clear picture either way to me. But again, just for me, if I had to choose....I just can't envision a stranger doing this, in this manner.

So sad. I think the parents did it or know exactly what happened. Just shows what $$$ and bad police work can do when it comes the judicial system. We've seen it before.

I agree with both Marilyn c and eld6161. The people doing the investigating on this program are well educated and very experienced in their fields. Also very thorough. All of their theories make a lot more sense than any that have been put forth previously. Remember, forensics and DNA testing have progressed a lot in the last 20 years. As for the garrote, the duct tape, tying her up, etc., all are an elaborate and not very well done scheme to cover up what had actually happened.

"Would a 9 year old boy even know about sex or anatomy to be using a paint brush handle like that? I think not. (ETA: This was 1996)"

Wrong! 9 YO boys know, and did know, even as far back as 1996, about sex, anatomy, etc. But he is not the one that did the cover-up, his parents, probably, more specifically his dad. did. I raised 3 stepsons, 2 sons, 1 grandson, and helped raise a second grandson. The youngest of these in 30 now. I am very well aware of what 9 YO (and often younger) boys know about and are be curious about. And Burke's actions during the taped interviews do not appear to be 'normal' or 'natural', either.

I watch Forensic Files on TV a lot. These are actual cases. Forensics are fascinating! In fact, I think I was born about 60 plus years too soon. If I were of an age now to be considering my future, I would definitely go into investigative forensics.

The series is on CBS here, Direct TV .

ETA: I just did a search on Direct TV and on the 'net. Apparently this is not a 3 episode show as thought, just the 2 parts already aired show up.

Rusty

Why conjecture about the guilt of any family member when there's dna evidence that someone else assaulted the child & that the child fought/scratched that person?

Weren't the Ramseys at a party earlier in the day? Could that explain why another male's dna was found? How much does it take to get dna under one's fingernails? A touch or a swipe, or does it have to be a dig in skin?

sylviatexas1....the show we all watched seemed to indicate there was "no" assault or sexual abuse. It also proved to my untrained eye...that the flashlight was the weapon that killed JonBenet...the garrot and taped mouth happened after she was deceased. Did you watch the show? These people were experts and "they" explained it all in great detail how they came to their conclusions.

mimi, it was also found IN her underpants. Can't explain that one away. Unfortunately.

I think the Ramsey's paid the "experts" off as well as many others.

rob333

mimi, it was also found IN her underpants. Can't explain that one away. Unfortunately.

*****

I thought that I was hearing that Dr. Lee postulated that a male factory worker who touched the girls underwear could have transferred dna.

I'm not arguing for or against, just trying to understand all the theories.

There are so many.

I hadn't heard that. But my take on it was the under the fingernail and the pants matched. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard. I don't see how a factory worker's DNA could be under the fingernails?

mimi, it was also found IN her underpants. Can't explain that one away. Unfortunately.

Clearly you did not watch the show. They opened a brand new pair of little girls underwear and found unidentified DNA on it.

The same dna was under her fingernails, my understanding. Not sure of the source at this point.

I also doubt that her mother would not wash her new panties before putting them on her daughter. That's pretty much SOP with most people I would think.

'I think the Ramsey's paid the "experts" off as well as many others.'

So all these people would agree to be complicit in murder? I think it would be hard enough to get one person to cooperate with something like that. First person they would approach and all/any others would have to succeed or the police would be notified.

Highly unlikely, imo.

I wasn't going to post on any of these JB threads, but decided that I would put my opinion out there as well.

Immediately after the murder, I figured it was the father who murdered and sexually assaulted her. It was simple speculation. In those first days, due to the media mostly, my mind switched from John to Patsy to Burke, back and forth.

But over the years, as true facts came to light, I don't believe anyone in the family is guilty. No, Burke does not act "normal". How many of us are not "normal" or have kids or spouses or other family members who are not "normal"?

For me to believe that Burke killed her, by accident or on purpose, then I would have to believe that both John and Patsy are monsters in order to have done the things that were done to JB in an attempt to cover it up. No, I don't believe that at all. Had she simply been tossed into the basement in order to cover it up, I could have believed. To tie an intricate garrote and tightly wrap it around her little neck? Two very sick individuals doing those things to their beautiful baby to cover it up? No, I don't believe that at all.

As far as the 911 tapes, I tried, but could not hear what the "investigators" on that CBS TV showed claimed to have heard about Burke in the background. It was kind of like when the g-kids tell me the dog is saying their name. Yeah, if I listen hard enough I just might hear the dog saying their names! Personally, I found that show to not have much credibility. I've been interested enough in this case since the beginning and watched a lot of coverage/movies/etc. but this one I found impossible to sit through. If anyone was creepy, it was the investigators on that show. I saw bits and pieces on both nights but that's all I could take.

It's beyond me why so many people can easily dismiss DNA evidence, FBI and Secret Service investigations, and the shoddiness of Boulder PD for the sake of made for TV ratings shows. And many many other credible investigations.

Besides the murder of JB, the saddest fact about this case is that Patsy Ramsey went to her grave without knowing who killed her baby girl.

I still have questions that will probably never be answered. If this murder is ever solved, I think it will be through new DNA testing that has yet to be developed.

From a newspaper talking about the recent investigation and interviews:

'Other segments of the show focused on DNA evidence found on JonBenét’s pajama waistband and underwear and under her fingernails, raising the possibility that she fought off an attack. The DNA evidence does not match the three family members.'

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/19/burke-ramsey-hopes-jonbenet-murder-investigation-finds-killer/

It probably has something to do with the modeling or another aspect of their lives that brought the victim to the attention of a predator. One that has so far gotten away with it.

I also can't wrap my head around either of the parents fashioning the garrote and using it on their precious little girl.

But then, the ransom not always seemed so odd.

dchall that both DNA donors were the same can't be explained away. Did the factory worker fight her and his DNA end up under her finger nails? How?

Knocking someone in the head with a flashlight is assault, & tv is...tv.

I watched some forensics shows one day when I was ailing with some bug, & I got so angry at those stupid police detectives, & then I remembered-

it's tv.

'Knocking someone in the head with a flashlight is assault'

That isn't what killed her.

She was dead from a blow to her skull before the garrot was placed around her neck. She was not sexually assaulted. An xray of her skull and the injury and the flashlight matched perfectly. There were no fingerprints on the flashlight or even the batteries. Wiped clean.

The autopsy report says asphyxiation by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. There also appears to have been a sexual assault.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf

I haven't yet read but a few of the comments on this thread. However, FYI, I did post a long comment and summary on this thread:

[https://www.houzz.com/discussions/anyone-see-fitzpatricks-show-re-jonbenet-dsvw-vd~4172709[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/anyone-see-fitzpatricks-show-re-jonbenet-dsvw-vd~4172709)

sorry for the ambiguity; someone upthread had said that there was no assaut.

I'm not so sure that blow happening before the garrote is placed is consistent with petechial hemorrhaging? I am no expert. But I do know eyes bleeding are consistent with strangulation. Can that occur after the hit, how much does the blood keep flowing, for how long? Dunno!