Eld6161, I don't know who 'Fitzpatrick' is, so I don't know what show you are asking about. I did see a couple of other shows about the case in the last few weeks, but I don't remember what channels they were on, or what the names of them were. I think the show last night came closer to offering an opinion on who the perpetrator might be than any pf the others did.

Rusty

I feel like a dunce. I'm bad with names, so I didn't realize that the show I watched and is being discussed in 2 other threads is the one you are asking about here. Sorry.

Rusty

Eld6161 and Rusty --

[you can link this to the other threads if you want to, Rusty. I'm not sure that I know how to.]

i watched the (?2-part) ? CBS? program Sat and Sunday evenings. I believe each segment was 1.5 hours long.

it was rather "produced" but that is the nature of network TV. Having said that, I was surprised to find it as thought out and well researched as it was.

I have an analytical mind and am a good problem solver (all sorts of problems) and I also appreciate science and rational thinking. Well-reported and carefully examined historical mysteries and "True Crime" can capture my attention. Over the years I have read various pieces on the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I have appreciated from the beginning that the case was muddied and compromised -- be the bungling of the Boulder PD (it was Christmas holiday), and by the politics involved (family with money).

A lot of the reporting (and trader commentary) was sloppy. I often shake my head at how so many people (even reporters) seem unable to follow a scenario or narrative with an objective, feet-on -the-planet, alert mind. A lot of people seem to fall down on basic listening (TV, radio) and reading comprehension. I may sound snotty. No. I am just amazed by how so many people can read, "Jack and Jill went up the hill" and ce up with countless variations of that simple statement of fact. Add more information and a couple of compound sentences and things can really get twisted around, misunderstood and passed on.

The two-night sequence TV JBR program was, I feel, well done in terms of logical analysis and scientific examination of evidence. The production had a team of worthy experts. There was also a component of the investigative team who were experts in human psychology, interviewing (typing from phone and its tedious and my brain cannot find the words I want, sorry) witnesses and suspects in crime cases. I also admire the experts for showing restraint, compassion and good judgement while exploring this topic and putting forth so much of the details that were skipped over in the initial investigations and associated reportage.. After each segment there was a typed statement reminding viewers that the case has not been solved, but viewers were encouraged to form their own conclusions or thoughts after viewing the program.

I had, over the years, wondered why the former FBI profiler, John Douglas, and also the (forget his name -- sensationalist writer ?Larry Schiler (who wrote a book on JBR case) dropped out or fell away from the case or reporting and discussion of it. I think I now understand.

Because two of the family members at the Ramsey home that day are still alive, and because ( I do believe that) JB's death was unplanned (not premeditated) and was not from any outside figure, there may only be additional pain and hurt by continued speculation or inquiry. Jon Benet's death was most likely from an emotionally charged person reacting from frustration (as put forth convincingly and after careful examination of the facts, testimony, and interviews in the two-part investigative series this past Sunday and Monday. Any viewer can pretty much figure out how this horrible scene unfolded -- at least the primary aspects of the who when how and why. Anyone's conclusions need not be stated.

There were some key pieces of telling evidence - for example, the note paper and pen used for the note were from the home and were put back in place after the very long, overselling the intentionally misleading "ransom" note was written. The overly long note was fiction and peppered with purposeful miscues and took the writer between 30 minutes to perhaps an hour to compose. What intruder would take that time and then replace the notepad and the pen back where they belonged. Experts in linguistics analyzed the 3-page note containing ridiculously unbelievable and lengthy assertions that were there only to misdirection investigators. Lots of detailed analysis and evaluation on that very important clue alone. These experienced and well-seasoned experts evaluated the writing style, wording and so on. Very interesting. Men and women tend to use different expressions.

The purported DNA on the underwear was likely touch DNA from the manufacturing of the garment. The team purchased new, packaged similar girls underpants and carefully examined them for "touch DNA" and were not at all that some turned up to help confirm their hypothesis. (This is the sort or reasoned analysis and puzzle solving that I usually use and it was refreshing to see this group of experts work out the tangles. I admire their good thinking skills and experience.)

The ADA (or whoever) in Boulder) prematurely exonerated the Ramsey family based in this "forensically unimportant" DNA. that was an odd press conference / statement back in ___?year.

The victim was not sexually assaulted. However, as the investigative documentary discusses, there was past injury to her (she had been hit on the face by a hard object out of anger; it had left a mark or scar). There was also some other alleged affronts (feces smeared on JB's personal possessions, room etc.).

[As an aside, I was always a bit annoyed at the reporting of the young girl's bed wetting -- the report of this seemed to lead to speculation that she'd been abused, was stressed and so on. The medical term for child nighttime bed wetting past toilet training is "enuresis". It is a not uncommon medical condition -- the child sleeps deeply and either does not awaken to go to the toilet or feel the urge to urinate. Or perhaps the child's urethral control and musculature and not yet fully developed. Children outgrow this involuntary nocturnal bed wetting, but may not do so until well into childhood. I believe it is more common in boys and that there can be a heritable component. Just to clarify any misinformation. The docu-investigation program did not address this (no need to, really), or if they did, I missed it.]

There was evidence of miscues, overselling, misleading, non cooperation and coverup. The "ransom note" was overly long and with abundant oversell misdirection. The embellished knot in the garrote and paintbrush handle were other examples of purposeful misdirection by parties seeking to mislead investigators.

(Again, according to my take on the 2-part docu program)

FBI and other investigative personnel were thwarted in their efforts to properly investigate. The DA stymied their efforts and abetted the Ramsey family in avoiding standard / routine investigative measures. There were given police reports before they were interviewed.

If you watch the ? 2- part docu-investigation, you will probably have nearly all your questions "answered" as much as they are ever likely to be. You might also, sigh deeply and get a sense of why this sad crime and circumstances were muddied or cornered up or let go. As one of the (brilliantly talented and experienced) experts asked, ~ and, so, what now is the point? (That is, what do we really want to come away with if we proceed further?)

Some actions (in a moment of late evening passion, by an incompletely developed mind) can never be undone or fixed or made right. There are some areas of human experience where all the truth and justice in the world will fail to be just. Life, by its very nature, involves much ambiguity, complexity and compromise.

I wish everyone peace and well being.

EDITED some hours after I first composed this.

ETA -- does my post show now, 9-21-16 10:20 AM eastern. If not, why would it get deleted?

@Petalique, Your commentary is the best of read about the JB murder. Thank you.

(I can't type a 5 word text without messing it up.)

I haven't read your whole post now but:

'The purported DNA on the underwear was likely touch DNA from the manufacturing of the garment.'

The same DNA was also under her fingernails.

I also find it hard to believe the panties weren't washed prior to wear. Is there some reason people think they were new and used 'out of the bag' without laundering first?

'The victim was not sexually assaulted. '

The autopsy report in the other thread does not read that way.

'Bit by object' previously?

Thank you. I just edited it, added more and tried to tidy up my post.

It's gone!

Snookums, in watching the 2-part investigative program "The Case of: Jon Benet Ramsey" I don't believe I heard anything about DNA beneath her fingernails. But you read somewhere that there was and that that DNA matched that found on her underwear. Hmm.

I don't believe that I ever read the official autopsy report. Post a link to it if you have one. The "Case of" program concluded that JBR was not sexually assaulted (but I was trying to stay awake). Or, (Or,) perhaps the "Case of" investigative team concluded that any apparent sexual assault was from the staged (post-head-trauma) injuries (like the strangulation) designed to mislead (coverup).

i found the program interesting and well put together as far as re-examining evidence, reports, video, scene and so on and giving compelling analysis of the crime and how events transpired that night and in the ensuing hours.

did you happen to watch the 2-part program?

oh, I just edited -- not bit, hit, sorry. She had been hit in the face with a golf club perhaps a year or two before her death.

Autopsy report:

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/4166881/the-case-of-jonbenet-ramsey?n=61

Your analysis above disappeared.

I only saw the conclusion, part 2. Had watched the case live when it happened and probably a followup CSI later. I didn't find this show credible and was rather bored with it.

I have to agree with others that it is not plausible for (either of) the parents to have strangled their daughter (after Burke supposedly assaulted her over a piece of pineapple) and then posed her for the police by torturing and sexually assaulting her dead body. Not gonna happen. Except with seriously deranged sociopaths and there is absolutely no history of them being crazy violent people.

Then they proceed to pay everyone off to keep quiet .... offers accepted?

What a picture that paints of those poor people. I think they've been through enough.

Many of the points brought up in the show have bothered me from the start but here again so many people feel sorry for the people losing a child they ignore the possibility they could well have been involved. Too many things don't make sense. Plus the "Menendez argument" so many use, where you're supposed to feel sorry for Lyle and Erik, after all, they're orphans! I don't feel sorry for the Ramseys. Too many things don't add up.

As I've stated in another thread; things most likely do not add up because we are hearing all sorts of made up evidence. So until there is an actual trial, once there is a murder suspect, we are going to be told all sorts of stuff that's simply just been made up. I wouldn't trust any evidence unless it comes to an actual trial. People can say anything.

You can see your post because you are signed in. Deleted posts still show to the author for a short period of time. Sign out and you will see it is gone.

Make an edit to it and it should reappear.

People too often believe what they want to believe. This case seems to have taken the path of guilty until proven innocent for the Ramseys.

So did they strangle her thinking she was dead when she was only unconscious? Did they strangle her to finish off what Burke had started, why then? Did Burke strangle her to kill her then the parents tied a fancy garrot to hide that fact?

I just don't buy the theory that the vicious treating of her body by her parents as some sort of a cover up can be accounted for by panic.

The facts, whatever they are, make sense. Nothing makes sense to the rest of us because we don't have the facts.

You know what ticks me off? When they show video reenactments of things that they speculate happened, with no proof that they are true. People see the video and they think it's true. It's not even labeled as a speculative reenactment.

Common sense says it speculative, but they just showed a reenactment clip in a news story. People glance at the TV and believe it. It was the clip of a Jonbenet actress snatching a pineapple chunk out of Burke's (an actor's) bowl. NO ONE has proof that Jonbenet did that.

Media has been incredibly irresponsible. I have been on a jury that was ready to convict based on speculation. Objectivity is trending out. SMH.

The more I read about this, the more I think it was a non-family member with previous access to the house who had this planned. Not necessarily an experienced or older or easily profiled perp. (I keep thinking about the Jessica Ridgeway case where the murderer/torturer was under 18 and did a lot of prep.)

In the “Dateline NBC” special, “Who Killed JonBenét?” debuting at 9 p.m. Mountain Sept. 9, correspondent Josh Mankiewicz interviews Bob Whitson, a retired Boulder detective sergeant who was in the Ramsey home the day JonBenét’s body was found.

“The behavior at the scene does not match up” with the Ramseys, Whitson tells Dateline. “It matches up with a sexually sadistic person and a psychopath.”