# Jonbenet Ramsey Special - CBS **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 19, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369 "2016-09-19T18:47:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/61 "2016-09-21T02:12:00Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > No, you don’t have to take the DNA out of the picture. It just doesn’t prove anything. A few microscopic spots of unknown DNA can get on another’s body thousands of different ways. A kid grabbing someone’s arm can put skin cells under her fingernails. If she goes to the bathroom after, AHA!, DNA on panties!. It’s meaningless without loads of other evidence. And that does not explain why the early sample had the DNA comingled with her blood, BTW what you report shows how silly the Chinese clothing manufacturer as source of the DNA was. > [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > The killer’s DNA? Is there a microscope that can identify that DNA comes from a killer? We shouldn’t have any unsolved murder cases anymore, then. And the fact that what you say here is so silly is one os the many reasons the police and the authorities have not dismised the DNA evidence as much as you wish it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/62 "2016-09-21T02:21:50Z")
Bill James, who wrote about this case in his book “Popular Crime” (he feels it was an outside intruder looking to get a quick $118,000 from the father) says the CBS show is an incredible piece of trash with fantastic leaps of faith presented by evidence. A real bad police job from the start (not sealing off the place) that got even worse, with the father trying to take control of the investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/63 "2016-09-21T02:38:22Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > [Springs detective Lou Smit, 75, prayed with, helped Ramseys – The Denver Post](http://www.denverpost.com/2010/08/11/springs-detective-lou-smit-75-prayed-with-helped-ramseys/) …ya see? That wasn’t so hard. Although the extract you chose to highlight wasn’t very helpful. Millions of Americans pray. The relevant section of your cite was: > [@](#): > > It reminded Smit of a prayer he shared with John and Patsy Ramsey years earlier on the eve of a grand jury meeting when it appeared likely Patsy would be charged with murdering her 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, on Dec. 26, 1996. Which doesn’t seem out of character for the man: > [@](#): > > Friends and family said he was too honest to put someone away just to further his own career. > > It was one of the hallmarks of a detective who routinely prayed with suspects before interviewing them and visited the grave sites of victims when the killers were later convicted. He seems to be an equal opportunity “prayer” who routinely prayed with suspects before interviewing them. As an atheist I don’t think that is right. But if he routinely prayed with suspects then why was praying with the Ramsey’s problematic? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/64 "2016-09-21T10:52:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that does not explain why the early sample had the DNA comingled with her blood, BTW what you report shows how silly the Chinese clothing manufacturer as source of the DNA was. > And the fact that what you say here is so silly is one os the many reasons the police and the authorities have not dismised the DNA evidence as much as you wish it to be. You just don’t get it. Nobody knows how or when that DNA got on her body or clothing. Nobody knows who that DNA belongs to it. That makes it nearly worthless as evidence. It does cast doubt on anyone accused of the crime without otherwise conclusive evidence. That’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/65 "2016-09-21T12:46:37Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > No. If we left these things to the actual professionals Jimmy Saville would likely still be viewed as a national treasure in the UK. Sometimes the professionals don’t get it right. Yes, _sometimes_ they don’t get it right, no one is 100% correct all the time. They get it right a lot more often than lynch mobs do. The general public has no particular expertise or skill in determining innocence or guilt which is exactly why the general public needs to STFU and stop trying people in the court of public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/66 "2016-09-21T14:15:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That makes it nearly worthless as evidence. …I don’t quite think you know how this evidence thing works. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/67 "2016-09-21T14:21:08Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I don’t quite think you know how this evidence thing works. There’s no conclusion to be drawn from unknown DNA. It could have been left on her by anybody, anytime before or after her demise. It doesn’t have to be the DNA of someone who was in contact with her either, they could have transferred it from someone else. Given other evidence of a person’s guilt, and it’s not their DNA, they’ll try to use it to cast doubt, and if the evidence against them is weak it would probably work. If they identify the DNA and it’s someone that could have been in contact with the girl before or after she was killed, or had their DNA transferred by someone who had that contact, that would cast substantial doubt unless other evidence ties them to the crime. DNA by itself is just DNA, it’s left by humans everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/68 "2016-09-21T14:39:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > There’s no conclusion to be drawn from unknown DNA. It could have been left on her by anybody, anytime before or after her demise. It doesn’t have to be the DNA of someone who was in contact with her either, they could have transferred it from someone else. Given other evidence of a person’s guilt, and it’s not their DNA, they’ll try to use it to cast doubt, and if the evidence against them is weak it would probably work. If they identify the DNA and it’s someone that could have been in contact with the girl before or after she was killed, or had their DNA transferred by someone who had that contact, that would cast substantial doubt unless other evidence ties them to the crime. DNA by itself is just DNA, it’s left by humans everywhere. …I’m not suggesting we draw a conclusion from “unknown DNA.” I’m suggesting that unknown DNA found at a crime scene under the fingernails and on the underwear of the victim is not “nearly worthless as evidence”. Crime labs around the world are not going to suddenly throw up their arms and declare “DNA is just DNA! ITS LEFT BY HUMANS EVERYWHERE!!!” And close their doors in a huff. That isn’t how it works. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/69 "2016-09-21T14:48:52Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You just don’t get it. Nobody knows how or when that DNA got on her body or clothing. Nobody knows who that DNA belongs to it. That makes it nearly worthless as evidence. It does cast doubt on anyone accused of the crime without otherwise conclusive evidence. That’s it. Nope, I do get it. Even after the DA, that was accused with very little reason of being fruit loops, was out of the case and not controlling the FBI lab; the labs did their job and the authorities now have not considered it nearly worthless as they continue to consider the family to not had been involved for the other logical reason that the family DNA was not found commingled\* with her blood (in 2 or more different places) and then under her fingernails. There are several logical issues that the ones that want to ignore the DNA evidence are recklessly dropping. The main one is that the progress of the science has made possible to now get a better profile to the male that had access to several pieces of her underwear and handled her body. Another one is that DNA is not the only reason why an intruder was not dismissed. > **[JonBenét Ramsey - Crime Museum](https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/cold-cases/jonbenet-ramsey/)** > > JonBenét Ramsey In the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, John and Patsy Ramsey awoke to find their six-year-old daughter JonBenét Ramsey missing from her bed at their home in Boulder, Colorado. Patsy and John had woken up early to prepare for... > [@](#): > > In addition, there were fingerprints, handprints, and a boot print that have still not been identified to the Ramseys or anyone of over 400 people that have been investigated. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/27/jonbenet.dna/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/27/jonbenet.dna/) > [@](#): > > Earlier blood tests showed the sample was from a male who was unrelated to the Ramseys, said Wood, who added that neither he nor the Ramseys planned to suggest that the DNA of anyone in particular be compared with the sample. Speaking about the show, it is clear that they had a predetermined conclusion, just about par for the course for a network that also takes Bigfoot seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/70 "2016-09-21T15:16:15Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > Bill James, who wrote about this case in his book “Popular Crime” (he feels it was an outside intruder looking to get a quick $118,000 from the father) says the CBS show is an incredible piece of trash with fantastic leaps of faith presented by evidence. A real bad police job from the start (not sealing off the place) that got even worse, with the father trying to take control of the investigation. I thought we were talking about JonBenet Ramsey, not the Lindbergh kidnapping. :rolleyes: John Douglas’s book on unsolved crimes ends with the Ramsey case and it’s transparent that he used the previous cases to set up his opinion on the former. He does make several points about the crime scene that make it unlikely the parents were involved (mostly, that even horrid parents who kill their child can’t help but make the body “comfortable”; Charlie Lindbergh was dumped in a heap in the forest, and JonBenet was not “arranged” as a parent would have done). Short take: everything goes to hell when parents or family get in the way of an investigation, no matter how pure their motives. But it’s still a case hardly anyone would care about were it not a super-pretty little white girl. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/71 "2016-09-21T16:28:43Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’m not suggesting we draw a conclusion from “unknown DNA.” I’m suggesting that unknown DNA found at a crime scene under the fingernails and on the underwear of the victim is not “nearly worthless as evidence”. Crime labs around the world are not going to suddenly throw up their arms and declare “DNA is just DNA! ITS LEFT BY HUMANS EVERYWHERE!!!” And close their doors in a huff. That isn’t how it works. I didn’t say that. You know the circumstances in this particular case leave doubt as to how the DNA got on her body. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/72 "2016-09-21T16:35:00Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I thought we were talking about JonBenet Ramsey, not the Lindbergh kidnapping. :rolleyes: > > John Douglas’s book on unsolved crimes ends with the Ramsey case and it’s transparent that he used the previous cases to set up his opinion on the former. He does make several points about the crime scene that make it unlikely the parents were involved (mostly, that even horrid parents who kill their child can’t help but make the body “comfortable”; Charlie Lindbergh was dumped in a heap in the forest, and JonBenet was not “arranged” as a parent would have done). > > Short take: everything goes to hell when parents or family get in the way of an investigation, no matter how pure their motives. > > But it’s still a case hardly anyone would care about were it not a super-pretty little white girl. I think everyone got your point the first time you thickly laid it on. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/73 "2016-09-21T16:35:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, I do get it. Even after the DA, that was accused with very little reason of being fruit loops, was out of the case and not controlling the FBI lab; the labs did their job and the authorities now have not considered it nearly worthless as they continue to consider the family to not had been involved for the other logical reason that the family DNA was not found commingled\* with her blood (in 2 or more different places) and then under her fingernails. There are several logical issues that the ones that want to ignore the DNA evidence are recklessly dropping. The main one is that the progress of the science has made possible to now get a better profile to the male that had access to several pieces of her underwear and handled her body. Another one is that DNA is not the only reason why an intruder was not dismissed. This has nothing to do with the labs. It has to do with determining how the DNA got onto her in the first place. Unknown DNA, plus a lack of conclusive evidence are the reasons an intruder is often dismissed, but there’s no reason to exclude an intruder as long as there’s no conclusive evidence of a family member killing her anyway. If you were placing odds on who killed the girl, or making docutainment, then meager evidence of an intruder might point to family involvement. That’s not at all the same thing as proof. And actual legal investigators shouldn’t be dismissing any piece of evidence unless in can be proven invalid. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/74 "2016-09-21T17:00:56Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This has nothing to do with the labs. It has to do with determining how the DNA got onto her in the first place. Unknown DNA, plus a lack of conclusive evidence are the reasons an intruder is often dismissed, Not by the FBI, and not by the police, that if you noticed decided to ignore that evidence early or were not aware of it until later. > [@TriPolar](#): > > but there’s no reason to exclude an intruder as long as there’s no conclusive evidence of a family member killing her anyway. If you were placing odds on who killed the girl, or making docutainment, then meager evidence of an intruder might point to family involvement. That’s not at all the same thing as proof. And actual legal investigators shouldn’t be dismissing any piece of evidence unless in can be proven invalid. The issue at hand though is that better evidence is being ignored or dismissed cavalierly by the ones making the show to reach a predetermined or \*popular \*conclusion. It just looks more and more like the usual shows that do pander to the cherished ignorance of many. ---
**Author:** ![california\_jobcase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@california\_jobcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/california_jobcase)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/75 "2016-09-21T17:49:51Z")
All this after Nancy Grace, the consummate scab-picker, has left HLN. However can she profit from this exhuming of JonBenet? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/76 "2016-09-21T18:15:10Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I think everyone got your point the first time you thickly laid it on. Yeah, I could tell from the torch mobs. To spread another layer, you realize that a shitty pseudo-documentary about a case that would be forgotten is being intensely debated as if it mattered in the least. It’s important to you all, or a surprise, that a TV show is cranked for maximum eyeballs and ad revenue over sticking with the tired facts of a child murder from 20 years ago? Why is this one worth so much attention, and two hours of TV time (and your watching it), over the other 1,500 or so from that year alone? Pretty-pretty lil’ white girl from an upscale family, that’s why. Being used to generate ad revenue. _ **Puke.** _ ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/77 "2016-09-21T18:27:47Z")
> [@corkboard](#): > > My wife and I watched about 20 minutes of it last night, and found it particularly creepy that they kept referring to a 6 year old’s underwear as “panties”. i’m with you on this one. i did find it a creepy. panties is not on my favourite word list and it was said so very many times, way too many times. undies, knickers, bloomers, underpants, under garment, all okay. panties, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/78 "2016-09-21T18:51:37Z")
Keep in mind, the underpants that JB was found in weren’t even hers. They were several sizes too large. Patsy eventually claimed that she had bought those pants for her niece, who wore that size (at the time). Somehow they ended up in JB’s drawer … In my opinion, the DNA on the clothes is less important than the DNA on the poop that was on JB’s stuff. _Normal_ ten-year olds do not smear their poop on stuff. As for the pineapple - it’s important because JB ate some of it just before she died (the pineapple in her stomach was undigested.) Plus, Burke’s fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl, even though all of the Ramsey’s denied having anything to do with it. So we know he was lying about that. If the Ramsey’s didn’t make the pineapple, then you have the murderer in the kitchen making pineapple-in-milk snack exactly the way Burke liked it. Meanwhile, the kids are running around, Patsy’s packing, someone is wrapping and rewrapping presents - no one notices the snack time? Yeah, it’s a big house but it’s not Buckingham Palace. It just doesn’t make sense. And then there’s Burke acting all squirrelly when someone asks him about the pineapple. He’s clearly got some sort of issues with it. Anyway - Burke has decided to sue. It were really smart, he’d just shut the hell up. The more he talks, the worse he looks. > **[Burke Ramsey Lawyer to Sue CBS Over JonBenet Ramsey Docuseries](https://people.com/crime/burke-ramsey-lawyer-to-sue-cbs-over-jonbenet-ramsey-docuseries/)** > > A lawyer for JonBenet Ramsey's family said CBS' recent docuseries was a "heinous television attack" on the child's older brother, Burke ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/79 "2016-09-21T19:59:47Z")
The ransom letter is the most telling clue. It has several of Patsy Ramsey’s peculiar spellings and turns of phrase. [One good analysis here.](http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/) That letter ties the murderer to the Ramsey household in my opinion. As for who killed JonBenet I think the likely answer is her brother, although we will never be certain. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369/80 "2016-09-21T20:29:59Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Anyway - Burke has decided to sue. It were really smart, he’d just shut the hell up. The more he talks, the worse he looks. > > [http://www.people.com/article/jonbenet-burke-ramsey-sue-cbs-docuseries-the-case-of](http://www.people.com/article/jonbenet-burke-ramsey-sue-cbs-docuseries-the-case-of) You must not know that the Star and the Globe. They also thought that they could get around posting “news” with no evidence, they had to settle with the family then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonbenet-ramsey-special-cbs/766369.md?page=5)