Thanks for this explanation. I have always suspected the Ramsey’s are guilty. Guilty of what though I am not sure, but guilty of something. Murder, Manslaughter?
The DNA stuff can be confusing. I am extremely wary of the DNA in this particular case. The levels of DNA are minute. The foreign unknown DNA would be more persuasive had it been found from semen, blood or skin under Jonbenet’s nails. But none of this was present.
…that cite has one mention of “prayer.”
"Anonymous July 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM
I like the envelope theory better. Smit was a well respected detective. Smit could not really have believed the intruder theory. I think during the prayer meeting in the van someone slipped someone an envelope."
You have literally cited a person named “Anonymous” from the comments section of a blog post by a guy going by the name “Doctor Gosh.” The blog post’s entire argument is based on one of incredulity.
I’m sure you can do better than that.
I’m not interested enough in the circus to watch the show or read news accounts of it, but I’m curious: What is the speculation as to motive? Or do they think it was some kind of accident?
Next up: a two-part prime-time special on the beating death of a 6yo black kid in South Philly, still unsolved after twenty years. Watch world experts give their sober opinions on the evidence, suspects and probable solution of this heinous case within the next year.
That is just conspiracy minded talking points.
The reality is that the march of time and the evidence exonerated the football team. But that was indeed an issue with the policing. Unless you can show that the lab did tamper with the information the results show indeed what you demanded early.
I already did in in another thread in GD.
The point here is that while one can point at dunderheads in the attorney’s office the labs have not been found to have done anything wrong.
Burke was known for bouts of rage against his sister. He hit her with a golf club earlier. He would spread feces on her wall, the walls of the bathroom. There was even a box a candy that she received the day before on Christmas, that had feces smeared on it.
It is speculated that he may have hit her over the head with the flashlight in a fit of jealousy, and killed her. Not necessarily premeditated murder, but an angry brother.
The parents then covered it up because there was nothing they could do to get JonBenet back, they worked hard to not lose their son as well.
Being a creepy, socially maladjusted recluse is not proof of murder. I can’t imagine that being suspected of your sister’s murder from the age of, what, ten? would make for a normal childhood, either.
He’s been cleared based on DNA evidence. While that’s not infallible, folks should perhaps keep an opinion mind about his guilt or innocence.
I don’t think we’re ever going to know who killed the little girl. Can the media just give is a rest?
At the end of the day, there is one thing to keep in mind. The Burke theories are just that — theories.
If the authorities had dismissed the DNA evidence then what was reported in later years would make no sense; bottom line: the authorities are not considering the Ramseys as suspects anymore, and most of what is being reported later that omits the DNA evidence goes into the same pile as the Kennedy assassination conspiracies that omit Oswald.
Burke is the only way to explain the existing evidence. But that evidence was collected in a poor investigation, all of it is suspect in some way or another. Someone in the house is the most likely explanation. Difficult to explain John or Patsy Ramsey sticking together if only one of them killed her unless it was to protect Burke. Difficult to explain why they would cooperate in killing her if it wasn’t Burke. Unfortunately almost impossible to rule out an intruder. Even a more competent investigation may not have revealed conclusive evidence.
I think it is all very consistent with an unknown intruder combined with the parents thinking it was Burke and clumsily trying to protect him.
I guess it has to be clarified, ignoring the DNA evidence only leads one to disregard ideas like that.
I read a summary of the TV special’s claims.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.people.com/people/article/amp/0,,21031199,00.html?client=ms-android-motorola
They claim Burke whacked his sister on the head over a pilfered pineapple snack. The parent’s cover up begins.
How does the show’s experts account for the sexual abuse?
I would hope the sinister cover up didn’t include necrophilia. That’s too horrific to even contemplate.
I have to say that a lot can be explained by family members that did believe that a family member was responsible and made several harebrained attempts at making evidence to exonerate the family when someone else was responsible.
It would not be the first time where innocents tampering with evidence does happen. I do remember that in the McMartin child abuse case (where all the family was also found innocent with even more evidence) one suspect did attempt to destroy his porn collection because he did believe that it was going to get him in trouble. That act was what got him more into trouble indeed (with many armchair detectives of the day also getting the wrong conclusion) and he was lucky that more evidence was made to show that he was innocent of the crime.
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”.
Did they say what happened to the brother? Did he grow up to become a solid citizen or is he in and out of rehab/jail/etc?
Having raised a little girl, that’s a pretty typical term for little kid undies. At least back in the day it was. I always said undies, but other kids and parents said panties.
Burke went to Purdue and is a Software Engineer. Apparently does most of his work remotely. Rather than in a office.
Seemed socially awkward in the Dr Phill interview. But, obviously this case pretty much made a normal childhood impossible.
Socially awkward is putting it mildly. He grinned like a Cheshire cat through the whole interview with Dr. Phil, even while discussing his sister’s murder. He didn’t display any empathy for his sister or concern that they haven’t caught the killer. That’s not evidence he killed her, but it sure doesn’t help him in the court of public opinion.
He also admitted to having snuck downstairs with a flashlight that evening to play with his Christmas toys. His fingerprints are on the pineapple bowl which JonBenet ate from. I find it really hard to believe an intruder was waiting somewhere inside the house until Burke went to bed again.
The CBS special matches my theory of the case.
Another problem with the “Burke did it” theory besides the DNA is the fact that nobody knows for sure exactly what it was that actually killed her. There were half-moon marks and scrapes on her neck, which I’ve seen at least a couple of experts claim were defensive wounds–JonBenet trying to remove the rope from around her neck. Which means she was alive when someone was trying to choke her. If that’s a correct interpretation of the marks, it means the “accidental/out of burst of anger blow to the head followed by a staged cover-up” theory doesn’t work. I noticed the show last night conveniently left this little nugget of information out.
But the scatology stuff is mega-creepy, and suspicious I admit.
I honestly don’t know what I believe about this case. Seems like for every piece of evidence, there’s another that directly contradicts it. Nothing and everything seems likely.
And yeah, nothing weird about calling little girls underwear “panties.” That’s what they’re called. Speaking as a former little girl and current mother to one.
ETA: Did anybody else find the sequence where they had the ten year-old boy actually bash a skull really disturbing? Was it REALLY necessary to use a blonde wig? So tasteless. I was not impressed by this show. Seemed to me they had decided ahead of time who they were going to accuse and then skewed the results to match that conclusion.