JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Tonight I watched two television programs about this case.

"Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" -- a movie on Lifetime Channel, aired again tonight. It takes a docudrama approach to the case, using the character of the child JonBenet as a narrator. Follows the development of the case from Christmas Day, in chronological order. Presents Detective Steve Thomas and some of the Boulder P.D. in a sympathetic light. The Fleet Whites also seem to come off as rather heroic. I noticed it didn't show a door blocking the room at the end of the basement hallway, but this was the door that a police officer did not open. Did depict tension between Thomas and Lou Smit over the intruder theory. Mixed dramatic recreations of events with some real video clips and photos. Was pretty instructive to me about why the Fleet Whites ran a full page letter in the local papers. Linda Arndt quit after being taken off the case, Steve Thomas and Lou Smit likewise quit, though for different reasons. No firm culprit presented, but enough of the curious things said and done by Burke and Patsy to leave us wondering. Even showed Linda Arndt going to Patsy on her deathbed and inquiring if she has anything else to say... She is interrupted by John Ramsey walking into the room, so neither she nor we as the audience ever learn anything. Steve Thomas left law enforcement completely, after becoming too obsessed with this case and its victim.

The movie was followed on Lifetime by a documentary titled "JonBenet's Mother: Victim or Killer?" which did a very straightforward job of presenting the various reasons why the police began to suspect Patsy Ramsey. But also balanced that view with the truth of the constant media bombardment the family was subjected to, from the funeral onward. And, as a friend says, during that CNN news conference Patsy was definitely on "some sort of calming-down drug", which I agree-- tranquillizers would undoubtedly account for the slow, flat tone of Patsy's voice.

I recommend both programs. The more information we can get, the better.

Thanks Pat,

I'm wondering if those shows are on YouTube. I don't think I've heard of the second one you mention, the documentary.

But after all the discussions we've had on this thread I don't think there can be very many more elements and details that Wicksy and I haven't explored.

I'd like to see those though, out of interest.

I did notice in the CBS documentary last month that errors were present. For instance a reconstruction of JR carrying his daughter up from the basement showed him carrying her, as most people would expect - in his arms, holding her against his chest.

What JR actually did, and I'm sure you already know this, was to pick JB up under her arms and carry her at arms length, like a doll - which I have always thought seemed very strange and would have given viewers a truer picture of the event.

When people find out that I'm interested in true crime they think it's very odd. Most seem to think the reason is because I must like reading gory details. That's far from the truth. It's the psychology of the crime that I'm interested in. What makes people tick. Maybe it's the same for most people on this forum?
.
.

[louisa]

I've just been reading a few write-ups about the documentary that you mentioned, Pat.

I notice that Cyril Wecht has a lot to say about the case. I have his book and funnily enough I began re-reading it yesterday.

I honestly wouldn't put any credence on what he has to say. He was employed by a supermarket tabloid (The Globe) and was given photographs (which had been stolen from the Coroner's office) and part of the autopsy notes. Then he made his judgement on this sparse information.

He thinks the couple were into paedophilia and killed JB by subjecting her to weird sexual stuff. They didn't intend to kill her though.

Now I think this is so bizarre and off the wall that I honestly do not think we can trust anything he tells us. It's all his own theories.

Even his book was written by somebody else and simply refers to him. It was probably a way of avoiding getting sued.

I think the Ramseys were a lot of things - but don't think - not for a minute - that they were sexual perverts or paedophiles.
.

[Pcdunn]

Interestingly enough, the "Who Killed JonBenet ?" movie depicted the carrying of the child's body as you have described it-- at arm's length, in front of her father, he held her vertically, and it was quite obvious she was in rigor, with her arms extended above her head. I have never seen anything like that in any re-creation scene for the moment, and it is very stunning. You are left with no doubt that she is dead.

I don't know if it is on YouTube, but it may show up there. It's also possible the film may turn up on TV in the United Kingdom, in time.

[louisa]

Interestingly enough, the "Who Killed JonBenet ?" movie depicted the carrying of the child's body as you have described it-- at arm's length, in front of her father, he held her vertically, and it was quite obvious she was in rigor, with her arms extended above her head. I have never seen anything like that in any re-creation scene for the moment, and it is very stunning. You are left with no doubt that she is dead.

I don't know if it is on YouTube, but it may show up there. It's also possible the film may turn up on TV in the United Kingdom, in time.

It will probably be a video on YouTube before long.

I definitely haven't seen that one because that detail is something I would remember.


Earlier today I was just watching Oprah and this one was about Clayton Moss - now grown up - who, when he was only 6 years old was kept locked in a closet and chained up. Who did this to him? His parents.

Luckily he survived but I couldn't help wondering that if he had died his parents would probably have told police there had been an 'intruder'.

I'm not saying there were that many parallels between this case and the JonBenet case, just that it shows parents are capable of inflicting terrible hurt on their children, for no good reason.
.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Pat.
Something to look forward to.

Tonight I watched two television programs about this case.

"Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?" -- Even showed Linda Arndt going to Patsy on her deathbed and inquiring if she has anything else to say... She is interrupted by John Ramsey walking into the room, so neither she nor we as the audience ever learn anything.

Lou Smit was with Patsy in her final hours.

"Smit was with Patsy just before she died. On her deathbed, Patsy told Smit, "I don't have much time left, please catch this guy." This was Patsy Ramsey's dying declaration. "Please catch this guy."
Injustice, p.12.

[louisa]

Thankyou Pat.
Something to look forward to.



Lou Smit was with Patsy in her final hours.

"Smit was with Patsy just before she died. On her deathbed, Patsy told Smit, "I don't have much time left, please catch this guy." This was Patsy Ramsey's dying declaration. "Please catch this guy."
Injustice, p.12.

More heresay - sorry.
.
.

[Wickerman]

I've just been reading a few write-ups about the documentary that you mentioned, Pat.

I notice that Cyril Wecht has a lot to say about the case. I have his book and funnily enough I began re-reading it yesterday.

I honestly wouldn't put any credence on what he has to say. He was employed by a supermarket tabloid (The Globe) and was given photographs (which had been stolen from the Coroner's office) and part of the autopsy notes. Then he made his judgement on this sparse information.

He thinks the couple were into paedophilia and killed JB by subjecting her to weird sexual stuff. They didn't intend to kill her though.

Now I think this is so bizarre and off the wall that I honestly do not think we can trust anything he tells us. It's all his own theories.

Even his book was written by somebody else and simply refers to him. It was probably a way of avoiding getting sued.

I think the Ramseys were a lot of things - but don't think - not for a minute - that they were sexual perverts or paedophiles.
.

Agreed, my first knowledge of Cyril Wecht was when he became involved with analyzing the Kennedy Assassination, I thought his opinions were stunning. So did many people. He is very highly respected in his field.
That said, the more I have read about him since, and especially his opinions in this case have left me with grave doubts about how he managed to arrived at the conclusions he has.
I'm not so impressed anymore.

[Wickerman]

More heresay - sorry.
.
.

You actually had to post a dictionary definition of "Heresay", thats funny.

[louisa]

You actually had to post a dictionary definition of "Heresay", thats funny.

You were the one who was getting confused regarding the meaning of the word so I thought I would help you out.

I was trying to be helpful.
.
.

[Wickerman]

You were the one who was getting confused regarding the meaning of the word so I thought I would help you out.

I was trying to be helpful.
.
.

Ok, so first you post a dictionary definition of "heresay", and then you claim I was confused.

Let me guess....for some reason you are desperate to convey the image of being the most intelligent poster in this debate?

I wonder why...

[louisa]

Ok, so first you post a dictionary definition of "heresay", and then you claim I was confused.

Let me guess....for some reason you are desperate to convey the image of being the most intelligent poster in this debate?

I wonder why...

That's an odd remark isn't it?

All I am doing is giving my opinions and theories as to how this child was killed, exactly as you are doing. Nothing wrong with that is there? We're all equal here.

Surely this is what a debate is all about?

------------------------------------------------


You're asking why I gave you the definition of 'heresay'.

Here's what you wrote yesterday.........

Heresay only applies in a court of law.
You are confusing "heresay" in a court of law as if it is applicable in a witness statement, well, that is not true.

.
.

[louisa]

A couple of interesting points...

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation had determined that the flashlight was probably the murder weapon and that it (and the batteries inside) had probably been wiped of fingerprints. Why would an intruder wipe the flashlight—and open it to wipe the batteries—rather than taking it with him when he left if it was the murder weapon? It’s more probable that someone from inside the house would have panicked and removed the prints.

(The same way that these same people panicked and completely removed their prints from the ransom note - or at least made sure they left none, which in itself is one of the oddities about the entire case)

It always seemed curious to me that people were prepared to blame the neighbors or John’s friends without a shred of evidence, yet unwilling to accept the predominance of proof pointing to the parents.


.
.

[Wickerman]

You're asking why I gave you the definition of 'heresay'.

Here's what you wrote yesterday.........


.
.

When police investigate a crime they prefer to know what you heard two people say - that is "heresay". No investigator will tell you, "I don't want to hear that".

Of COURSE the investigator wants to hear that, of COURSE what you overheard is important.

In a court of law the lay witness cannot introduce evidence that was overheard, unless directed to do so. However a policeman as a witness can introduce "heresay" evidence.

Now, does your dictionary explain that to you...?

[louisa]

You're not still going on about that, are you Wicksy?

And it's hearsay (not heresay).

We all know what hearsay means. It means inadmissable evidence. Basically an unverified statement. And no, hearsay is not classed as evidence because, for all the court knows, somebody could have made it all up to get themselves, or somebody else, off the hook.

I hope that helps.


Do you have any interesting points to make about the case today or are you just going to nit-pick?

.
.

[louisa]

In his post yesterday PC Dunn mentioned Fleet White and that got me thinking about his part in this whole crime scenario.

I'm wondering if perhaps he holds the key to the puzzle? Before I go further I would like to say that I firmly believe, as most do, that Fleet is completely innocent of having any part in this crime, but simply got caught up in it.

Thanks to his 'best friend' his life took a huge turn for the worse.

It seems that he and JR were best buddies. In fact JR and Patsy called the Whites immediately after they called the cops, on that fateful morning.

Fleet and his wife were told that JBR was missing (kidnapped)

"White went downstairs (nobody had told him to but he thought he'd have a look around). The lights were on and shadows danced in the big basement. A small broken window in a large room where a model railroad was laid out caught his attention. (Note: If there had been a chair blocking the entrance to this room he would no doubt have mentioned it)

Moving deeper into the basement he found the same white door that had been checked by Sgt Reichenback. Fleet White turned the makeshift latch and pulled the door open toward him. It was totally dark inside this windowless room, and when he could find neither of two light switches, he closed the door, relatched it and went back upstairs. He never saw JB."

Could it be that JB wasn't there when he looked? Now there's a thought!

JR disappeared for a good long while whilst the police were present in the house. Where did he go? Could he have put JB's body in that little room (not knowing that Fleet had checked the room earlier?). When questioned later JR told investigators that he had gone to check whether or not the door to the garage room had been locked. Hmmmmm.

When John and Fleet went down there again and John 'discovered' JB's body in that same room - what would Fleet have thought? He may have known that something was wrong because he did not see JB's body in that dark room when he checked earlier, yet John did see her - immediately, so he says, even though the light was off.

Skipping forward a bit - when the Whites found the Ramseys refusing to co-operate with the police they wondered why, and when the Ramseys 'lawyered up' on the 28th, they were even more concerned.

Fleet told John that he thought he was making a mistake in refusing to be interviewed. What did John do? He told his lawyers to put Fleet and his wife on the list of suspects. He did exactly the same to a great many other friends who tried to give them good advice.
.
.