When the two-part documentary The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey aired earlier this week, a lot of people walked away certain – as the investigators were – that Burke Ramsey, JonBenet’s then nine-year-old brother, was guilty of her death.
But according to Rolling Stone, the documentary seriously misled viewers with arguments derived from an inherently flawed police investigation and biased statements about the Ramsey family. They even go as far as to describe the CBS series as a “witch hunt” intent on naming Burke as the killer.
Another criticism of the documentary and the conversations following its release is that, at times, we seem to forget that at the core of this case is a six-year-old girl whose life was tragically ended. In order to talk in great detail about the role of a torch and a piece of pineapple and a toy train track in the killing of a young girl, we’ve dehumanised her. And this adds another layer of tragedy.
But given the huge impact of the CBS documentary, it is necessary to consider whether the claims it made are fair. All over Reddit, Twitter and Facebook, people are vilifying Burke Ramsey, absolutely sure he is responsible for the death of his younger sister. Yet, according to Rolling Stone there are three main holes in the investigation seen in The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey that simply can’t be overlooked if we want to remain objective about bringing JonBenet’s true killer to justice.
The misleading analysis of Patsy Ramsey's 911 call.
The documentary opened with a review of the phone call Patsy Ramsey made to police in the early hours of December 26 1996. Criminal profiler Jim Clemente and behavioural analyst Laura Richards attempted to decipher an inaudible portion of the call, when Patsy thought she had hung up the phone but didn't disconnect.
They said they were using the latest audio technology to re-analyse the call, and were ostensibly shocked when they heard three voices (despite the Ramsey's having maintained Burke was asleep). They also claimed to hear a male voice say, "We are not talking to you," Patsy shout "Oh my Jesus, oh my Jesus," and a young voice ask, "What did you find?"
What they didn't disclose, however, was that none of this was new information. The same conclusions were drawn in 1997 by the Aerospace Corporation, and leaked in a number of publications. Clemente and Richards, therefore, were likely influenced by confirmation bias - the tendency to interpret evidence to confirm pre-existing beliefs.
The complete dismissal of DNA evidence.
A significant portion of the documentary was spent considering DNA evidence. Given that DNA, which is currently unmatched to any suspect in the case, was found on JonBenet's underwear, it was important to look at who this might belong to. For investigators in the past, the unsolved mystery of this DNA meant that the Ramsey family were innocent.
But Dr. Lee explained (and demonstrated) that touch DNA is easily transferred, such that DNA will show up on a brand new pair of underwear, simply from a factory worker.
While this is a possibility that should definitely be considered, it doesn't mean we should completely discount the DNA on JonBenet's underwear. Essentially, Dr. Lee's argument implies touch DNA evidence should be ignored in all criminal cases, because, really, it could've come from anywhere. But there are many instances where DNA has been a crucial part of solving a crime, and we shouldn't rule out this possibility when it comes to the death of JonBenet Ramsey.
Placing too much emphasis on behavioural and linguistic analysis.
The CBS documentary used a number of experts to comment on the behaviour of John, Patsy and Burke following JonBenet's death, as well as the language in the ransom note left in the house. Their analyses ranged from body language, to pronoun use, to vocal inflections and linguistic phrasing. But what wasn't acknowledged was how inherently subjective such interpretations are.
In prior criminal cases, we've seen just how wrong we can be when we judge individuals reactions to horrifying circumstances. Lindy Chamberlain was said by many to appear aloof and unemotional following the death of her baby daughter Azaria. But when she was exonerated years later, it became clear how incorrect our assumptions had been.
Categorising John, Patsy or Burke's behaviour as odd or abnormal is irresponsible, given we weren't given any indication of the validity of such interpretations, and whether they're taken seriously in a court of law.
In many instances, opinions were presented as facts, and one final theory (with no real physical evidence to support it) was ultimately agreed upon by the group of experts. Of course, JonBenet having undigested pineapple in her stomach is not enough to come to the conclusion that she took Burke's pineapple, and he got angry and killed her with a torch. But this is essentially what the documentary claims.
It was a fascinating series, with some valid arguments and compelling demonstrations. But it's important we keep the many shortcomings of CBS's documentary in mind before we start to vilify a potentially innocent man.
But ultimately, the most crucial thing to remember is that an innocent little girl lost her life. And that, undeniably, is the greatest tragedy.
Top Comments
Somebody in the house did it...There was practice letters on Patsy's writing pad..The letter was so long...ransom letters are NEVER like that.
It would NEVER be written in the house either...sit down for half an hour humming doing that??.
Nobody rang when the 'kidnapper' said he/she would....The way they tried to keep to the family's plans and fly to Atlanta that day was v v weird...no parents
of murdered children have behaved like that! They want to find the murderer asap and would you feel like a holiday??? They did go down a day or 2 later and that was when Fleet White and told John Ramsey he should be back helping police in Boulder!! But that is exactly what the
Ramsey's DIDNT want to do at all. They closed up and lawyered up as they were so wealthy....Parents of murdered children have
never been known to do this before.. perhaps because they knew who the
perp was already and there was no one to be found.
It was the Ramsey's who pointed fingers at their housekeeper and the man who played Santa Claus
For a start that man was too fat to get through the supposed basement window...
a small window...the cobweb of decent size and age wasnt disturbed either...
Some people dont listen and thought that Burke was supposed to have made and used
the garrotte, when it is well known that occurred long after the head
injury and the garrotte was made from household items,
Patsy's paintbrush and rope found in the basement.. The garrotte
was made AND USED BY WHOEVER STAGED THE 'MURDER'.
You know what??? An intruder would bring their own already made
rather than crash around the house making one...For God's Sake.
Both the Santa Claus man and the housekeeper the Ramsey's
pointed the fingers at gave DNA tests....More For God's Sake..That
poor man can no longer defend himself either..
The Ramsey's knew the housekeeper was aware of the amount of
the bonus Mr Ramsey had received which is why $118000 was clearly written.
But she would have known they could pay $1 million.
I dont think it was very nice of the Ramsey's to accuse those people
which is probably why the housekeeper became a hostile witness.
She said that the blanket around the poor child had been in the drier!!!!
I dont think an intruder would bother do you??
The child psychologist who interviewed Burke in Jan 1997 was freaked
at his answers and behaviour....He seemed not in the slightest bit worried
about no sister and said he 'Was getting on with my life'...very weird answer
for a 9 year old...He seemed bored with the psychologist but the
only time he got upset was when the psychologist asked something
very carefully about '.interference' because both children showed some
sign of sexual activity or abuse...Both children wet the bed and even
sometimes soiled the bed....soiling is often associated with sexual abuse/activity.
Burke put a board game which was on the psychologist's desk on his head.
Very strange...He then said 'I have a secret but I can't tell you because then
it wouldnt be a secret'.....(!)...This interview with the child is easily found if you anyone wants to
read it...Because it was an interview demanded by the court, not a private family arrangement...The 2 children had also both been under
counselling on/off for many months...Jonbenet also had had around 20 fungal infections
over the preceding 2 years and the autopsy reports ( there were 2) both said scarring from earlier
and perhaps chronic sexual abuse was evident...
The parents said that Jonbenet hadn't eaten pineapple but she had,easy found by the autopsy...why lie???
Because they said she had gone straight to bed,asleep in the car coming home and carried to bed...however
there was soiled underwear in Jonbenet's bathroom and also bizarrely there was faecal matter
on a chocolate box sitting on her bedside table. it appears she had an
accident in bed...
Something v weird was occurring in this house by the looks...Burke had an acknowledged short
and volatile temper and had hit his sister with a golf club the year before so hard her face was scarred.
He also told the court psychologist that he was really annoyed with his
parents for not buying him the expensive toys he wanted..then when the psychologist
asked him to draw his family Burke made sure Jonbenet wasnt in it...
Yes, she was dead, but children still 9 times out of 10 will draw the deceased
family member...He often had complained that Jonbenet got everything...He was
the only child for 3 years, and Patsy had doted on him, and then
there was Jonbenet...the housekeeper said that Patsy had been
short tempered herself with her daughter now and then in weeks before Christmas'
but she hadnt long got over a severe cancer bout and the household was strange..
If burke did hit his sister it was an accident and it would have been
better to be honest...it has happened occasionally in families, accidental
death of a sibling by another. If this is what happened they have probably regretted covering up
but the lies were too big to undo...Or if it was another, a parent but I
personally don't think it was Patsy.....Burke is still strange...that smiling
with Dr Phil was not normal...He never stopped all the way through it...as
though he had no idea of how to behave... a touch autistic or even sociopathic.
DNA is no longer considered 100% proof as contamination quite easily occurs and it was
found on the new unwashed underwear Jonbenet was wearing and not complete.
Yes,the person who made a garment often leaves DNA..found before a garment is washed. Jonbenet had also been wiped down and an intruder wouldnt bother
with that either... The proverbial 'inside job'....but it is likely to have been so quick, the sudden blow, the poor child had almost
no knowledge of it.