jonbenet ramsey case- people who like unsolved mysteries get in here

That picture isn’t from the crime scene.

Are you purposely being absurd? What does it matter if that photo is from the crime scene or not? I googled "Ramsey cobweb". Would you rather I google "cobweb"? It was an illustration as to what a cobweb is and why it was a large part of determining no entry through that window. What exactly are you attempting to argue? Your original rebuttal towards me was claiming a spiderweb and a cobweb are identical in the context of the investigation. I was rebutting another poster who said a spider could have spun a web in-between entry and the arrival of the police, as if the detectives didn't consider that when determining it was a "cobweb" and not a "spiderweb".
 
Are you purposely being absurd? What does it matter if that photo is from the crime scene or not? I googled "Ramsey cobweb". Would you rather I google "cobweb"? It was an illustration as to what a cobweb is and why it was a large part of determining no entry through that window. What exactly are you attempting to argue? Your original rebuttal towards me was claiming a spiderweb and a cobweb are identical in the context of the investigation. I was rebutting another poster who said a spider could have spun a web in-between entry and the arrival of the police, as if the detectives didn't consider that when determining it was a "cobweb" and not a "spiderweb".

Are you purposely trying to be an asshole? No one else is, maybe you’ve missed part of the discussion. That pic plays no role in anything other than showing an example of a “cobweb”. But I thought we’d determined that it’s irrelevant. All that matters is the web that was found. What someone called it doesn’t matter. There are reports from there being only three strands, to reports of it being a funnel web, some say it was over the window and some say in was in the cover. Therefore we’ve already determined, I thought, that we really have no idea what sort of web was there and where exactly it was. If that was actually a picture of the crime scene, like it’s portrayed on some websites, then it would certainly be relevant.
 
You're playing gymnastics. Calling you out for being downright absurd in your refusal to accept definitions of english words does not categorize me as an asshole. My original post in this thread was the rebuttal of someone claiming a spider could have spun a web in that window after the crime was committed and before the cops arrived. I noted the report claiming a "cobweb" was in the window and why this was of significance. You then made the absurd claim a spiderweb and cobweb were of identical definition in the context of the investigation. Arguing the semantics of when a spiderweb becomes a cobweb is absurd.

Regardless, and not crucial to the point I was making, that picture does seem to be from the "daily beast crime scene video". I cannot find evidence that video was deemed a hoax. There is conflicting information if the window in question has been photographed/videotapped and released to the public. I find multiple people saying the video is legitimate and one thread discussing the cobweb, with a poster claiming no one has seen it. If legitimate, there are very good views of the window. I also do not know how long after the event this video was taken. Nor do I know if this was the infamous window in question.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

Here is a much detailed website on the evidence. There is a good section on the points of entry and theories surrounding it. There is information for and against the location of the web and two expert opinions of the type of web and if that type of spider was dormant during the month of December. What I find striking is how much contradiction there seems to be between the initial investigators at the scene.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682499/Potential Points of Entry
 
Last edited:
Indeed.

Well good on you for finding that and also the ID special.

What all have you watched so far?
I watched every link posted in this thread - all the major tv station coverage and the generation why podcast . This is the first time i ever heard about this case and it's quite fascinating .
 
You're playing gymnastics. Calling you out for being downright absurd in your refusal to accept definitions of english words does not categorize me as an asshole. My original post in this thread was the rebuttal of someone claiming a spider could have spun a web in that window after the crime was committed and before the cops arrived. I noted the report claiming a "cobweb" was in the window and why this was of significance. You then made the absurd claim a spiderweb and cobweb were of identical definition in the context of the investigation. Arguing the semantics of when a spiderweb becomes a cobweb is absurd.

Regardless, and not crucial to the point I was making, that picture does seem to be from the "daily beast crime scene video". I cannot find evidence that video was deemed a hoax. There is conflicting information if the window in question has been photographed/videotapped and released to the public. I find multiple people saying the video is legitimate and one thread discussing the cobweb, with a poster claiming no one has seen it. If legitimate, there are very good views of the window. I also do not know how long after the event this video was taken. Nor do I know if this was the infamous window in question.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

Here is a much detailed website on the evidence. There is a good section on the points of entry and theories surrounding it. There is information for and against the location of the web and two expert opinions of the type of web and if that type of spider was dormant during the month of December. What I find striking is how much contradiction there seems to be between the initial investigators at the scene.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682499/Potential Points of Entry

There are a few links posted here, where it’s stated that there were never photographs taken of the web in question. You’ve missed part of the conversation. Regardless, your definition of cobweb isn’t correct and that was my only purpose in replying to your post. The “official” definition of cobweb is simply a spider web. The fact some people have a slightly different definition automatically negates any relevance that wording has in the investigation. The only relevance is exactly what the web looked like and where it was located. Since there were never pics taken, we’ll never know. Therefor, it’s not really worth worrying about.

Considering how much the "experts" involved can't even agree on what should be known facts, I have my doubts as to how much info we know is even true.
 
I watched every link posted in this thread - all the major tv station coverage and the generation why podcast . This is the first time i ever heard about this case and it's quite fascinating .


It was big news years ago, I was pretty young when it happened but I still remember it.
 
There are a few links posted here, where it’s stated that there were never photographs taken of the web in question. You’ve missed part of the conversation. Regardless, your definition of cobweb isn’t correct and that was my only purpose in replying to your post. The “official” definition of cobweb is simply a spider web. The fact some people have a slightly different definition automatically negates any relevance that wording has in the investigation. The only relevance is exactly what the web looked like and where it was located. Since there were never pics taken, we’ll never know. Therefor, it’s not really worth worrying about.

Considering how much the "experts" involved can't even agree on what should be known facts, I have my doubts as to how much info we know is even true.

Can you say for certain it was never photographed? I see a poster claiming such on another site but the link I provided has a "yay"/"nay" section in terms of the facts of the case and there are people on both sides of the fence as it pertains to the cobweb.

I am unsure what dictionary you're observing but cobweb is defined as the following:

tangles of the silken threads of a spiderweb usually covered with accumulated dirt and dust

We can argue the semantics of when a spiderweb becomes a cobweb, but I am now uncertain what this was called in the police report. There seems to be contradictory information from the web, to snow being present on the ground, to nearly every "fact" the first investigators reported.
 
cobweb: a spider's web, especially when old and covered with dust.

The bold part is why detectives refered to the spider's web as a cobweb and not a spider's web. Which is why it was allowed to become a significant part of the investigation. The dust covering the web is important in a timeline, so yeah, quite a distinction.

Cobweb+in+window+frame-from+video.jpg


Wait, we're saying someone couldn't have gone around that without destroying it?

Also, does a 9 year old boy really have the strength to crack her skull like they say happened? Both the neck injury and the skull injury seem like something that would take a grown man to do, not a 9 year old boy with a flashlight.

Is it also not possible that the girl got her own bowl of pineapple?
 
Wait, we're saying someone couldn't have gone around that without destroying it?

Also, does a 9 year old boy really have the strength to crack her skull like they say happened? Both the neck injury and the skull injury seem like something that would take a grown man to do, not a 9 year old boy with a flashlight.

Is it also not possible that the girl got her own bowl of pineapple?

I cannot confirm that still is legitimate. I see some claiming the daily beast video is real. There are sources online that say the web was found under a grating that had to be removed to access the window. Then there is another source claiming this was not the case. If you saw the CBS special, their expert claimed a 9 year old could create that wound with a mag-lite fairly easily.
 
Can you say for certain it was never photographed? I see a poster claiming such on another site but the link I provided has a "yay"/"nay" section in terms of the facts of the case and there are people on both sides of the fence as it pertains to the cobweb.

I am unsure what dictionary you're observing but cobweb is defined as the following:

tangles of the silken threads of a spiderweb usually covered with accumulated dirt and dust

We can argue the semantics of when a spiderweb becomes a cobweb, but I am now uncertain what this was called in the police report. There seems to be contradictory information from the web, to snow being present on the ground, to nearly every "fact" the first investigators reported.

I thought I got my definition from Websters site, but now I see it was actually the freedictionary.com site. Websters definition mentioned dust and dirt, so I would conceded that’s probably the more official definition. My fault, sorry.

Regarding the picture, in post 454 ralphc1 posts a quote from the one site that goes through the evidence regarding the window, and as I understand it, in the end all of the pics in question were determined to be something other than crime scene photos. Of course I can’t say anything for sure, but it seems like a good analysis.
 
I cannot confirm that still is legitimate. I see some claiming the daily beast video is real. There are sources online that say the web was found under a grating that had to be removed to access the window. Then there is another source claiming this was not the case. If you saw the CBS special, their expert claimed a 9 year old could create that wound with a mag-lite fairly easily.


That's interesting...

I'm always an advocate for the simplest explanation being the best explanation. Something I've read that I think is pretty important.... The FBI says that they have never in history received a ransom letter that was that long. Ever, before or since. They also say they have never had a ransom letter while the body was still in the building. It really does seem like the parents had something to do with it
 
Just a possibility regarding the note, now that I know the pad and paper came from in the house. If the theory that an intruder got in the house during the day and waited holds water, it would certainly be feasible that he wrote the many drafts and the final version while he was in the house waiting. It’s also possible he found paperwork in the house that referenced the fathers bonus, which would explain the ransom demanding the exact same amount.



These are just more random thoughts for discussion, I’m not suggesting it’s what actually happened. Just more possibilities.
 
Finished the ID special last night. Good stuff and it just confirmed what we had talked about before: To fully understand this case (or any complicated case) you need to gather information from as many sources as possible.

The CBS special was better in regard to going over the 911 call, explaining some aspects of the DNA evidence, and in presenting information about Burke. In fact, I'd say it's the best thing I've seen so far when it comes to covering Burke and his potential role that night.

The ID special on the other hand was better when it came to showing footage from the Ramseys' interviews with the police, giving information about other suspects who were on the police's radar at the time, and it explained the DNA evidence from a different angle than the CBS special.
 
at the outset, it looks like an intruder - but too much simply doesn't add up, and very basic detective work tells us that the theory is way too inconsistent. the note itself is bizarre (long and somehow accurately states a figure of $118,000, the exact amount the father received as a bonus, which is a really weird number for a random intruder to come up with, and the handwriting significantly similar to the mother's), there was no disturbance at the theoretical point of entry, no footprints, nothing to indicate an intruder. there was also no evidence of sexual assault - a minor DNA find in the panties blew it up as a theory, but there was no evidence of sexual assault in the autopsy to indicate rape or any other bodily injury; and the intruder killed the girl before leaving, which makes very little sense as well.

and, of course, the big kicker to the intruder theory were the two puncture marks on her body. the initial investigation speculated it to be a stun gun, but further investigation can clearly indicate those marks were wholly inconsistent with stun gun marks. the only thing that was a highly accurate fit was the train tracks, which were the exact width and size to make such a puncture (which is explained by the fact after burke bashed her in the head, he used them to poke her if she was alive or not).

so the intruder theory, while you can't outright dismiss, looks extremely weak. you have to go on the strength of the evidence, and there's not much to go with on this.

the theory that the mother killed her because she was so mad that the girl wet the bed also didn't have much weight. there was no history or evidence of past abuse, no evidence from the mother physically that she did it, and no evidence in general that she was the killer.

the brother, burke though - jesus, it just piles and piles on top of him. the most damaging really is the interview he has with the detective 13 days after the murder. it's borderline creepy to watch. i'd go on with the evidence that clearly supports a very strong theory that burke did it, but it's already a long post in general.

again, you go by strength of the evidence. in any criminal investigation, you don't outright dismiss any theory until evidence strongly points to something. and here, every theory is significantly flawed except for the brother burke being the one that did it. he had a past history of hurting her, he clearly has mental issues, had motive (jealousy and impulsive anger), and the physical evidence strongly lines up with him. the sad thing is that he can't be prosecuted b/c he was under 10 at the time, but the fact the DA blocked a lot of the investigation and intentionally derailed it should lead to him being prosecuted imo.

I don't know that the DA should be blamed in this case. This came just over a year after the O J Simpson case where the defense team destroyed the prosecution's evidence by pointing out the many errors the police made in their investigation. They brought in experts that contradicted the prosecution's experts and raised reasonable doubt.

This case had many more errors in the way it was handled. The family had the money to do the same things the Simpson team did. The DA would only get one chance to prosecute the case and needed to be certain he had the evidence that would hold up.
 
Just a possibility regarding the note, now that I know the pad and paper came from in the house. If the theory that an intruder got in the house during the day and waited holds water, it would certainly be feasible that he wrote the many drafts and the final version while he was in the house waiting. It’s also possible he found paperwork in the house that referenced the fathers bonus, which would explain the ransom demanding the exact same amount.



These are just more random thoughts for discussion, I’m not suggesting it’s what actually happened. Just more possibilities.


My only thoughts regarding that are the following.. It's the longest ransom letter ever written in the history of the FBI. There's nothing even close to that in their records.

If it was an actual intruder with intentions of kidnapping the girl, wouldn't they prepare a note ahead of time? I'm just thinking how would they have gotten that message to them had there been no pen and paper around? It's just odd to me that an intruder wouldn't have prepared that beforehand. Maybe they knew the Ramseys would be at the party and had plenty of time to write it, or maybe Patsy wrote it. The pad and pen was placed back in it's spot, which is also pretty odd. Why would an intruder bother? The other draft was simply the words "Mr and Mrs" if I remember correctly and placed in the garbage, probably where it was written.

That said, there were more than 100 burglaries in their neighborhood in the months leading up to the crime, and there were 38 sex offenders.

The stun gun theory seems to be pretty interesting. If the marks on her were from a stun gun, I think that confirms that she was abducted by an intruder. If the marks weren't from a stun gun, then I would say the parents most likely did it.

So if you look at the photo of her neck, there's clearly claw marks where she struggled against the garrote. I don't think those marks can be explained any other way. If Burke had gotten angry and whacked her with a flashlight, then she would still be alive enough to fight the garrote and leave those claw marks. If that's the case, why wouldn't the parents just call 911 for medical help?
 
So if you look at the photo of her neck, there's clearly claw marks where she struggled against the garrote. I don't think those marks can be explained any other way. If Burke had gotten angry and whacked her with a flashlight, then she would still be alive enough to fight the garrote and leave those claw marks. If that's the case, why wouldn't the parents just call 911 for medical help?

That’s the biggest issue I have with the theory the parents covered it up. In all the difference scenarios that are possible, all of them involve the parents acting like psychopaths rather than parents. These were just normal people. Any normal parent that sees their 6 year old child hurt is going to call for help. They’re not going to strangle them to death. The only scenario I see as plausible is the brother strangling her and the parents not finding out until she’s dead. I still have a hard time believing a normal parent would do that, but I suppose it’s plausible.
 
Please do!

You're the second person who's asked for it so I will probably do it.


Holy shit. I have the house to myself for a week soon and was planning on kicking back with beers and listening to some podcasts, so here we have a winner!

Sword and Scale is good. Really excellent production. It's a bit different from the JonBenet stuff though in that it usually presents stories that have a conclusion rather than presenting unsolved mysteries.
 
The “official” definition of cobweb is simply a spider web.

I'll say this, I have never once in my life heard anyone refer to a fresh spiderweb as a cobweb. Always have they referred to fresh spiderwebs as spiderwebs . . . and old, dusty, usually discarded spiderwebs as cobwebs.

And that is consistent with the following definition which immediately comes up in Google:

"a spider's web, especially when old and covered with dust"
 
Back
Top