*sigh*...Here's the thing about this election - it matters a whole fucking lot who wins it. I've heard people who think it's like any other Presidential election and no matter who wins, shit doesn't get fixed so why does it matter if you vote or not? But this is quite different. And rarely has there been an election with such a dire possible outcome. If you know me, you know I loathe politics and I typically tune out in election years once I've decided who to vote for. This year, it wasn't difficult to make that decision since one candidate is a racist fucking lunatic, so I've been decided for quite awhile now. Unfortunately, because of what's at stake in this election, there's no way to escape all the news about it. I decided to watch the debate this week because I was curious to see if Hillary would go off on Trump or be able to keep her cool. I thought she did very well, looked very professional and stuck to the facts when she was asked a question. She got a few digs in at the idiot, but did not lower herself to his level. On the other hand, I could not believe the shit Trump was spewing and that he was getting applauded for some of it. Go back and watch the whole debate and you'll notice he did not directly answer a single question Lester Holt (a bad choice for moderator, btw because he rarely interjected to try and keep shit on topic) posed to him. Everything had a long-winded answer about how much money he has and, "That's what's wrong with this country" without really telling us what is wrong with it. He interrupted Lester or Hillary fifty-five times in less than two hours. A debate is meant to be a healthy discussion between two people with opposing views, with each person getting the chance to say their part. It is not meant to be one person directly answering questions while the other constantly interrupts to lie in his own defense or throw out ridiculous digs.
A few things stood out in the debate, none of them good. I know just about every minority in the country who was watching opened their ears wide to hear what Trump had to say about race relations in America. I can't say I was surprised by what I heard. Stop and frisk should be reinstated because it works, despite the fact we all know which colors are most likely to be stopped for looking "suspicious". According to Trump, every neighborhood of color is a third world ghetto where people live under terrible conditions and rampant crime sprees and gun violence. That assertion was funny to me because I grew up in such a neighborhood and while it was no picnic, we certainly didn't have to board up our windows and not go outside at night because crime was so awful. Hell, we lived a few blocks from the actual projects and crime still wasn't a huge deal. I highly doubt Trump has even been to a neighborhood like this in his life though, so how would he know how they operate? Also of note was how he evaded questions about his tax returns and continued to throw out claims about his wealth, none of it making sense. Absolutely nothing is preventing him from releasing his tax returns, standard practice for Presidential candidates, he's just refusing to do so. And I'm very curious as to why that is. Given how often he's been audited, and that he's declared bankruptcy six times, I wouldn't doubt he's taken deductions he shouldn't have or that he's not as well off as he claims to be. Hiding something shady is the only reason not to release those documents. I'd guess the reason he said he was supposedly going to say nasty things about Hillary and her family but chose not to was some misguided attempt to show he was a "nice" guy. Buuuuut saying you were gonna do that and then didn't shows the opposite - it makes you look like a dick. You're acknowledging you have it in you to say such awful things, and we know he does anyway cuz he's always been that way, but trying to gain brownie points for not actually saying it? Nah, son. It doesn't work that way. Besides, it'd be the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black in history. Hillary's husband cheated on her numerous times, so what? You started banging your next wife before you divorced the previous ones. Hillary was cheated on and now she's got Bill by the cojones, whereas Trump gets rid of his wives as soon as they start to show too much mileage. And what the fuck does it matter if Bill cheated anyway? He was a great President, he balanced the budget and he's not the one running, she is. I feel the same way about the email scandal, I'm so tired of hearing about it. Was she less than forthcoming? Yes, she was. But it was investigated and that's the end of it. No politician bats a thousand in their career and no one politician can change everything or fix everything the way Trump is promising or seems to have expected Hillary to already have done. She wasn't President, she was Secretary of State for four years and there's only so much power that comes with that position. The last thing that jumped out was Trump flat out lied about the whole birther thing, as well as his stance on the Iraq war. My memory is crap and even I can recall him being all out and proud about the war, and calling for Obama to resign because he wasn't actually born in the U.S.. Like this is shit that is in writing for the world to see, but he continues to deny it. In one of Lester Holt's few moments of bringing down the hammer in the debate, he pressed Trump on why he continued to deny Obama was an American long after a birth certificate had been produced. Again, he didn't directly answer the question and when pressed he lied yet again.
Trump showed himself to be an outright liar, out of touch with minorities and an all-around dick. Anyone who brags about how he doesn't pay taxes and doesn't pay the people who build his resorts because, "maybe they didn't do a good job" is a disgusting human being. I feel like the government squanders my taxes and not everyone I hire to do a job does it well, but I don't have the luxury of not paying them. It's that entitled attitude that bothers me. How are you going to fix the nation's debt when you're $650 million in debt yourself? Why the fuck are you even in that situation if you allegedly have sooooo much cash flow? He wants to slash taxes on the rich in the hopes they put that saved money back into their companies and hire more people. Bush did that and no one put money into anything, they just enjoyed the kick back and watched everyone else languish in the recession. That doesn't work, we already know that. Trump's ideas on money and minorities are dangerous as all hell, but it's something he brought up himself that's my biggest worry - temperament. The fact that Hillary didn't crawl across that stage and punch the lights out that mother fucker shows she has more patience than anyone. I couldn't have done it. Someone tweeted right after the debate that they'd never vote for Hillary because, "Americans died because of her". That can be said of just about any President who went to war or inherited a war. I firmly believe Bush ignored chances to stop 9/11 and look how many Americans that killed, not to mention those who died in the needless war that followed. If Trump wins, I guarantee you we will see casualties (home and abroad) like never before because he's a hot head who can't control himself. The man said if he were a sailor being taunted by foreign sailors, he'd blow up their ship for fuck's sake. That's an act of war over schoolyard level shit. And he wants to argue who has the better temperament? He wants to claim he's A-Ok to have nuclear codes and that kind of power? Yet despite all this, many news outlets said they thought he did a pretty good job in his first debate. I'm not sure what they were watching, but hell no. If Satan himself were running against Trump, I'd be pounding the pavement to get Satan some votes. Trump is a massive threat to the future of minorities, no doubt, and I cannot respect one who chooses to vote for him. But he's also a threat to the fate of the world in general. The rest of the world, both leaders and in many cases citizens of other countries, can see what a threat he is, but Americans can't. And that's extremely concerning. It is genuinely scary to think about wait awaits us in a little over a month's time...
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
Cuz Every Monster That They Make Was Once A Happy Child
G and I had an interesting conversation today. She wondered out loud if her aversion to staying put in a good relationship has to do with her childhood. Her dad was divorced with kids when he met her mom and then they had kids of their own. The whole family was pretty tight-knit even though her oldest siblings were almost two decades older than her. But she doesn't recall her parents' relationship ever being 100% great. They didn't often fight in front of the kids but little ears have a way of hearing more than we think they can. She remembers thinking some of their fights were comical and it didn't strike her until they divorced that all the fighting was legit. Once they did finally split up, she and the sibs lived with her mom and saw dad every other weekend. Things remain civil and relatively peaceful between her parents now, mostly because they rarely see one another. The last time they interacted was years ago when G's brother died and everyone went to the funeral. I recall some awkwardness at the actual funeral but it didn't go beyond that because mom didn't go to the reception. Dad has since remarried, gained some grown step-kids and found himself occasionally estranged from his own kids for various reasons, the most common one being that he feels they all favor their mother/step-mother over him.
G considers our relationship to be the only truly functional one she's ever been in (I know, scary huh?). When things were good between us, they were great and when they were bad, they were awful and we were usually apart. I've been looking back on some of my journals from that time and I can see what she's talking about when she says her childhood affected how she deals with men. I didn't know it at the time, and maybe she didn't either since we were both so young, but I was working so hard to hold onto us in vain. Nothing I did, nothing we patched up was ever going to be good enough for her and it's not because I wasn't good enough or the relationship was lacking in some fatalistic way. She just had some sort of block that prevented her from taking it all in. The irony is that I don't know a single person who is more about love than she is. It's something that drives her. But it's also something she can't always accept when it's thrown her way. Fortunately, she is choosing to break the cycle when it comes to her little dude. She's not surrounding him with temporary men or situations, only the best of everything, and I'm so proud of her for that.
G considers our relationship to be the only truly functional one she's ever been in (I know, scary huh?). When things were good between us, they were great and when they were bad, they were awful and we were usually apart. I've been looking back on some of my journals from that time and I can see what she's talking about when she says her childhood affected how she deals with men. I didn't know it at the time, and maybe she didn't either since we were both so young, but I was working so hard to hold onto us in vain. Nothing I did, nothing we patched up was ever going to be good enough for her and it's not because I wasn't good enough or the relationship was lacking in some fatalistic way. She just had some sort of block that prevented her from taking it all in. The irony is that I don't know a single person who is more about love than she is. It's something that drives her. But it's also something she can't always accept when it's thrown her way. Fortunately, she is choosing to break the cycle when it comes to her little dude. She's not surrounding him with temporary men or situations, only the best of everything, and I'm so proud of her for that.
While I agreed with G that yes, our childhoods do play a significant part in how we handle relationships as adults, I felt the need to point out that a crap childhood isn't an excuse to be a dick in adulthood. I haven't been involved with a lot of people who have tried to excuse their ridiculous behavior with equally ridiculous stories of what they witnessed growing up but the one time I was it was quite the education. What we experience in childhood, whether it be how our father treats our mother or how our parents handle conflict, is beyond our control. How we choose to apply those lessons as adults, however, is completely under our control. I could treat women like crap and excuse it with, "Well my dad was absent so I never learned how to treat a woman". There's some truth to that statement since I didn't witness many, if any, functional romantic relationships growing up. But I was raised with respect and knowing how to treat people in general and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you treat someone you're dating that much better. My problems in past relationships have been because I couldn't get out of my own way, or because I was in a selfish phase of my life, but never have they resulted from childhood crap. That said, I do feel for people who didn't have the happiest of childhoods. In my opinion that should be the one time you're able to be carefree and not have any weight on your shoulders. Kids should be kids, even if they end up being smartass kids like Miss N. I feel quite fortunate to have avoided any major traumas in my childhood, fortunate to not have had to navigate dueling parents or being forced to make adult decisions way before I was capable of doing so (cuz let's face it, I'm barely capable of doing so now at 35). That's becoming even more of a luxury nowadays that far too few little ones are afforded.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Justice? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Justice!
This week we watched the highly anticipated premiere of CBS' "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey". And I don't think I have ever been so upset at a TV show, ya'll. There has been an onslaught of shows about the Ramsey murder this month because December will mark 20 years since it took place (why everyone settled on airing these in September, rather than around the time of the actual murder, I don't know.). A&E had a special a few weeks ago that was pretty good and went through the evidence with a fine toothed comb and exposed how the Boulder cops had very little evidence against the Ramsey family, yet refused to rule them out and pursue any other suspects. Investigation Discovery had a three-night event of their own last week that basically laid out the case from beginning to end and shed light on some very intriguing leads that were apparently never followed up by the cops. Both of those shows were investigative and informative without being exploitative. But CBS' show is just utter bullshit. The sad thing is that it will get the biggest audience and many of those people will take what they say as gospel. And what CBS is doing with their platform is quite disturbing.
"The Case of..." doesn't waste any time jumping right into the deep end, beginning with a former FBI investigator and a Scotland Yard-trained British investigator telling us all about their length of time as investigators and introducing us to their team that will supposedly look at the case with fresh eyes. Dr. Henry Lee, a renowned forensic pathologist, is one of the members of this team and that's disappointing because I always thought he was better than this. The rest of the team consists of former this or that from the FBI or other police forces but it's made clear who is running the show - the Brit and the Fed. The two of them depart for a music studio where they have an engineer "clean up" the audio of the 911 call because there's some chatter at the tail end of it before Patsy Ramsey hangs up. This sequence is incredibly boring, even for me (and that's saying something since I edit for a damn living), as we watch the engineer isolate this and then turn down that. In the end, the investigators say they hear three voices on the tape; a man's voice saying, "We're not talking to you" in a "stern" manner, followed by a woman's voice saying, "What did you do? Help me, Jesus" (or just two "Help me, Jesus'", they couldn't be sure), and then a boy's voice saying, "What did you find?". I heard none of that, nor did anyone else on my couch. What we did hear was two people trying to make their ideas fit the evidence. Once they determined this is what they heard, they presented it to everyone on the team and every witness they interviewed as an absolute, when the truth was you could barely make out a damn thing on that tape. Even more disturbing was that none of the investigators, who we're told have a combined 250 years of experience, consider any other explanations for what was allegedly heard on the tape. "We're not talking to you" could've been said to the son as he walked in and heard mom on the phone, or heard his parents talking, and inquired about what was going on. "What did you do? Help me, Jesus" could've been Patsy talking to herself upon realizing her daughter was gone and she'd had thousands of people traipsing through her house the week before for some home show. "What did you find?" could've been an innocent question asked by 10-year-old Burke Ramsey. The conclusions the investigators jumped to were not the only possible explanations. The Ramseys, as well as Burke, always said the boy had stayed in bed throughout the chaos of that morning, even once investigators arrived. This is odd, but it may not be what actually happened since the mind plays tricks on your under extreme amounts of stress. The phone the call was made from was an old school corded phone attached to the wall so I highly doubt Patsy could've believed she'd hung it up when she actually had not and all of this chatter was accidentally recorded. Making up what you hear from a 20-year-old 911 call and then assuming it was a familial conversation that they didn't know was being recorded is lazy investigating.
The investigators next turn their attention to the ransom note found on the stairs that morning by Patsy Ramsey. The note has always puzzled most people because it's all over the place in terms of content, is unusually long for a ransom note, is written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home and demands a ransom that is almost the exact amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus from that year. The note has always troubled me because, whether you believe the killer is a Ramsey or an intruder, it doesn't make sense. The Ramseys were both college educated people, why would they put the ransom amount so close to John's bonus total? Unless it was the only number they could think of in a panic. Parents covering up the murder of their child and then writing a note that contains what this one does speaks to psychopathic tendencies. It'd be a diabolical thing to do, whether the murder was accidental or intentional. But of course the investigator who takes the lead on the note determines it was written by a female, most likely a mother, who was over thirty and under stress. Of course it was. The team wonders why someone would write a long ass letter when they could've gotten the point across in a few lines and then notices some of the letter references popular movie quotes and, oh what do you know, the Ramsey family has several movie posters in their basement (we don't get to see if they are of the movies the ransom note lines were lifted from). So that explains that in their minds. Next, they do a bizarre ritual of having all the experts write out the letter themselves word for word while they time how long it would've taken. They clock it at 23 minutes but surmise it would've taken even longer than that because the author would've had to be thinking of what to write as they were writing it. "Why would a killer spend an extra half hour in a house?", they ask. However Lou Smit, an investigator hired by the Boulder D.A. who questioned whether the cops were properly investigating the case, believed the killer had been lying in wait in the house for hours before the Ramseys returned home from a holiday party. That gives plenty of time to write such a note. The killer also could've familiarized himself with the layout of the house (which was a labyrinth) in that time. The team does not look into any further suspects or possibilities after settling on a woman having authored the letter.
The next portion of the program shows a complete reconstruction of the Ramsey house in an airport hangar, down to bringing in the same items that were on counters and kitchen tables. To this scene, the investigators bring the only FBI agent who had briefly been on the case in 1996 and ask him to recreate his movements on that day. And it's all rather sketchy. The 911 call reporting a kidnapping came in at around 5 in the morning and child abductions fall under the jurisdiction of the Feds, yet this dude wasn't called until around 8 and didn't arrive at the scene until almost 2, when the body had already been discovered and moved twice. That's a mighty lot of time gaps there. When he arrived, he says he discussed with another detective how the body had been found and then proceeded to the basement to see where it had been found, but didn't stray too far from the doorway. And that was the extent of his involvement because it was now a murder and therefore fell under the Boulder PD's jurisdiction. Wow, what riveting TV that was. They follow this up with an interview with the 911 operator whom they claim must have copious amounts of pertinent information that she surely remembers 20 years on. They meet with her and she tells them she was put under a gag order until a trial came about and the seasoned investigators react as if this is some big deal. They play the 911 tape in its entirety (again) for her and by now we've heard the whole tape at least five times. The 911 operator has a completely different recollection of what was said at the tail end of the call, claiming she heard Patsy borderline confess to some sort of cover-up. Again, the investigators jaws drop as this information is just so shocking. They leave the 911 lady and hit the city to talk to neighbors who they apparently believe are the exact same neighbors that lived in these houses 20 years ago and are repeatedly shot down. They talk to the Ramseys BFF's who were at the house that day, or at least say they will, but the couple don't want cameras on them and seem to send the investigators packing when they try and force them to speak on camera. We see all this as 15 minutes of the investigators driving up a hill while the camera crew stays behind, then driving down the hill to say the couple don't want cameras but have "fascinating" things to say, then go back up the hill to bargain some more before coming back down and saying nope, they still won't talk on camera. We don't actually hear any of the so-called fascinating things they said. So they move on to a Ramsey friend who has been talking to anyone that'll listen for the last 20 years. Her daughter was three years older than JonBenet but got along well with the little girl and the parents ended up as friends too. This woman rides the line about whether she believes they killed their daughter but expresses shock at how they cast her out of their lives when she chose to speak to the media all those years ago. *sigh* Where to start? It is not unusual for people involved in cases, especially high profile ones, to be put under gag orders. Yes, the 911 operator was told not to talk to anyone until the trial, but the only way she would've been called at trial was if she had some kind of evidence to testify to. We heard the same thing she did on the 911 tape and she offered up nothing more than her opinion about Patsy's inflection and what she supposedly heard at the end of the tape. That's inadmissible because it is opinion and not concrete fact. Nothing about her interview was the least bit shocking. And that gag order has long since expired so nothing prevented her from going to the media with her story if she thought it was so earth-shattering. As for the "friend" who was surprised by her exile...come on now. It's a fact that the Ramseys asked their inner circle to refrain from talking to the media so as not to add to the circus of misinformation that was already out there. If a friend asks you not to do something and you promptly turn around and do it anyway, even if it is in their defense, can you really claim to be surprised when they cut you off? This wasn't, "Hey man, don't eat my sandwich okay?" and then they eat the sandwich and we all laugh about it. This was at a time when the Ramseys were on trial in the media for their lives and could've gone to prison because of the tiniest detail, even one that came from a friend trying to lend public support. They asked her not to do that and she did it anyway. This chick got what she deserved and I don't find her at all credible. Besides, if she believes the Ramseys capable of such a vicious act then I'm not sure why she's so butthurt over the dismissal anyway. Who wants to be friends with cold-blooded murderers?
I fell asleep soon after that last segment because every question they posed was answered by pointing the finger at the Ramsey family. I know one of the M.E.'s said he believed a large flashlight seen in the house may have been the murder weapon and, according to L, they later tested this theory by having a young boy swing the flashlight at a dead pig wearing a blonde wig. On the second night of the show, which I avoided like the plague, the investigators concluded that 10-year-old Burke Ramsey killed his sister. According to their extremely flawed theory, the family did not go straight to bed after coming home from their holiday festivities. Burke was given a bowl of pineapple and a glass of tea by his mother and when JonBenet tried to steal a bite, he reacted violently and bashed her over the head with a flashlight that was on the kitchen table. Supposedly he did this because he had violent tendencies and was upset over Christmas gifts. Mom and dad then proceeded to start the cover-up of the crime in order to protect their other child and thus everything; the note, the 911 call, the discovery of the body, was one big performance. Oh and the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was chalked up as not being important because it could've just been contamination from the lab. There's no evidence of that at all, but they tossed the DNA out anyway because if they didn't, it would not allow them to fit the evidence to their version of events. I'm not sure if Burke, now a grown man, knew CBS' show was going to throw him under the bus and back over him when he agreed to do the Dr. Phil interview. If he did, that's just sad. If he didn't, the interview did not do him any favors from what I hear. The pathetic thing is that a peruse of social media shows that most people ate this BS up and questioned nothing. Anyone who does that is truly a moron.
Here's the thing about CBS' theory of the crime - it doesn't fit. DNA is the one thing in crimes that you can't explain away quickly and that is absolute. Because of this DNA convicts the criminals and exonerates the innocent. It has been a force in crimes and in cases for decades now. You can't just decide, "Oh, maybe someone at the lab did that" and toss it out the window. Furthermore, the DNA is often described as a "stain" which points to it most likely being either semen or blood. If a forensics lab is getting either of those things on evidence then you have a much bigger problem on your hands than the unsolved murder of a little girl. Clearly the first officers on the scene from the Boulder PD believed the DNA to be significant because they took John and Burke Ramseys DNA for comparison, as well as samples from other suspects years later. And these are officers who firmly believed in the Ramseys guilt. I'm baffled as to how so many people, and seasoned investigators, are unconcerned with how this type of DNA ended up in a 6-year-old girl's underwear. It's truly disturbing how no one cares actually. Another major flaw with CBS' theory is that the blow to the head was not what killed JonBenet. It was the garrote fastened around her neck that turned out to be the cause of death. The head blow was severe enough that it would have killed her eventually, but not instantly. There were also nail marks around her neck, near where the garrote was placed, which means she was likely conscious during the strangulation. If the parents thought she was dead after the head blow and began to immediately stage the scene, they would've seen her wake up - and then proceeded to kill her themselves. Yet CBS wants to have it both ways, they want to call this an accidental death and cover-up, while still acknowledging that the act that resulted in her death was intentional. I can believe Patsy Ramsey had a temper, you can see it in her interrogation tapes, but it's no secret that JonBenet was the favorite child in that household. If your "lesser" child appears to kill the favorite, then she springs back to life while you're attempting to cover it up, you're most likely going to take her to the hospital, not finish her off. The Ramseys wouldn't have known the head wound was unsurvivable, they would've seen her come to and reacted as most parents with an injured child would. Even if she hadn't woken up (which we know she did), she would've still had a pulse and been breathing. Also, why would a garrote, something typically used in BDSM, be the weapon of choice for these two parents? Is there any evidence they even knew what a garrote was or had ever used one before? If the sole mission was to strangle her until she died, they could've used the rope that was a part of the garrote. Why take the extra step of attaching it to a broken paint brush? The purpose of a garrote in sexual practices is to deprive the submissive of oxygen and heighten the intensity of an orgasm. The way a garrote is put together allows the dominant to ease up or increase the pressure on the submissive's neck as needed. Unless the Ramseys were into some very kinky stuff, I don't understand why they would go that route to kill their daughter. It is quite literally overkill and speaks more to someone who is into those types of practices as being the culprit. CBS also did not explain why there were taser marks in two places on JonBenet's body. People who believe the family to be guilty have claimed these marks originated from one of the track sections of Burke's train set being jabbed into the skin, but that has been ruled out as a possibility. The Ramseys did not own a stun gun and the actual weapon that made the marks on her has never been found. Again, you cannot just throw out any evidence that doesn't fit your theory and call it insignificant.
So if not the Ramseys themselves, then who did kill JonBenet? Sadly, I doubt we'll ever know the truth about that and I can only hope her mom got the answer and found some peace after passing. It's mindblowing how twenty years later there is still so much misinformation on the case, still so many people who believe the family had to have done it despite the evidence pointing to an intruder. And the Boulder PD is fully at fault for this case still being unsolved. Once they settled on their suspects, they did not pursue a single other lead unless they were absolutely forced to. And that is why the case remains in limbo. That is what enabled the real killer to get away. The ID special on the case did bring about some interesting suspects not named Ramsey though. A 26-year-old dude who co-owned a junkyard with his family sounds like the strongest suspect to me. Michael Helgoth, according to a friend who worked with him, was an odd bird. He boasted to this friend about a month prior to the murder that he and a partner were about to come into some money, about $60,000 apiece (John Ramsey's bonus that year was around $120,00 and the note asked for $118,000). The friend disengaged because he got the feeling he didn't wanna know how this money was going to come into Helgoth's hands. After the news of a blow to JonBenet's head became public, the friend remembered Helgoth once wondering out loud what it would be like to crack open a human skull and began contacting the Boulder PD. But they didn't seem interested in what he had to say and never returned his calls. Two months after the murder the Boulder D.A., who did not believe the Ramseys to be involved in the murder, held a press conference telling the killer or killers that it was only a matter of time before they were apprehended. Two days after that press conference, Helgoth was found dead in his home of a gunshot wound to the chest. Also found in his possession, and in photos from the scene of his death, were boots similar to the ones that made a partial print in the Ramsey basement and a stun gun. Inexplicably, cops ruled Helgoth's death a suicide despite the fact the gun was found near his non-dominant hand, the wound was at an upward angle and in an odd place for a suicide and a pillow with powder burns on one side and blood on the other was found on the bed. I've never heard of a suicide like that. It sounds a lot like a murder though. Perhaps he did have a partner who was going to commit the crime with him and the partner is the one the DNA belongs to. Helgoth was a violent character, but it's possible he flipped out after the press conference because he thought the jig might be up. And his partner acted accordingly, making sure he wouldn't talk. There were a string of home invasions in the Ramsey household leading up to the murder. Oddly, nothing was ever taken in these invasions, the intruder seemed to be doing it just for thrills. Those crimes were also never solved. The cops did eventually test Helgoth's DNA and the boots but said neither was a math, though they refuse to say what exactly didn't match about the boots.
Suppose Helgoth and his partner did the home invasions and then decided to turn their attention to kidnapping. Maybe they saw JonBenet at a pageant, maybe they toured the house in the weeks before Christmas. Helgoth had told someone his girlfriend's young daughter "wasn't safe" around him and she had caught him naked with the child on at least one occasion. Maybe the intent was to assault her, get the money and run, maybe it was all about the money. Maybe it was not intended to be a kidnapping at all, who knows? The fact that the Ramsey house was open to the public for tours would've made it very easy for anyone considering the crime to case the joint. Some investigators believe the intruders entered the house prior to the family arriving home and waited for their moment to strike. The taser could've been used to subdue her while they took her out of the basement window, where a suitcase was waiting beneath the window and the boot print was found. But she woke up and they panicked and took her to the farthest corner of the basement where she was later found to try and quiet her down. They slammed her head against the concrete, or grabbed something to hit her with and believed she was dead. They stage the note and improvise by using the Ramseys paper and pen, and the partner (or both) decide to sexually assault her. She wakes up during the assault and the garrote is placed around her neck and she's eventually killed. An intruder theory, not necessarily this one but any intruder theory, explains a lot of the evidence. It does not explain the pineapple on the table or in her system, but keep in mind no theory presented so far explains all of the evidence. If anything did, the case would've been solved by now. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know who committed the crime, unless there's a DNA hit that comes up down the line. Even if we do find out, the more time that passes, the more likely it is the perpetrators are dead anyway. It's sad that this little girl was robbed of her life and that her image continues to be used as a means of accusing her family of having ended her life.
"The Case of..." doesn't waste any time jumping right into the deep end, beginning with a former FBI investigator and a Scotland Yard-trained British investigator telling us all about their length of time as investigators and introducing us to their team that will supposedly look at the case with fresh eyes. Dr. Henry Lee, a renowned forensic pathologist, is one of the members of this team and that's disappointing because I always thought he was better than this. The rest of the team consists of former this or that from the FBI or other police forces but it's made clear who is running the show - the Brit and the Fed. The two of them depart for a music studio where they have an engineer "clean up" the audio of the 911 call because there's some chatter at the tail end of it before Patsy Ramsey hangs up. This sequence is incredibly boring, even for me (and that's saying something since I edit for a damn living), as we watch the engineer isolate this and then turn down that. In the end, the investigators say they hear three voices on the tape; a man's voice saying, "We're not talking to you" in a "stern" manner, followed by a woman's voice saying, "What did you do? Help me, Jesus" (or just two "Help me, Jesus'", they couldn't be sure), and then a boy's voice saying, "What did you find?". I heard none of that, nor did anyone else on my couch. What we did hear was two people trying to make their ideas fit the evidence. Once they determined this is what they heard, they presented it to everyone on the team and every witness they interviewed as an absolute, when the truth was you could barely make out a damn thing on that tape. Even more disturbing was that none of the investigators, who we're told have a combined 250 years of experience, consider any other explanations for what was allegedly heard on the tape. "We're not talking to you" could've been said to the son as he walked in and heard mom on the phone, or heard his parents talking, and inquired about what was going on. "What did you do? Help me, Jesus" could've been Patsy talking to herself upon realizing her daughter was gone and she'd had thousands of people traipsing through her house the week before for some home show. "What did you find?" could've been an innocent question asked by 10-year-old Burke Ramsey. The conclusions the investigators jumped to were not the only possible explanations. The Ramseys, as well as Burke, always said the boy had stayed in bed throughout the chaos of that morning, even once investigators arrived. This is odd, but it may not be what actually happened since the mind plays tricks on your under extreme amounts of stress. The phone the call was made from was an old school corded phone attached to the wall so I highly doubt Patsy could've believed she'd hung it up when she actually had not and all of this chatter was accidentally recorded. Making up what you hear from a 20-year-old 911 call and then assuming it was a familial conversation that they didn't know was being recorded is lazy investigating.
The investigators next turn their attention to the ransom note found on the stairs that morning by Patsy Ramsey. The note has always puzzled most people because it's all over the place in terms of content, is unusually long for a ransom note, is written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home and demands a ransom that is almost the exact amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus from that year. The note has always troubled me because, whether you believe the killer is a Ramsey or an intruder, it doesn't make sense. The Ramseys were both college educated people, why would they put the ransom amount so close to John's bonus total? Unless it was the only number they could think of in a panic. Parents covering up the murder of their child and then writing a note that contains what this one does speaks to psychopathic tendencies. It'd be a diabolical thing to do, whether the murder was accidental or intentional. But of course the investigator who takes the lead on the note determines it was written by a female, most likely a mother, who was over thirty and under stress. Of course it was. The team wonders why someone would write a long ass letter when they could've gotten the point across in a few lines and then notices some of the letter references popular movie quotes and, oh what do you know, the Ramsey family has several movie posters in their basement (we don't get to see if they are of the movies the ransom note lines were lifted from). So that explains that in their minds. Next, they do a bizarre ritual of having all the experts write out the letter themselves word for word while they time how long it would've taken. They clock it at 23 minutes but surmise it would've taken even longer than that because the author would've had to be thinking of what to write as they were writing it. "Why would a killer spend an extra half hour in a house?", they ask. However Lou Smit, an investigator hired by the Boulder D.A. who questioned whether the cops were properly investigating the case, believed the killer had been lying in wait in the house for hours before the Ramseys returned home from a holiday party. That gives plenty of time to write such a note. The killer also could've familiarized himself with the layout of the house (which was a labyrinth) in that time. The team does not look into any further suspects or possibilities after settling on a woman having authored the letter.
The next portion of the program shows a complete reconstruction of the Ramsey house in an airport hangar, down to bringing in the same items that were on counters and kitchen tables. To this scene, the investigators bring the only FBI agent who had briefly been on the case in 1996 and ask him to recreate his movements on that day. And it's all rather sketchy. The 911 call reporting a kidnapping came in at around 5 in the morning and child abductions fall under the jurisdiction of the Feds, yet this dude wasn't called until around 8 and didn't arrive at the scene until almost 2, when the body had already been discovered and moved twice. That's a mighty lot of time gaps there. When he arrived, he says he discussed with another detective how the body had been found and then proceeded to the basement to see where it had been found, but didn't stray too far from the doorway. And that was the extent of his involvement because it was now a murder and therefore fell under the Boulder PD's jurisdiction. Wow, what riveting TV that was. They follow this up with an interview with the 911 operator whom they claim must have copious amounts of pertinent information that she surely remembers 20 years on. They meet with her and she tells them she was put under a gag order until a trial came about and the seasoned investigators react as if this is some big deal. They play the 911 tape in its entirety (again) for her and by now we've heard the whole tape at least five times. The 911 operator has a completely different recollection of what was said at the tail end of the call, claiming she heard Patsy borderline confess to some sort of cover-up. Again, the investigators jaws drop as this information is just so shocking. They leave the 911 lady and hit the city to talk to neighbors who they apparently believe are the exact same neighbors that lived in these houses 20 years ago and are repeatedly shot down. They talk to the Ramseys BFF's who were at the house that day, or at least say they will, but the couple don't want cameras on them and seem to send the investigators packing when they try and force them to speak on camera. We see all this as 15 minutes of the investigators driving up a hill while the camera crew stays behind, then driving down the hill to say the couple don't want cameras but have "fascinating" things to say, then go back up the hill to bargain some more before coming back down and saying nope, they still won't talk on camera. We don't actually hear any of the so-called fascinating things they said. So they move on to a Ramsey friend who has been talking to anyone that'll listen for the last 20 years. Her daughter was three years older than JonBenet but got along well with the little girl and the parents ended up as friends too. This woman rides the line about whether she believes they killed their daughter but expresses shock at how they cast her out of their lives when she chose to speak to the media all those years ago. *sigh* Where to start? It is not unusual for people involved in cases, especially high profile ones, to be put under gag orders. Yes, the 911 operator was told not to talk to anyone until the trial, but the only way she would've been called at trial was if she had some kind of evidence to testify to. We heard the same thing she did on the 911 tape and she offered up nothing more than her opinion about Patsy's inflection and what she supposedly heard at the end of the tape. That's inadmissible because it is opinion and not concrete fact. Nothing about her interview was the least bit shocking. And that gag order has long since expired so nothing prevented her from going to the media with her story if she thought it was so earth-shattering. As for the "friend" who was surprised by her exile...come on now. It's a fact that the Ramseys asked their inner circle to refrain from talking to the media so as not to add to the circus of misinformation that was already out there. If a friend asks you not to do something and you promptly turn around and do it anyway, even if it is in their defense, can you really claim to be surprised when they cut you off? This wasn't, "Hey man, don't eat my sandwich okay?" and then they eat the sandwich and we all laugh about it. This was at a time when the Ramseys were on trial in the media for their lives and could've gone to prison because of the tiniest detail, even one that came from a friend trying to lend public support. They asked her not to do that and she did it anyway. This chick got what she deserved and I don't find her at all credible. Besides, if she believes the Ramseys capable of such a vicious act then I'm not sure why she's so butthurt over the dismissal anyway. Who wants to be friends with cold-blooded murderers?
I fell asleep soon after that last segment because every question they posed was answered by pointing the finger at the Ramsey family. I know one of the M.E.'s said he believed a large flashlight seen in the house may have been the murder weapon and, according to L, they later tested this theory by having a young boy swing the flashlight at a dead pig wearing a blonde wig. On the second night of the show, which I avoided like the plague, the investigators concluded that 10-year-old Burke Ramsey killed his sister. According to their extremely flawed theory, the family did not go straight to bed after coming home from their holiday festivities. Burke was given a bowl of pineapple and a glass of tea by his mother and when JonBenet tried to steal a bite, he reacted violently and bashed her over the head with a flashlight that was on the kitchen table. Supposedly he did this because he had violent tendencies and was upset over Christmas gifts. Mom and dad then proceeded to start the cover-up of the crime in order to protect their other child and thus everything; the note, the 911 call, the discovery of the body, was one big performance. Oh and the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear was chalked up as not being important because it could've just been contamination from the lab. There's no evidence of that at all, but they tossed the DNA out anyway because if they didn't, it would not allow them to fit the evidence to their version of events. I'm not sure if Burke, now a grown man, knew CBS' show was going to throw him under the bus and back over him when he agreed to do the Dr. Phil interview. If he did, that's just sad. If he didn't, the interview did not do him any favors from what I hear. The pathetic thing is that a peruse of social media shows that most people ate this BS up and questioned nothing. Anyone who does that is truly a moron.
Here's the thing about CBS' theory of the crime - it doesn't fit. DNA is the one thing in crimes that you can't explain away quickly and that is absolute. Because of this DNA convicts the criminals and exonerates the innocent. It has been a force in crimes and in cases for decades now. You can't just decide, "Oh, maybe someone at the lab did that" and toss it out the window. Furthermore, the DNA is often described as a "stain" which points to it most likely being either semen or blood. If a forensics lab is getting either of those things on evidence then you have a much bigger problem on your hands than the unsolved murder of a little girl. Clearly the first officers on the scene from the Boulder PD believed the DNA to be significant because they took John and Burke Ramseys DNA for comparison, as well as samples from other suspects years later. And these are officers who firmly believed in the Ramseys guilt. I'm baffled as to how so many people, and seasoned investigators, are unconcerned with how this type of DNA ended up in a 6-year-old girl's underwear. It's truly disturbing how no one cares actually. Another major flaw with CBS' theory is that the blow to the head was not what killed JonBenet. It was the garrote fastened around her neck that turned out to be the cause of death. The head blow was severe enough that it would have killed her eventually, but not instantly. There were also nail marks around her neck, near where the garrote was placed, which means she was likely conscious during the strangulation. If the parents thought she was dead after the head blow and began to immediately stage the scene, they would've seen her wake up - and then proceeded to kill her themselves. Yet CBS wants to have it both ways, they want to call this an accidental death and cover-up, while still acknowledging that the act that resulted in her death was intentional. I can believe Patsy Ramsey had a temper, you can see it in her interrogation tapes, but it's no secret that JonBenet was the favorite child in that household. If your "lesser" child appears to kill the favorite, then she springs back to life while you're attempting to cover it up, you're most likely going to take her to the hospital, not finish her off. The Ramseys wouldn't have known the head wound was unsurvivable, they would've seen her come to and reacted as most parents with an injured child would. Even if she hadn't woken up (which we know she did), she would've still had a pulse and been breathing. Also, why would a garrote, something typically used in BDSM, be the weapon of choice for these two parents? Is there any evidence they even knew what a garrote was or had ever used one before? If the sole mission was to strangle her until she died, they could've used the rope that was a part of the garrote. Why take the extra step of attaching it to a broken paint brush? The purpose of a garrote in sexual practices is to deprive the submissive of oxygen and heighten the intensity of an orgasm. The way a garrote is put together allows the dominant to ease up or increase the pressure on the submissive's neck as needed. Unless the Ramseys were into some very kinky stuff, I don't understand why they would go that route to kill their daughter. It is quite literally overkill and speaks more to someone who is into those types of practices as being the culprit. CBS also did not explain why there were taser marks in two places on JonBenet's body. People who believe the family to be guilty have claimed these marks originated from one of the track sections of Burke's train set being jabbed into the skin, but that has been ruled out as a possibility. The Ramseys did not own a stun gun and the actual weapon that made the marks on her has never been found. Again, you cannot just throw out any evidence that doesn't fit your theory and call it insignificant.
So if not the Ramseys themselves, then who did kill JonBenet? Sadly, I doubt we'll ever know the truth about that and I can only hope her mom got the answer and found some peace after passing. It's mindblowing how twenty years later there is still so much misinformation on the case, still so many people who believe the family had to have done it despite the evidence pointing to an intruder. And the Boulder PD is fully at fault for this case still being unsolved. Once they settled on their suspects, they did not pursue a single other lead unless they were absolutely forced to. And that is why the case remains in limbo. That is what enabled the real killer to get away. The ID special on the case did bring about some interesting suspects not named Ramsey though. A 26-year-old dude who co-owned a junkyard with his family sounds like the strongest suspect to me. Michael Helgoth, according to a friend who worked with him, was an odd bird. He boasted to this friend about a month prior to the murder that he and a partner were about to come into some money, about $60,000 apiece (John Ramsey's bonus that year was around $120,00 and the note asked for $118,000). The friend disengaged because he got the feeling he didn't wanna know how this money was going to come into Helgoth's hands. After the news of a blow to JonBenet's head became public, the friend remembered Helgoth once wondering out loud what it would be like to crack open a human skull and began contacting the Boulder PD. But they didn't seem interested in what he had to say and never returned his calls. Two months after the murder the Boulder D.A., who did not believe the Ramseys to be involved in the murder, held a press conference telling the killer or killers that it was only a matter of time before they were apprehended. Two days after that press conference, Helgoth was found dead in his home of a gunshot wound to the chest. Also found in his possession, and in photos from the scene of his death, were boots similar to the ones that made a partial print in the Ramsey basement and a stun gun. Inexplicably, cops ruled Helgoth's death a suicide despite the fact the gun was found near his non-dominant hand, the wound was at an upward angle and in an odd place for a suicide and a pillow with powder burns on one side and blood on the other was found on the bed. I've never heard of a suicide like that. It sounds a lot like a murder though. Perhaps he did have a partner who was going to commit the crime with him and the partner is the one the DNA belongs to. Helgoth was a violent character, but it's possible he flipped out after the press conference because he thought the jig might be up. And his partner acted accordingly, making sure he wouldn't talk. There were a string of home invasions in the Ramsey household leading up to the murder. Oddly, nothing was ever taken in these invasions, the intruder seemed to be doing it just for thrills. Those crimes were also never solved. The cops did eventually test Helgoth's DNA and the boots but said neither was a math, though they refuse to say what exactly didn't match about the boots.
Suppose Helgoth and his partner did the home invasions and then decided to turn their attention to kidnapping. Maybe they saw JonBenet at a pageant, maybe they toured the house in the weeks before Christmas. Helgoth had told someone his girlfriend's young daughter "wasn't safe" around him and she had caught him naked with the child on at least one occasion. Maybe the intent was to assault her, get the money and run, maybe it was all about the money. Maybe it was not intended to be a kidnapping at all, who knows? The fact that the Ramsey house was open to the public for tours would've made it very easy for anyone considering the crime to case the joint. Some investigators believe the intruders entered the house prior to the family arriving home and waited for their moment to strike. The taser could've been used to subdue her while they took her out of the basement window, where a suitcase was waiting beneath the window and the boot print was found. But she woke up and they panicked and took her to the farthest corner of the basement where she was later found to try and quiet her down. They slammed her head against the concrete, or grabbed something to hit her with and believed she was dead. They stage the note and improvise by using the Ramseys paper and pen, and the partner (or both) decide to sexually assault her. She wakes up during the assault and the garrote is placed around her neck and she's eventually killed. An intruder theory, not necessarily this one but any intruder theory, explains a lot of the evidence. It does not explain the pineapple on the table or in her system, but keep in mind no theory presented so far explains all of the evidence. If anything did, the case would've been solved by now. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever know who committed the crime, unless there's a DNA hit that comes up down the line. Even if we do find out, the more time that passes, the more likely it is the perpetrators are dead anyway. It's sad that this little girl was robbed of her life and that her image continues to be used as a means of accusing her family of having ended her life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)