MovieChat Forums > The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey (2016) Discussion > Part 1

Part 1

posted 8 years ago by GenerousEight
8 replies | jump to latest

Wow, no comments yet.. I just finished part 1 and it seems they've put together a very qualified group of experts to rehash all the evidence.
When this made the news 20 years ago I remember thinking a) how weird child beauty pageants were and b) they're never going to catch the guy who did it (the guy who supposedly came in through the window).

No one would ever guess her 9 year old brother did it, but it looks like that's the direction they're going with this. Seeing all this recreated is very creepy. I cringed when they brought the 10 year old boy in and had him hit the pig skin covered skull..

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GenerousEight 8 years ago

I watched part 2 straight away and there was a ton more they had to add.
I'm glad they didn't sensationalize it. Going in, I must admit I kind of expected a Discovery Channel style recap with redundant blurry reenactments and endless speculation.

They admit in the written blurb at the end of each part that it is conjecture after all (for legal reasons I guess), but it was done so well and they so credibly destroyed the original investigation, you have to wonder if this case won't be reopened (Brendan Dassey's conviction was overturned in the Steven Avery case as a result of that documentary).

The things that blew my mind in part 2 were a) the behavior of the DA concerning the grand jury indictment he never pursued, b) the interview with the detective who had quit, and c) all the red flags concerning the brother they knew about and willfully ignored.

The whole thing is just very sad.

[–] mnoe 8 years ago

The things that blew my mind in part 2 were a) the behavior of the DA concerning the grand jury indictment he never pursued, b) the interview with the detective who had quit, and c) all the red flags concerning the brother they knew about and willfully ignored.

I totally agree that those were mind-blowing.

Even if nothing else happens as a result of this unofficial investigation, I hope that there is an official investigation of that corrupt DA!

The palpable frustration of the detective who quit -- obviously still mad after all these years -- was completely understandable.

And the interview footage of Burke Ramsey was blood-curdlingly creepy.

Apparently the two surviving members of the Ramsey family are suing CBS, but I can't imagine the network didn't have rafts and reams of lawyers go over every bit of the running time before they ever aired this.

last 2 dvds: Arven (2003) & Bang (1995)

[–] TopFlight 8 years ago

A suit won't get anywhere. CBS never flatly said, "Burke did it." There was the usual disclaimer at the end. No attorney would take this on contingency, that's for sure, and I doubt that JR and BR really want to spend their money on a losing case.

[–] bctm2001 8 years ago

Plus both would be open to being deposed and could say something that could cause them to be open to more scrutiny and focus by anyone still investigating the case.

[–] slidell333 7 years ago

Exactly! Go ahead with your suit....but they won't because they'd have to get in stand and make statements under oath. Although a civil matter, they could still get done for perjury or used in any possible criminal case (although unlikely at this point).

[–] sunezno (227) 3 months ago

I still haven't seen Part 2 yet, but I just finished Part 1 last night. I sought out the show because I absolutely love the investigators (Clemente, Richards, Fitz, and Lee), and they'd talked about it on one of their podcasts (I was listening to older episodes).

If the team was made up of people I'd never heard of and wasn't already a fan of, I might've been a bit disappointed at parts, but it could've also been the way it was edited.

For example, at the beginning when they're trying to decipher the end of the 911 call, it kind of bothered me that they seemed to land (albeit tentatively) on specific phrases and speakers without any real clarity in the recording.
If a jumble of sounds can sound exactly like, "Help me, jesus" but can also sound exactly like, "What did you do," depending on which phrase you go into it expecting to hear, then there shouldn't be any claims made about what was said.

They also only listened to the very end of the call for background things, when there could've been important sounds or words earlier in the call, too (like if someone was talking in the background while Paty was talking to the dispatcher).

Though I'm glad that they said at the very end of the episode that these are just ideas and people should form their own conclusions, instead of saying this is all truth.

Anyway, the other part that annoyed me (which could've been due to editing) was that it took them way too long to mention the crime scene contamination that took place. I mean, obviously this entire case was botched from the get-go, which is the fault of the cops and investigators way back then, but it bothered me that no one mentioned it until the other FBI guy was talking about getting there at 1:20pm and seeing that the body had been moved at least twice.

(Continuing in a reply)

[–] sunezno (227) 3 months ago

The very first cop got to the house at 5:59am, a good 35 minutes before any family and/or friends showed up. That cop had ample time before they got there to tape off the crime scene and order a perimeter around the property, and he should have removed people from the crime scene, not invite more people in to contaminate it.

That was the first and most egregious fuck-up of the initial investigation, I think. But none of these present-day Powerhouse investigators mentioned anything about crime scene contamination until talking about the body being moved (the second time by a cop, no less!).

Which reminds me, they said it was "only" moved those two times, but then why do they show an "actual crime scene photo" of the body in the room in the basement? They either moved it back there for the picture, which is a big no-no, or they recreated the picture, which is also a big no-no.

Anyway, needless to say, I was constantly yelling at my laptop while watching it.

It just felt like there were so many important things that they failed to mention or consider. And again, a lot of it is the fault of the initial "investigation", of course.
But when they're talking about the skull fracture and Henry Lee mentioned (the lack of) blood, tissue, and hair on the flashlight, the forensic pathologist mentioned that the skin could've bent with the blow instead of breaking. Which should be a simple question of, "Was the skin broken or not?" But they dance around that and never just say whether or not it was.

Again, maybe that's just the editing, but I felt like there were a lot of instances where simple facts or questions were just ignored or not mentioned.

And nobody mentioned the handwriting of the ransom note. It went from chicken-scratch to legible (possibly indicating panic at the beginning and then focus by the end). Also, were the previous attempts at the note still there? What was different from those first attempts to the final draft?

I have so many questions!