The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

I didn't really know who JonBenet Ramsey was before watching this, even though it seemingly was a pretty high profile case back in the days.

Anyway she was a child beauty pageant who got killed at the age of 6 and no one was ever found guilty of the crime.

And this documentary re-examines the case in every detail, it's more or less like getting up and close into a crime investigation but the investigators here seem to be doing a lot better than the ones who were assigned to the case originally.

And in the end to me, it seems as though they pretty much solve the case (although one can't be 100% for sure of course, and documentaries tend to leave out details that doesn't co-sign with the theory they are projecting to us viewers even though I don't think that is the case here).

Even though there is very little to complain about at times I found myself a little exhausted, perhaps it would have been better split up into 4 parts instead of just 2.

The information we get is good and all but it gets a bit stilted at times with information upon information all very formal and of course the fact that none of the Ramsey's are willing to be interviewed doesn't help.

But that said it's definitely not bad, and if you have a interest in the case then it's something well worth seeing for sure, or criminology in general.

I love everything that Jim Clemente does... team this with Laura Richards, Werner Slitz and Henry Lee and you have True Crime gold.

Such a plausible explanation and must be seen.

I've seen several JonBenet documentary's and this one covers it better than any of the others. I would possibly recommend one of the others as a first watch, since a couple of them may have more entertainment value, but if you're looking for best coverage of it in terms of answers, look no further. I almost skipped this one due to the lackluster reviews, but they couldn't be more wrong.

This is essentially, A panel of experts who thoroughly examine all of the actual pieces of evidence in this case and brainstorm together to piece this mystery together and now I finally feel content when it comes to this mystery. And I see no bias whatsoever, just common sense based on info/evidence in the case.

For the record I really enjoy analyzing various mysteries and I cover a lot them. At the point that I know what the truth is or at the point when I know the most possible information that can be extracted out of a given mystery (this mystery falls into the later), I feel content and no longer feel a need to ponder the case any further and thanks to this doc I'm no longer curious for anything else in the JonBenet case.

Below aren't any spoilers persay. It's just my take on what I determine to be responsible for JonBenet's murder, which the documentary changed my view on this matter. Based on all of the evidence/info/interviews I've had no doubt in reference to the parents being deceptive and covering up the murder, what this means is where this mystery has always resided. Prior to this I was skeptical of the Burke/brother theory in which he's responsible for the intentional/accidental murder of his sister and the mother and father covering it up. This seemed like a stretch because he wouldn't be tried as an adult anyways, even though he would likely still be taken away from his parents not to mention this would be an embarrassment for their family as well. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and they could have never known what scrutiny this would put them under anyways. I was also skeptical because as far as we know, Burke has a clean slate (in terms of doing twisted things) before and after the death of this sister... with the exception of one prior instance when Burke hit Jonbenet with a Golf club, which in prior doc's this was said to be an accidental back swing, however based on an interview associated with a family friend, she claims that it was an intentional golf whack. Now that I've seen more stuff in reference to Burke including interviews, he is the most likely murderer. The thing that freaks me out the most about Burke is he shows absolutely no emotion or anything at any point for the loss of his sister. When I was 8 my sister cracked her chin open and I did all the crying for her. When I was 5 I went to my first funeral of a next door neighbor who I barely knew and balled my eyes out. This isn't the big ahaa or anything, but the fact that Burke is skipping around like it's the yellow brick road during his sisters funeral and having a grand ole time is bizarre and the interviews that they show of him shortly after the murder in this documentary are even more bizarre. Prior to this I even watched the 4 part Dr. Phil show in ref to this case in which most of it is Burke being interviewed as an adult in which he is an extremely weird person who's definitely on the spectrum, but even with that I was still skeptical... definitely not after seeing this doc. I even rule out accidental murder at this point, because he appears to be a psycopath who lacks empathy. He could care less that his sister was murdered, he even seems to revel in it.

When I started watching this documentary and they were listing off the long line of tenured experts they had working this case, I was immensely excited. I thought for sure this investigation was going to be excellent and lead to a legitimate solving of the Jonbenet mystery.

Almost immediately, however, all scientific practice was thrown out of the window.

One of the first studies they do is a deconstruction of the 911 call - specifically six seconds after the caller thought they'd hung up. During this six seconds background noises and maybe voices are caught. The team uses noise reduction and other techniques to the to isolate these noises.

Unfortunately, these techniques fail to reveal anything other than a faint possibility that words may be being spoken, however, the experts not only conclude that the noises they are hearing ARE words but they conveniently determine the words being spoken are damnifying of the Ramsey family. Anyone who is familiar with ghost hunting shows and their analysis of EVPs will understand how this is a misleading biased practice, and totally anti-science.

Ultimately, this is just one example of the many many MANY other instances of outright bias, poor science, and or leading that the team engages in. Other examples include leading witnesses with emotional questions instead of matter of fact questions, emphasising anything that suits their narrative while down playing findings that don't, completely unscientific "experiments", and overall the experts trying to involve themselves as hero's or main characters in a drama - instead of remaining as unbiased observers as scientists should be.

Overall, if you know nothing about the case and don't mind scientific practice being completely ignored and extreme bias, this miniseries IS interesting. However, it is also very flawed and not worth viewing for people with knowledge of the case or people who can't stand bad science.

For some reason to me, this work seems very basic. I'm not sure if that says something about me and how I think but i don't feel like there is anything here I wouldn't think of, in all of their particular professions. However, I'm new to this case. How? I'm not sure. It was blatantly a huge thing at the time but I can't help feeling these experts are doing the obvious. How the crime was conducted in the beginning? I've no clue, but it seems it must have been handled pretty badly. This should've been solved or at least not had the need for an over 2 hr film in 2016.