The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

This special was based on a rather exciting premise: what if a group of world-renowned experts came together to re-examine one of America's most famous unsolved cases? That question will have to remain unanswered. Instead we see what would happen if a group of world-renowned experts attempt to shamelessly cash in on the anniversary of one of America's most famous unsolved cases.

Without going into too much detail (to avoid spoilers), the group gets up to all sorts of ridiculous shenanigans over the course of their "investigation." Almost every aspect of the investigation suffers from serious flaws.

Interviews were mostly with people who had obvious agendas/ulterior motives for conducting an interview and the questions asked by the interviewers were both loaded and leading. Even worse, obvious questions go unasked.

There is more pseudoscience than actual science during the special; some of the "experiments" would be right at home in an episode of Ghost Hunters (911 call meets "EVP"). What little real science there is often is performed in a misleading, erroneous, or irrelevant manner (i.e. major methodological flaws in the DNA, flashlight, and stun gun "tests," among others). Sharp-eyed viewers will notice that at least one of the flashlight tests was repeated until they got the results they wanted.

In terms of examining the evidence, some evidence is twisted/edited, some hand-waved away, and other parts ignored completely simply because they can't make it fit while other pieces are given inflated importance because it plays better with their theory.

The total incompetence of the Boulder police force on the case is mentioned, but glossed over, while simultaneously giving air time to some improbable conspiracy theories that aren't given even the most cursory examination for plausibility.

In many of the conversation sequences the group arrives at conclusions that make no logical sense or ask questions in a tone implying they feel it's a "gotcha!" question when in fact I could come up with a half-dozen plausible explanations off the top of my head to explain away the alleged "inconsistency." Roughly half of these sessions are devoted to discussing how they feel a person should have looked/felt/reacted in any given situation. Sorry, but psychology isn't so predictable as to fit into the neat little boxes provided.

The series ends with a blatant play at emotions that is as offensive as it is misguided, leaving the viewer with no doubts that there is no low the group will not stoop to.

Overall, the mini-series gives an impression of a group of people straining very hard to make the evidence fit their preconceived theories on the case. I was expecting a hard-hitting look at all the evidence and instead got an obvious cash grab by way of a self-serving law enforcement puff piece. I was seriously disappointed. Do yourself a favor and watch "JonBenet: An American Murder Mystery" instead. It, too, is far from perfect, but it at least gives an honest effort to make an impartial investigation.

I stopped watching when they asked a young boy to strike a mock-up of the girls head with a torch. That is just sick!

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.

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.