The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey

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 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.

The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey (2016)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

This television special was shown over a two night period and it's build-up was that the infamous murder of JonBenet Ramsey would be solved twenty-years after it happened.

THE CASE OF: JONBENET RAMSEY is certainly an entertaining special as we get all sorts of experts coming together to take a fresh look at the evidence and try to piece together what happened. We also get a few new interviews including the 911 dispatcher as well as a friend of the Ramsey's.

This series is certainly worth watching but at the same time I wouldn't get too worked up by the hype. After the success of the Steve Avery Netflix special and the various O.J. Simpson specials it was clear CBS was trying to hit the iron while it was still hot. For the most part they have delivered an entertaining series but at the same time I wouldn't say this is the definitive word on the subject and especially since a lot of the original evidence wasn't examined.

The series is also quite obvious in how they come up with the guilty party. I won't ruin the outcome but it'll be interesting to see how any future lawsuits work out.

I've seen two documentaries on this top.

They left me with more questions than answers, and a lingering suspicion that there had to be more information to point towards the points raised in the other documentaries.

Here we have several experts. I read another review decrying the validity of the experts various methods without going into detail as to why the previous reviewer believes the experts processes weren't credible.

I found the integrity of the experts to be perfectly acceptable. First, the letter is carefully scrutinised. Red flags are found straight away.

Without going into what the experts concluded, I found the documentary to be a worthy piece of the jigsaw.

Yes, it does aim to bring the viewer to a conclusion on exactly what happened, but it didn't begin with any agenda.

If this case, or true crime interests you, I think you will find these episodes to be essential viewing. I gave this 10/10 not just for the experts, but also the detailed shocking revelations revealed around the inept Police investigation and the D. A's strange attitude.

I can't say anymore without spoilers.

The filmmakers do say that this information is yours to do with as you wish. They succeeded in making me think differently about this case.

I wouldn't hesitate in recommending this to anyone interested in the case, and real crime documentaries.

AJB.

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.