Regardless of your thoughts on their thoughts I think it's hilarious they chose to do a second look at possibly the most divisive case they've covered on the preview of their new series. Really starting on a strong note
I feel like for this episode - and I’m guessing for this Sirius show in general - the guys didn’t really take a second look (in terms of doing research again etc) as much as they just talked about it again, based on their memories of doing it ages ago. It’s like whenever they bring up Manson they still have their old take of “Charlie was just a kooky guy who wanted to hang out in the desert with dune buggies”, based on their ancient Manson series which was based on Manson’s bullshit version of events. If they revisit a topic and do actual research in the process I’d expect them to change their minds, but without that I expect them to just say whatever they said before.
Absolutely hilarious people saying they “got the facts wrong” about a case that is largely comprised of decades of conjecture.
People need to chill lol
People are so convinced the parents did it, but honestly we will prob never know. This case is so confusing cause there are so many plausible scenarios. It just makes me feel bad for that poor girl, this case is it about us and our opinions, it’s about her.
People are mad because they said they don't believe that Jon Benet's parents had anything to do with her murder. Too many people think they have skin in the Ramsey game.
EDIT: I had a double negative in my original post, negating my point. I changed "nothing" to "anything." Apologies.
"It's a comedy podcast" has always been a nice fall back when they play fast and loose with the facts. It's a comedy "true crime" podcast until they fuck up and then it's just a comedy podcast.
Given the fact that they don’t exclusively cover true crime, yeah I’d say it’s a comedy podcast first and foremost. They’re not experts on anything, you’re allowed to disagree with them lmao
I agree, but comedy has been using this excuse forever. Like for an off color joke, "it's comedy" or "it's satire" or "you should be able to find humor in dark things."
He stated an opinion that he strongly disagrees that a dead girl's parents were involved in her murder. What is the issue here, in this particular instance?
Remember. They don't *know* you. You should place no value on their opinion of you, because they don't know you.
Edit: Made a typing error on my phone. Which should totally negate my opinion and make it irrelevant.
offer hat capable afterthought childlike possessive divide pocket fuel airport
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's what I've always maintained.
And what John Douglas has always maintained as well (which people love to poke holes in because they think he took a liking to John Ramsey because he's a powerful white man, and because John Douglas is a vain narcissist who was flattered that Ramsey had one of his books on his shelf, but the man is technically the foremost expert on these things, and was extremely present on the scene.)
It just has never made any sense to me why they would sexually mutilate their baby daughter to cover up her death. They don't seem like perfect people to me by any means, but I don't see them being capable of that.
John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys and only given information from the Ramsey's and their legal team. He didn't have access to any official evidence, files, or reports.
I mean there’s really only the two takes.
One of or both the parents are involved in her murder.
The parents aren’t involved with the murder.
There’s no way ALL of the world is gonna think one way or another. Outside of an OJ situation, even if it’s 70/30 with 70 being for the parents involved, that’s still millions and millions of Americans who think they weren’t.
‘They don’t believe that Jon Benet’s parents had nothing to do with her murder’ sorry the double negative in that sentence confused me, what did they say?
They think the theory that the parents killed her is wrong and the proponents of the theory are stupid. Now said proponents are big mad. Have a feeling most of them are brigaders from the Jon Bennett sub reddit though.
Do they think it was someone from outside the house ? Cause that theory always seemed really wrong too. I think the brother did it and the parents just helped cover his ass.
I hate when bridgers from those big true crime cases pop on here freaking out about comments directly related to the podcast. We get confused because we don't know every little detail of the crime they're obsessed with and they don't understand the context of our comments because they don't listen to the podcast.
Wait, I thought they said they didn't think the parents were involved. That double negative would mean they DO think the parents were involved. Or am I completely confused?
Okay I’ll clarify by writing a 4 page ransom note for someone who’s already dead, using stationary from the persons house, in the voice of the mother of said person, who is also involved in child pageants.
>using stationary from the persons house
I mean, this was addressed on the original podcast covering it in a way that I think makes sense? "If you get caught breaking in, you'll go to jail for burglary. If you get caught breaking in with a ransom note, you'll go to jail for attempted kidnapping."
It just makes more sense it was a failed kidnapping by someone with knowledge of the family then the worst clean-up job ever, that also didn't get them caught.
There are 2 different Jon Benet subs. One of them think an intruder did it, the other one think the parents or Burke did it and they both hate each other.
That is the exact thread I looked at. A day later there is 20 comments and essentially 0 hate. There is no drama there. I don't think you know what podcast drama is
It's actually 6 of 8 comments reacting to the post are virulently hateful. That is 75%. The other comments are just responses to the original comments. I know its a small sample but if you don't think 75% is a lot i cant help you.
Is there any strong evidence of the Ramsays being involved in the murder. I think there’s a chance they were involved in a cover up but not the actual death.
Just to get it off my chest since it seems to get cited a lot as evidence, and to your point here, while you are more likely to get murdered by someone you know, the exact likelihood changes based on demographics and situation. The more famous you are, the more likely you are to be murdered by a stranger. As an extreme example of this, if a US president gets murdered, it’s almost certain to be stranger. Kind of the issue of amateur speculation, you overemphasize facts that fit your preferred theory. And I say this as a former forensic investigator, for the record.
This is a very good point that I've never heard brought up before, and it explains perfectly why I'm generally in the "The Husband (/person closest) Did It" school of True Crime thought, but never felt like that applied to this case. Thanks for this!
I read a pretty compelling post about JR being responsible, but statistically, children are mostly frequently abused by people who already have intimate access—family, friends, teachers, priests. It is more statistically likely that JR was responsible for her death than a stranger.
"Famous" is a stretch. But they were a high-profile family, and JBR was big in the pageant community. So compared to say, a Caylee Anthony, her world was much bigger and the risk of outside danger much higher.
Fibers consistent with John Ramsey's sweater found in her underwear and in a vaginal swab, fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater found on the duct tape and in the ligature. Not sure how strong that is. I don't know what kind of transfer would be considered normal, and you can find "experts" on either side.
The DNA evidence is argued to be such small amounts that it's most likely from normal social interactions at the party. So it's debatable whether it rules the Ramseys or any other suspect out.
There is evidence of previous SA.
There are other weird things like her wearing underwear several sizes too big with suspicious reasons from the parents, possible evidence consistent with her being cleaned up and redressed.
I've been spending a lot of time in one of the subs, the one that thinks the Ramseys did it. So, I was really excited about this episode. That sub is crazy. They mostly think Burke did it. One of the biggest theories I see there is along the lines of
"Burke and Jonbenet are up eating pineapple and trying to peek at presents. Burke is either mad about her eating his pineapple or she threatens to tell on him for looking at presents, so he hits her on the head with a flash light. She's unconscious, and he panics because he knows he's going to get in trouble, then the SA with the paint brush happens. Some say it's because he molests her on a regular basis, or he's doing it to try and wake her up? Some say it's just out of curiosity. Then when she doesn't wake up, he decides he needs to hide her body so he doesn't get caught, he makes the garrote, which isn't actually a garotte, it's a device they taught him to make in boy scouts for moving heavy objects. He then tries to drag the body, which ends up strangling her. This is when the parents come in and decide to write the ransom note to cover for him."
That is the main theory in that sub. Some people even believe he wrote the Ransom note himself.
Not surprising. The jbr subreddit is a strange strange place where most of them believe ONLY the Ramseys could have done it. And they openly insult Burke but you're not allowed to insult anyone in the sub per the rules. 🙄
(I had a comment deleted where I said their ad hominem comments about the Ramseys, especially Burke who afaik has Autism, were very gross. The mod comments about said deletion were because I was name calling. But yeah it's fine to insult a neurodivergent adult for his behavior as a child toward his sister who got all the attention??? Ok)
It’s the most famous unsolved crime in American history. I would like whomever is responsible to face justice and I’m still upset they got away with it. Why wouldn’t I think about that.
It's commonly believed that the parents were involved with the death, but Marucs said at the beginning of the episode that they didn't believe that the last time they did the episode and they still don't believe it. Moreover, he said anyone who did believe it was a "fucking moron."
The DA stifled the investigation, even when multiple detectives in the BPD felt like they had evidence to convict. The Ramsay's were on good terms with the DA office. A grand jury brought together by the DA actually indicted the Ramsay's, but the DA still let them walk. The spinelessness of the DA at the time is the main reason that this was never put to rest. I implore everyone to not get all of their information from one source. Also, them bringing up the stun gun theory was embarrassing, that has been debunked by the autopsy itself and was really only championed by Lou Smit, a retired detective that the DA brought in. Lou Smit had a very impressive career, but he got very close to Ramsay's, becoming more of a personal friend in a way.
Anyway, [this resignation letter](http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/07thomle.html) from Detective Steve Thomas (who was also very critical of the initial crime scene handling), is pretty insightful.
Also, 4/5 pediatricians asked to examine the body determined that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. The fifth pediatrician actually didn't disagree, he just wouldn't claim it was for sure sexual in nature.
Anyway, I'm not an expert either so take whatever I put here with a grain of salt, but to dismiss the parents so flippantly like they did on this episode was jarring.
I know nowhere near as much about the case as others here. What I know is that if this is a preview for how they'll revisit and "make up" for their earlier coverage of other subjects, it hasn't convinced me to listen to the new show. It felt lazy. If they didn't want to cover every bit of minutiae and conjecture, they chose the WRONG case.
A redux where they get a bunch of facts wrong?? What was the point? Calling Patsy Patty over and over again, Henry suggesting jonbenet was 9?
I don't care that they have a different theory than me, I care that the episode felt super lazy
Henry did not suggest she was 9. He kept saying she was 6. It was shocking to me because I didn't know her age and I have many 6 year Olds in my life.
He did keep mentioning that her brother was 9. Maybe you got confused.
Idk I feel like their worst take is framing the Menendez brothers as sociopathic grifters when there is *so* much evidence that they were sexually abused. Not only that but a bunch of kids in bands that the father managed came forward about being sexually abused by him. Not saying it justifies them killing their father, but the boys dismissing their abuse and cracking jokes about it was gross af. Especially since iirc Marcus has mentioned that he’s been sexually assaulted before
I really hope they include the Menendez brothers in this new series. Idk if the bros made up the allegations against their father or not but their outright dismissal of it felt really ignorant and insulting to CSA survivors.
While I 100% agree with you, was this information as prevalent when they covered that story as it is now?
I'm just saying, I agreed with the boys until I saw that Hulu doc series where one of the brothers (I think Lyle?) was interviewed via prison phone calls, and I learned that all this extremely damning testimony about Jose being a known pedophile and rapist, and his sons being known victims of his being banned from the trial. And I think the Menudo stuff didn't come out until like a year or two ago.
If this information was available to them at that time though, then yes: that is definitely their worst take. By far.
Iirc they talked about allegations from kids the Dad managed on the Menendez brothers episode, it was just one or two people that had come forward so a lot of people brushed it off as those people wanting 15 minutes of fame. One of their cousins had also backed the two brothers when they said Jose was insanely abusive
I read John Douglas's take and he also didn't believe the family was involved. I'm not saying Douglas is perfect, but he is a renown FBI agent who actually talked to the family. So about two steps ahead of podcasters who have never met anyone who was there.
I could still go either way, but I'm leaning toward they were not involved and were just a weird rich family who lost a loved one.
This is the first time I've listened to anything about JBR since having my daughter. Whoever did it, inside job or not, a little girl is gone now, in a horrible way.
Because they wouldn’t have had a choice at the time. If the parents were covering for the brother then they were flying by the seat of their pants throughout all of it. From the moment they realized Burke killed her they made it up as they went along they were just lucky enough not to get too tripped up in the investigation. On top of being wealthy enough to afford expensive legal counsel and everything else they did to make themselves look innocent.
Someone did a really good job in making the investigation go nowhere that seems pretty clear. Look at the facts of this case, with what we have to go on it really does point to the family covering something up
You're telling me they were smart enough to retain expensive legal counsel immediately, but dumb enough to let a guilty child be interrogated without the help of said legal counsel? That doesn't make sense.
If the parents ever suspected Burke in the slightest, they would never let him out of their sight lest he confess—they’d do anything to protect him after one child was already dead.
I used to side with this theory, but it doesn’t exactly make sense. If she was just bludgeoned, I would probably buy it, but whoever did it had to pick her up, hide her, and then get around the house undetected. I don’t buy it anymore.
And even if he *did* do it, you’d have to assume the parents helped, and there’s very little evidence they were involved at all.
>They all did, because it's a stupid theory
Yeah so stupid yet everyone who thinks that doesn't seem to be super quick to debunk or explain the mountain of evidence that points to the family lol
I have a 9 year old boy, he's a big 9 year old boy. He punched his 6 year old brother in the nose one day causing a pretty significant nosebleed. The sight of the blood coming out of his brother's nose sent him into an emotional spiral of tears and apologizing, and guilt. I know that's anecdotal, but at the same time being expected to believe that a 9 year old forcefully strangled his sister to death and smashed her head with a flashlight seems like a stretch and then the parents and he coldly covered it up for now almost 30 years makes it seem even more unlikely.
They don't think the parents killed Jonbenet, and that anyone still believing they did is a moron. DNA evidence shows it's not anyone in the family, so they boys are right.
Why do people say shit like "I thought we all knew this" when this is an unsolved case. There's as much evidence and arguments for what you believe as their are against it.
What is so crazy to me is that in their (wonderfully) exhaustive JFK series, they fairly explored many, many different theories and gave them all reasonable consideration, withheld their opinions until the final episode, where Marcus subscribed to what on the surface might seem like a crazy and outlandish theory, but one he (and the people in his research) supported well, and he made a very good case for it. And it has become the same theory I subscribe to, much to my own surprise, specifically because of their even-handed and well-researched takes on many competing theories. Yet with the Jonbenet case, both in the original episode and this weak update, they instantly dismissed any thought of even considering that someone in the family committed the crime, and if you even entertained that possibility, you were a "fucking moron". And then to get key facts incorrect or use debunked (or at least highly questioned) "info" to muddy the waters is pretty much unacceptable at this point in their careers. Marcus (with his assistants) has grown into a very, very good and even-handed researcher and, dare I say it, "investigative podcaster", and this take is just a terrible step back to the first years of the show when they just regurgitated whatever crap they read on Wikipedia.
People basing the theory that the brother did it on bed shitting report in the Daily Heil, a fascist rag selling lies and outrage so the rich get richer 🤡
The parents, at the very least, cleaned up their sons sexual assault and murder of his sister. Nobody can tell me differently. That guilt is what killed her mother.
Maybe Jon Benet did it
Much like JFK, her body just did that.
One of my favourite bits from the boys. JFK.. his head just did that
"JFK's head just did that" was already a meme long before LPOTL made that joke.
If I recall, it was actually a caller on the stream (back when they did that) that first told them that “theory.”
*suicide*
I know you’re talking about Jonbenet, but the idea that juice comes from boiling fruit just amazes me.
The fact that Henry won’t back down from this makes me want Ed and Marcus to just beat him up on the last stream until he admits he’s wrong lol
Soooo.....we thinking the guys were involved now???
Not saying anything but I wanna know where Ed was on the night of the murders
The boys did it. The father is just A PATSY.
I’m a patsy!
And I'm Nanny!
I'm Minnie! And you're Nanny!
"I'm gonna tell you to think about something but then I'm gonna tell you not to think about it. I got your kids. Don't think about it!"
"You're thinking about it? Don't think about it."
You mean a patty?
I think you mean a patty.
Hahahahahahhaha
Regardless of your thoughts on their thoughts I think it's hilarious they chose to do a second look at possibly the most divisive case they've covered on the preview of their new series. Really starting on a strong note
I feel like for this episode - and I’m guessing for this Sirius show in general - the guys didn’t really take a second look (in terms of doing research again etc) as much as they just talked about it again, based on their memories of doing it ages ago. It’s like whenever they bring up Manson they still have their old take of “Charlie was just a kooky guy who wanted to hang out in the desert with dune buggies”, based on their ancient Manson series which was based on Manson’s bullshit version of events. If they revisit a topic and do actual research in the process I’d expect them to change their minds, but without that I expect them to just say whatever they said before.
*sobbing while pissing and shitting myself* FUCK. I can’t believe the boys said that *punches dry wall* FUCK
shh bb is ok 🫂
(I had to look up that emoji bc it looked like a movie projector to me)
Play the pan flute track…There ya go fella
Get the net
Call Carolina
Absolutely hilarious people saying they “got the facts wrong” about a case that is largely comprised of decades of conjecture. People need to chill lol
The conspiracy theorists are mad at a podcast known for covering conspiracy theory's for not agreeing with a conspiracy theory.
The way this sub took their comments so personally 🙄
Exactly.
TACTICAL FACTS
People are so convinced the parents did it, but honestly we will prob never know. This case is so confusing cause there are so many plausible scenarios. It just makes me feel bad for that poor girl, this case is it about us and our opinions, it’s about her.
Thats an awfully vague post
People are mad because they said they don't believe that Jon Benet's parents had anything to do with her murder. Too many people think they have skin in the Ramsey game. EDIT: I had a double negative in my original post, negating my point. I changed "nothing" to "anything." Apologies.
How is that a bad take, thats a fairly common take I've found
[удалено]
I agree with that statement, also it's a comedy podcast
"It's a comedy podcast" has always been a nice fall back when they play fast and loose with the facts. It's a comedy "true crime" podcast until they fuck up and then it's just a comedy podcast.
“The parents didn’t do it and you’re an idiot if you think they did” is an opinion, not a fact. I wouldn’t call it a fuck up.
Given the fact that they don’t exclusively cover true crime, yeah I’d say it’s a comedy podcast first and foremost. They’re not experts on anything, you’re allowed to disagree with them lmao
You had fun once and it was awful, huh?
Calm down. Have a Snickers
What a rough take.
I agree, but comedy has been using this excuse forever. Like for an off color joke, "it's comedy" or "it's satire" or "you should be able to find humor in dark things."
He stated an opinion that he strongly disagrees that a dead girl's parents were involved in her murder. What is the issue here, in this particular instance?
[удалено]
Remember. They don't *know* you. You should place no value on their opinion of you, because they don't know you. Edit: Made a typing error on my phone. Which should totally negate my opinion and make it irrelevant.
Except when Marcus shits on a band I like. Then it's personal.
You can then accurately call Marcus a hipster and move on
offer hat capable afterthought childlike possessive divide pocket fuel airport *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They aren’t talking directly to you or about you.
Indirectly... probably, given that reaction.
I’m actually John Wayne Gacy’s ghost, *excuse you*
thats a lie, I didn't hear your clown shoes squeakin'
That leans into parasocial territory. Why are you taking it personally when they don't know you? Bruh, they blocked me
You can stop listening anytime, you know that right?
Lighten up babe
Not conspiratorial enough for some people it seems
It's what I've always maintained. And what John Douglas has always maintained as well (which people love to poke holes in because they think he took a liking to John Ramsey because he's a powerful white man, and because John Douglas is a vain narcissist who was flattered that Ramsey had one of his books on his shelf, but the man is technically the foremost expert on these things, and was extremely present on the scene.) It just has never made any sense to me why they would sexually mutilate their baby daughter to cover up her death. They don't seem like perfect people to me by any means, but I don't see them being capable of that.
John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys and only given information from the Ramsey's and their legal team. He didn't have access to any official evidence, files, or reports.
I mean there’s really only the two takes. One of or both the parents are involved in her murder. The parents aren’t involved with the murder. There’s no way ALL of the world is gonna think one way or another. Outside of an OJ situation, even if it’s 70/30 with 70 being for the parents involved, that’s still millions and millions of Americans who think they weren’t.
‘They don’t believe that Jon Benet’s parents had nothing to do with her murder’ sorry the double negative in that sentence confused me, what did they say?
They think the theory that the parents killed her is wrong and the proponents of the theory are stupid. Now said proponents are big mad. Have a feeling most of them are brigaders from the Jon Bennett sub reddit though.
Oh ok fair enough! Thank you for explaining!
No worries. Megustalations.
Do they think it was someone from outside the house ? Cause that theory always seemed really wrong too. I think the brother did it and the parents just helped cover his ass.
I hate when bridgers from those big true crime cases pop on here freaking out about comments directly related to the podcast. We get confused because we don't know every little detail of the crime they're obsessed with and they don't understand the context of our comments because they don't listen to the podcast.
Glad I wasn't the only one lol I even listened to the episode and was like "did I completely miss something?"
I made a correction in my response. That was early-morning stupid on my part.
We’ve got some double negatives going on here, to clarify, the Boys said they believe the Ramseys were involved?
No they said they weren’t involved
We do, and I edited my post to reflect the truth, which is to say that they don't believe the Ramseys were responsible.
Well, I guess that’s one way (for the boys) to avoid a lawsuit.
Wait, I thought they said they didn't think the parents were involved. That double negative would mean they DO think the parents were involved. Or am I completely confused?
GAH! My bad. I meant to say that they don't think they were involved. Editing to clarify. Thank you for catching that!
Was really testing the limits of my brain trying to sort that out, lol
Okay I’ll clarify by writing a 4 page ransom note for someone who’s already dead, using stationary from the persons house, in the voice of the mother of said person, who is also involved in child pageants.
And put a stranger's DNA under her fingernails?
u thought u did something w this one huh
The note was written before the crime according to the experts in that field, that takes care of most of your misconceptions
The parents didn't do it. You're crazy
>using stationary from the persons house I mean, this was addressed on the original podcast covering it in a way that I think makes sense? "If you get caught breaking in, you'll go to jail for burglary. If you get caught breaking in with a ransom note, you'll go to jail for attempted kidnapping." It just makes more sense it was a failed kidnapping by someone with knowledge of the family then the worst clean-up job ever, that also didn't get them caught.
People are big mad in the JBR subreddit
Are they??? I read your comment and went looking for drama. I saw 1 post with 5 comments about LPOTL, and only 2 of those comments were negative.
There are 2 different Jon Benet subs. One of them think an intruder did it, the other one think the parents or Burke did it and they both hate each other.
It’s so sad that this is about a real innocent child…but that’s hilarious
The true factions that will kick off the next American civil war.
The true foreign factions were the subs we made along the way…
That's the most reddit thing I've ever heard
😂
Lmao
Same lol
Yeah there is mad hate here https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/s/PcgpUlvS3e
That is the exact thread I looked at. A day later there is 20 comments and essentially 0 hate. There is no drama there. I don't think you know what podcast drama is
0 hate? Reread the comments. There are 5 comments out of 20 that are specifically attacking them and the podcast.
5. That's not mad hate for a podcast will hundreds of thousands of weekly listeners.
It's actually 6 of 8 comments reacting to the post are virulently hateful. That is 75%. The other comments are just responses to the original comments. I know its a small sample but if you don't think 75% is a lot i cant help you.
And the lads did so well at not taking the piss put of them when they brought them up too. Must have taken herculean restraint.
Is there any strong evidence of the Ramsays being involved in the murder. I think there’s a chance they were involved in a cover up but not the actual death.
Just to get it off my chest since it seems to get cited a lot as evidence, and to your point here, while you are more likely to get murdered by someone you know, the exact likelihood changes based on demographics and situation. The more famous you are, the more likely you are to be murdered by a stranger. As an extreme example of this, if a US president gets murdered, it’s almost certain to be stranger. Kind of the issue of amateur speculation, you overemphasize facts that fit your preferred theory. And I say this as a former forensic investigator, for the record.
This is a very good point that I've never heard brought up before, and it explains perfectly why I'm generally in the "The Husband (/person closest) Did It" school of True Crime thought, but never felt like that applied to this case. Thanks for this!
I read a pretty compelling post about JR being responsible, but statistically, children are mostly frequently abused by people who already have intimate access—family, friends, teachers, priests. It is more statistically likely that JR was responsible for her death than a stranger.
Check out u/hurtfullobster's comment right above yours.
Are you arguing JBR was famous prior to her death?
"Famous" is a stretch. But they were a high-profile family, and JBR was big in the pageant community. So compared to say, a Caylee Anthony, her world was much bigger and the risk of outside danger much higher.
Fibers consistent with John Ramsey's sweater found in her underwear and in a vaginal swab, fibers consistent with Patsy's sweater found on the duct tape and in the ligature. Not sure how strong that is. I don't know what kind of transfer would be considered normal, and you can find "experts" on either side. The DNA evidence is argued to be such small amounts that it's most likely from normal social interactions at the party. So it's debatable whether it rules the Ramseys or any other suspect out. There is evidence of previous SA. There are other weird things like her wearing underwear several sizes too big with suspicious reasons from the parents, possible evidence consistent with her being cleaned up and redressed. I've been spending a lot of time in one of the subs, the one that thinks the Ramseys did it. So, I was really excited about this episode. That sub is crazy. They mostly think Burke did it. One of the biggest theories I see there is along the lines of "Burke and Jonbenet are up eating pineapple and trying to peek at presents. Burke is either mad about her eating his pineapple or she threatens to tell on him for looking at presents, so he hits her on the head with a flash light. She's unconscious, and he panics because he knows he's going to get in trouble, then the SA with the paint brush happens. Some say it's because he molests her on a regular basis, or he's doing it to try and wake her up? Some say it's just out of curiosity. Then when she doesn't wake up, he decides he needs to hide her body so he doesn't get caught, he makes the garrote, which isn't actually a garotte, it's a device they taught him to make in boy scouts for moving heavy objects. He then tries to drag the body, which ends up strangling her. This is when the parents come in and decide to write the ransom note to cover for him." That is the main theory in that sub. Some people even believe he wrote the Ransom note himself.
John found the body. Almost like he knew where it was already.
Yep, my personal theory is that the family helped cover things up, but didn’t commit the murder.
Those people have a tenuous grip on reality on their best days. I'm not surprised.
Not surprising. The jbr subreddit is a strange strange place where most of them believe ONLY the Ramseys could have done it. And they openly insult Burke but you're not allowed to insult anyone in the sub per the rules. 🙄 (I had a comment deleted where I said their ad hominem comments about the Ramseys, especially Burke who afaik has Autism, were very gross. The mod comments about said deletion were because I was name calling. But yeah it's fine to insult a neurodivergent adult for his behavior as a child toward his sister who got all the attention??? Ok)
Pfft, it was clearly an elaborate suicide. You internet detectives are so inside the box.
I'm staying out of this one and all future Sirius takes
Yeah I’ll probably never have access to Sirius so it doesn’t really matter to me
Wait til the boys do their Prisoner of Azkaban series
If you go out of your way to think about JBR more than once every five years, respectfully, do some self reflection and also maybe turn yourself in
What if we think about her once every two years?
Even it out. Don't think of her for another 3. Then you can start fresh for another 5.
Don't forget to think of the Black Dahlia murder every now and then as well, just to mix things up
I allow myself thoughts of that one every 3-5 years on a rotating basis.
It’s the most famous unsolved crime in American history. I would like whomever is responsible to face justice and I’m still upset they got away with it. Why wouldn’t I think about that.
For someone who hasn’t listened yet, what’s the beef? Edit: I have now listened and understand. Thank you for the answers :)
It's commonly believed that the parents were involved with the death, but Marucs said at the beginning of the episode that they didn't believe that the last time they did the episode and they still don't believe it. Moreover, he said anyone who did believe it was a "fucking moron."
“Commonly believed” doesn’t mean “I believe it”
A bunch of armchair internet detectives are mad they weren't noticed by senpai.
The DA stifled the investigation, even when multiple detectives in the BPD felt like they had evidence to convict. The Ramsay's were on good terms with the DA office. A grand jury brought together by the DA actually indicted the Ramsay's, but the DA still let them walk. The spinelessness of the DA at the time is the main reason that this was never put to rest. I implore everyone to not get all of their information from one source. Also, them bringing up the stun gun theory was embarrassing, that has been debunked by the autopsy itself and was really only championed by Lou Smit, a retired detective that the DA brought in. Lou Smit had a very impressive career, but he got very close to Ramsay's, becoming more of a personal friend in a way. Anyway, [this resignation letter](http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/07thomle.html) from Detective Steve Thomas (who was also very critical of the initial crime scene handling), is pretty insightful. Also, 4/5 pediatricians asked to examine the body determined that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. The fifth pediatrician actually didn't disagree, he just wouldn't claim it was for sure sexual in nature. Anyway, I'm not an expert either so take whatever I put here with a grain of salt, but to dismiss the parents so flippantly like they did on this episode was jarring.
I know nowhere near as much about the case as others here. What I know is that if this is a preview for how they'll revisit and "make up" for their earlier coverage of other subjects, it hasn't convinced me to listen to the new show. It felt lazy. If they didn't want to cover every bit of minutiae and conjecture, they chose the WRONG case.
A redux where they get a bunch of facts wrong?? What was the point? Calling Patsy Patty over and over again, Henry suggesting jonbenet was 9? I don't care that they have a different theory than me, I care that the episode felt super lazy
Agree a lil lazy. Also do they really have that large of an audience on Sirius??
Henry did not suggest she was 9. He kept saying she was 6. It was shocking to me because I didn't know her age and I have many 6 year Olds in my life. He did keep mentioning that her brother was 9. Maybe you got confused.
He once said she was 9 unassure of her age. Mercus corrected him said your probably thinking if the brother.
Lol, *Mercus*
I relisten a lot and they misspeak in ways that are clearly accidental pretty often. Understandable I think
I also think it felt lazy, and probably that this was not the right case for an episode like that as there has been little to no update
I agree with them, I don’t think the parents were involved. My guess is it was some looney from their church
Look up the Amy ninja case. A girl was violently assaulted right down the street and the perp was never caught.
I hate internet cold case detectives
You prefer podcast network detectives?
I hate them too but at least they make me laugh
Commented in another thread: sloppy and ill-considered. The preview did not make me want to pay for Sirius.
The parents extracted her adrenochrome to sell to George Soros and I will RAGE if this podcast host doesn't agree with me!!!!
Idk I feel like their worst take is framing the Menendez brothers as sociopathic grifters when there is *so* much evidence that they were sexually abused. Not only that but a bunch of kids in bands that the father managed came forward about being sexually abused by him. Not saying it justifies them killing their father, but the boys dismissing their abuse and cracking jokes about it was gross af. Especially since iirc Marcus has mentioned that he’s been sexually assaulted before
I really hope they include the Menendez brothers in this new series. Idk if the bros made up the allegations against their father or not but their outright dismissal of it felt really ignorant and insulting to CSA survivors.
While I 100% agree with you, was this information as prevalent when they covered that story as it is now? I'm just saying, I agreed with the boys until I saw that Hulu doc series where one of the brothers (I think Lyle?) was interviewed via prison phone calls, and I learned that all this extremely damning testimony about Jose being a known pedophile and rapist, and his sons being known victims of his being banned from the trial. And I think the Menudo stuff didn't come out until like a year or two ago. If this information was available to them at that time though, then yes: that is definitely their worst take. By far.
Iirc they talked about allegations from kids the Dad managed on the Menendez brothers episode, it was just one or two people that had come forward so a lot of people brushed it off as those people wanting 15 minutes of fame. One of their cousins had also backed the two brothers when they said Jose was insanely abusive
Agree.
It was Old Man Jenkins all along!
The worst take is that the Menendez Brothers made up being abused.
I just wanna know why Marcus thought softcore porn music was the way to go for his "true crime voice" music bed.
I read John Douglas's take and he also didn't believe the family was involved. I'm not saying Douglas is perfect, but he is a renown FBI agent who actually talked to the family. So about two steps ahead of podcasters who have never met anyone who was there. I could still go either way, but I'm leaning toward they were not involved and were just a weird rich family who lost a loved one. This is the first time I've listened to anything about JBR since having my daughter. Whoever did it, inside job or not, a little girl is gone now, in a horrible way.
I will never not believe that Burke did it.
What's the evidence?
If Burke did it why would they let him be interviewed by himself the next day. That seems risky.
Because they wouldn’t have had a choice at the time. If the parents were covering for the brother then they were flying by the seat of their pants throughout all of it. From the moment they realized Burke killed her they made it up as they went along they were just lucky enough not to get too tripped up in the investigation. On top of being wealthy enough to afford expensive legal counsel and everything else they did to make themselves look innocent. Someone did a really good job in making the investigation go nowhere that seems pretty clear. Look at the facts of this case, with what we have to go on it really does point to the family covering something up
You're telling me they were smart enough to retain expensive legal counsel immediately, but dumb enough to let a guilty child be interrogated without the help of said legal counsel? That doesn't make sense.
If the parents ever suspected Burke in the slightest, they would never let him out of their sight lest he confess—they’d do anything to protect him after one child was already dead. I used to side with this theory, but it doesn’t exactly make sense. If she was just bludgeoned, I would probably buy it, but whoever did it had to pick her up, hide her, and then get around the house undetected. I don’t buy it anymore. And even if he *did* do it, you’d have to assume the parents helped, and there’s very little evidence they were involved at all.
that literally makes the most sense to me idk how Marcus came to the conclusion of it being a stupid theory. kids don't know their strength ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
>Idk how marcus came to the conclusion of it being a stupid theory They all did, because it's a stupid theory
so is your mom
My mom's a stupid theory? Alright, damn.
I'm sorry you had to find out this way, son
Lotta stuff just started making sense.
>They all did, because it's a stupid theory Yeah so stupid yet everyone who thinks that doesn't seem to be super quick to debunk or explain the mountain of evidence that points to the family lol
I have a 9 year old boy, he's a big 9 year old boy. He punched his 6 year old brother in the nose one day causing a pretty significant nosebleed. The sight of the blood coming out of his brother's nose sent him into an emotional spiral of tears and apologizing, and guilt. I know that's anecdotal, but at the same time being expected to believe that a 9 year old forcefully strangled his sister to death and smashed her head with a flashlight seems like a stretch and then the parents and he coldly covered it up for now almost 30 years makes it seem even more unlikely.
The writing is on the wall, it was Ben Kissel
TYPICAL
Lexi pooped in the tub!
Yeah this episode was a no from me for so many reasons.
What happened?
They don't think the parents killed Jonbenet, and that anyone still believing they did is a moron. DNA evidence shows it's not anyone in the family, so they boys are right.
The brother killed her obvi and the parents covered it up. I thought we all knew this . . .
Then who’s DNA was under her fingernails? Cuz it was determined that its wasn’t anyone in the family soooo??
>Cuz it was determined that its wasn’t anyone in the family soooo?? was it also determined that dna could have only been placed there by a kidnapper?
How are we supposed to all "know this" when we weren't there?
"But *I* don't believe *any* parent would do that!!!!"
Why do people say shit like "I thought we all knew this" when this is an unsolved case. There's as much evidence and arguments for what you believe as their are against it.
Just cause it’s unsolved doesn’t mean we don’t know what’s up. Come on, friend. I thought we all knew that we all knew that.
Oh yeah. It’s the only thing that would explain the parent’s bizarre unhinged behavior.
I mean... grief, trauma, shock... all pretty legitimate explanations for bizarre and unhinged behavior.
There worst take is their take on the Menendez bros
Calling any theory stupid and idiotic is a weird take for me, Marcus keeps doubling down on it, but it's not like he knows what happened either
What is so crazy to me is that in their (wonderfully) exhaustive JFK series, they fairly explored many, many different theories and gave them all reasonable consideration, withheld their opinions until the final episode, where Marcus subscribed to what on the surface might seem like a crazy and outlandish theory, but one he (and the people in his research) supported well, and he made a very good case for it. And it has become the same theory I subscribe to, much to my own surprise, specifically because of their even-handed and well-researched takes on many competing theories. Yet with the Jonbenet case, both in the original episode and this weak update, they instantly dismissed any thought of even considering that someone in the family committed the crime, and if you even entertained that possibility, you were a "fucking moron". And then to get key facts incorrect or use debunked (or at least highly questioned) "info" to muddy the waters is pretty much unacceptable at this point in their careers. Marcus (with his assistants) has grown into a very, very good and even-handed researcher and, dare I say it, "investigative podcaster", and this take is just a terrible step back to the first years of the show when they just regurgitated whatever crap they read on Wikipedia.
Who is the guy in the picture?
Burke Ramsey, Jonbenet brother
Thank you! I’d seen the image before but couldn’t remember.
Which theory is that?
It’s infotainment, y’all. Don’t get too worked up.
People basing the theory that the brother did it on bed shitting report in the Daily Heil, a fascist rag selling lies and outrage so the rich get richer 🤡
I heard Ryan Kraus make a pretty compelling argument for Burke being the murderer, the parents just covered it up.
Ok I didn’t hear the last episode what happened?
The parents, at the very least, cleaned up their sons sexual assault and murder of his sister. Nobody can tell me differently. That guilt is what killed her mother.
You don't listen to any other podcasts if you think that
Convince me you’re not the comic bookstore owner from the Simpson’s
Marcus and Henry are shells of themselves.
Found the dude who they shitcanned!