November 1, 2024 • 14 mins
Send us a text message for suggestions and feedback or just let us know that you liked the podcast!
What if a single note could hold the key to unraveling one of the most chilling mysteries of our time? Join us as we scrutinize the perplexing case of JonBenet Ramsey, the young beauty queen whose tragic death has haunted investigators and armchair detectives alike. From the theatrical ransom note to the bungled crime scene, we explore the details that make this case so bewildering. We'll piece together the unsettling findings from the autopsy, including the use of a garrote made from Patsy Ramsey's paintbrush, and the strange clue of pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, to shed light on this enduring mystery.
Step into the realm of critical thinking as we dissect the competing theories surrounding that fateful night. Was it an intruder or something far closer to home? We challenge you to question the evidence, challenge assumptions, and consider new perspectives that might just bring us closer to the truth. Our goal is to ignite your curiosity and foster a deeper understanding of this enigmatic case. As we wrap up this episode, we promise to return with another captivating topic that will keep your minds engaged and your curiosity alive. Stay curious and stay tuned!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, so let's dive into one of the most, I
think, just perplexing coldcases, I think, in American
history.
Oh yeah, the murder of JonBenetRamsey.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
It's been 27 years since the six-year-old beauty
queen was found dead in her homein Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
And it just the mystery, I think, continues to
fascinate and frustrate all ofus Absolutely.
And it just the mystery, Ithink continues to fascinate and
frustrate all of us andabsolutely.
You know, for this deep diveyou've shared news articles,
official statements and evenexcerpts from a true crime
museum's website.
It's crazy.
There's just thousands of tipsand interviews and DNA samples.
It's a lot to sift through.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
What I'm really curious about is after all this
time and with all thisinformation, can we get any
closer to understanding whattruly happened?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
that.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Christmas in 1996?
.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, I think what's fascinating about this case,
even for those who are familiarwith kind of just the basic
facts, is the psychologicalaspect.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Take the ransom note, for instance.
Okay, three pages long, writtenon a pad from the house
demanding the exact amount ofJohn Ramsey's bonus.
Right, it's almost theatrical,wouldn't you say?
Speaker 1 (01:06):
It's very theatrical.
Yeah, it's like something outof a movie script.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And that detail always makes me wonder was it a
genuine attempt at extortionRight or a deliberate red
herring to mislead investigators?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Yeah, and it's a question that has haunted this
case from the outset.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Now remember.
On that Christmas day theRamsey family had just returned
from a holiday dinner withfriends.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
JonBenet fell asleep in the car.
Jon carried her to bed andeverything seemed at least on
the surface.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Normal yeah, it's a normal night, Like a normal
Christmas night exactly.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
But then the next morning Patsy Ramsey finds this
bizarre ransom note andeverything changes.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
She immediately calls 911.
And you can hear the raw panicin her voice.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
It's hard to even imagine the sheer terror of
waking up to find your childmissing in a note like that.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Oh, absolutely, yeah, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
And, unfortunately, amidst the chaos and fear,
crucial mistakes were made.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Oh really.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Friends and family arrived at the house before the
police even got there.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Contaminating the crime scene.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
So they're just walking through like not even
thinking, oh my God.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So valuable evidence could have been compromised in
those early hours.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Wow, that's so interesting because you would
think you would think yeah.
That.
That would be like the firstthing.
I know that they would sayNobody else, come in, right, oh
my?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
gosh, yeah, and it gets even worse.
Oh no, the police didn'tinitially seal off the entire
house, what?
And John Ramsey, along with afamily friend, conducted their
own search, ultimately findingJonBenet's body in the basement.
Oh my gosh yeah.
He even moved her body beforethe police could properly
(02:54):
process the scene.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Oh my.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It's impossible to overstate how those early
missteps potentially hinderedthe investigation.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
From the very beginning.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
We can speculate all day about what might have been
found, but the reality is theintegrity of the crime scene was
compromised.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Wow, it's heartbreaking to think about how
those missteps might haveimpacted the search for the
truth.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
It is yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
So, with a contaminated crime scene and
this perplexing ransom note,what did the autopsy reveal
about how John Bonnet died?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Well, the autopsy findings were disturbing, to say
the least.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
OK.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
John Bonnet died from strangulation.
Ok, not just any strangulation,though a garrote was used.
A garrote, wow.
And this detail is particularlychilling because it speaks to a
level of premeditation andbrutality.
Right, it wasn't a spontaneousact.
Yeah, the garrote itself wasfashioned from a piece of cord
and a part of a paintbrush.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
A paintbrush that belonged to Patsy Ramsey.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Oh my gosh, okay, so that detail always sends chills,
down my spine.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
What are the forensic implications of a garrote being
used?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Well garrote, especially when constructed like
this, suggests a more personal,even intimate, attack.
It requires the assailant to beclose to the victim, exerting
control and force.
Wow, and the fact that thepaintbrush belonged to Patsy
adds another layer of complexityto the case, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (04:18):
It certainly does.
It's almost too coincidental.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
And then there's that detail about the pineapple
found in JonBenet's stomach.
Oh yeah, this seeminglyinsignificant detail has
actually sparked quite a bit ofdebate over the years, hasn't it
?
Speaker 2 (04:31):
It has.
Yeah, the Ramseys claimed theyhadn't given her any pineapple
that night.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
However, a bowl of pineapple was later found in the
kitchen with both Patsy andBurke's fingerprints on it.
Oh wow, so was JonBenet givenpineapple before bed,
contradicting her parents'statements.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Or did someone else feed it to her, and if so, why?
Speaker 1 (04:54):
It's a strange detail that seems to raise more
questions than it answers.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Did the pineapple have any significance in the
investigation?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Was it ever determined how it ended up in
Jean Benet's system?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
That's where things get interesting, while the
pineapple was never definitivelylinked to the crime itself.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
It added fuel to the fire of suspicion surrounding
the family.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Some theorists believe it could have been a way
to pacify Jean Benet.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Or perhaps even a form of punishment.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So with the contaminated crime scene, the
unusual ransom note, the Grottemade with Patsy's paintbrush and
the mysterious pineapple.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
It's a lot to take in .
Speaker 1 (05:30):
It's no wonder that investigators started
considering two primary theories.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
The intruder theory and the family theory.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Right, and the evidence supporting each theory
is both compelling andcontradictory.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Let's start with the intruder theory, which on the
surface seems pretty plausible.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Okay, you know yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, there was that open basement window, a suitcase
seemingly used as a step toexit and a boot print that
didn't belong to anyone in thefamily.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
So you know, it paints a picture of someone
breaking in, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (06:00):
It does.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And let's not forget the unidentified mailed DNA
found on John Benet's clothing,a detail that initially seemed
to exonerate the family.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yeah, that DNA evidence seemed like a major
breakthrough at the time.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
What can you tell us about that?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Well, in 2008, a new technology called touch DNA
testing was used to re-examinethe evidence.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
This technique can analyze DNA profiles from just a
few skin cells Wow, left behindwhen someone touches something.
Okay, they were able to isolatea male DNA profile from the
waistband of Jeanne Benet's longjohns, and it matched the
unidentified DNA found on herunderwear years earlier.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Wow, so two separate pieces of clothing had the same
unidentified male DNA.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
It seems like a pretty strong indication that
someone other than a familymember was involved, right.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
It certainly seemed that way.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
In fact, this discovery led to the official
exoneration of the entire Ramseyfamily.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
By then District Attorney Mary Lacey.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
You know it must have been an immense relief for them
after years of being undersuspicion.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
It's hard to even fathom the weight of that
suspicion.
But then in 2013, a shockingrevelation came to light about
the grand jury's decision backin 1999.
It turns out the public wasn'tgetting the full story.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
What really happened behind closed doors?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Well, investigative reporter Charlie Brennan
uncovered the truth.
The grand jury had actuallyvoted to indict John and Patsy
Ramsey.
What they faced?
Charges of child abuseresulting in death and accessory
to first degree murder.
Wow, it was a bombshell.
That completely contradictedthe later DNA exoneration.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
That's incredible.
Why would the grand jury indictthem if there was DNA evidence
pointing to an intruder Right,and why wasn't this information
made public sooner?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Well, it seems the grand jury believed the Ramseys
were somehow involved, butperhaps there wasn't enough
evidence to pinpoint exactlywhat happened.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They may have suspected the parents were
covering for someone else, maybeeven unintentionally.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
OK.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
As for why the indictment was kept secret, that
decision lies with the districtattorney at the time, Alex
Hunter.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
He chose not to prosecute, even though the grand
jury had voted to indict.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
That's right, and it's highly unusual for a
district attorney to go againsta grand jury's recommendation,
and Hunter never publiclyexplained his reasoning.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Go against a grand jury's recommendation and Hunter
never publicly explained hisreasoning.
So we have a family officiallycleared by DNA evidence, yet
indicted by a grand jury.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
It's locked.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
It's a mind-boggling contradiction, yeah.
What does it tell us about thecomplexities of this case and
the limitations of the justicesystem?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Well, it highlights the fact that evidence, even
seemingly conclusive DNAevidence, doesn't always tell
the whole story.
There's often context,interpretation and human
judgment involved.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
In this case, the grand jury clearly saw something
that led them to believe theRamseys were culpable in some
way, even if they couldn't proveit beyond a reasonable doubt
yeah.
And then we have the districtattorney's decision not to
prosecute, adding another layerof ambiguity.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Was he convinced of their innocence?
Did he believe a convictionwouldn't hold up in court?
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
We're left with more questions than answers.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
It's like peeling back layers of an onion only to
find another onion underneath.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Where does the case stand today, 27 years later?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Are there any active leads or new developments?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
The case is officially still open and there
have been ongoing efforts tofind answers.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
John Ramsey has been a vocal advocate for continuing
the investigation, pushing formore advanced DNA testing and
hoping that new technology mightreveal the identity of the
killer.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There have been incredible advancements in DNA
technology in recent years.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Could that be the key to finally cracking this case?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
There's always that possibility.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Yeah, in 2022,.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
The Boulder Police Department announced that the
Colorado Cold Case Review Teamwould be assisting with the
investigation, bringing fresheyes and expertise to the
evidence.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
They've been digitizing files, analyzing old
tips and re-interviewingindividuals.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Combined with advancements in forensic science
like genetic genealogy, there'srenewed hope that a
breakthrough might be possible.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
So even after all this time, there's still a
chance we might get some answersRight.
But, as we've seen, the passageof time also brings its own set
of challenges.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Absolutely.
Memories fade, witnesses becomeharder to locate and evidence
can deteriorate.
It's a race against time andit's unclear what, if anything,
the future holds for theJonBenet Ramsey case.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What stands out to you as the most puzzling aspect
of this case?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
You know, honestly, it's just the sheer volume of
information, yet the lack of adefinitive answer that gets me.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Thousands of tips, hundreds of interviews, dna
evidence, yeah, and yet we stilldon't know for sure who killed
JonBenet.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It's like having all the pieces of a puzzle but no
picture to guide us.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
It really speaks to the complexity of this case.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And how.
Even the smallest misstep inthose early stages of an
investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Can have ripple effects for years to come.
We see that with thecontaminated crime scene.
It casts a shadow of doubt overeverything that followed.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It makes you wonder what might have been uncovered
if the scene had been preservedfrom the start.
And then there's the ransomnote, three pages long, written
on a pad, from the housedemanding that oddly specific
amount of money.
It's just so strange.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
The ransom note is perhaps the most analyzed
document in this entire case.
Was it a genuine attempt atextortion or a carefully staged
diversion?
Yeah, some experts believe thelength and the theatricality of
the note point to someone tryingto deliberately mislead
investigators.
Okay, it's a detail thatcontinues to fuel debate, even
(11:39):
today.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
And what about the grand jury's decision to indict
the Ramseys, even though theywere later cleared by DNA
evidence Right?
That has always struck me as amajor contradiction.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
It's a perplexing twist, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
It suggests that the grand jury saw something in the
evidence, something beyond theDNA, that led them to believe
the Ramseys were somehowculpable, right?
Maybe they felt the parentswere withholding information or
unintentionally covering forsomeone, right?
We may never know the fullreasoning behind their decision,
especially since the districtattorney ultimately chose not to
pursue the charges.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
It's almost as if the case presents us with these two
competing narratives One pointstowards an intruder, while the
other suggests some level offamily involvement.
After all these years, is iteven possible to reconcile those
narratives and find the truth?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
Yeah?
While advancements in DNAtechnology offer a glimmer of
hope, the passage of time canmake it incredibly difficult to
connect the dots Right.
Memories fade, witnessesdisappear and crucial evidence
may be lost or degraded beyondrepair.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
It's a frustrating reality, but I suppose it's a
reminder that some mysteries mayremain unsolved.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Despite our best efforts.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
But, as we've seen in other cold cases, sometimes a
single new piece of evidence.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
A fresh perspective or a breakthrough in technology
can crack a case wide open.
Totally so.
There's always a chance,however slim, that we may yet
learn the truth about whathappened to JonBenet Ramsey.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
I certainly hope so.
This case has captivated thepublic imagination for decades
and there's a collective desirefor closure, I think, not just
for the family, but for everyonewho has been drawn into this
enduring mystery.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
What do you think it is about this case that
continues to fascinate us afterall these years?
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Well, it's a case that touches on so many
universal themes the loss ofinnocence, the fragility of
family, the search for justice.
John Bonnet's story sadlyreminds us that even in
seemingly safe and idyllicsettings, darkness can lurk.
It forces us to confront theunsettling reality that
sometimes there are no easyanswers.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Well said, this deep dive has been a fascinating, if
somewhat unsettling, explorationof one of America's most
enduring mysteries.
Thank you for guiding usthrough the twists and turns of
this complex case.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Of course it was my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
And to you listening.
We encourage you to continueexploring.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Read the sources, consider the evidence and form
your own conclusions.
You might find yourselfcaptivated by the details,
questioning long-heldassumptions and perhaps even
uncovering new insights thathaven't been considered before
Absolutely Exactly.
After all, that's what the DeepDive is all about encouraging
curiosity, critical thinking anda deeper understanding of the
world around us.
Thanks for joining us on thisjourney.
(14:24):
We'll be back soon with anotherintriguing topic.
Until then, stay curious.
All right, so let's dive into one of the most, I
think, just perplexing coldcases, I think, in American
history.
Oh yeah, the murder of JonBenetRamsey.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
It's been 27 years since the six-year-old beauty
queen was found dead in her homein Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
And it just the mystery, I think, continues to
fascinate and frustrate all ofus Absolutely.
And it just the mystery, Ithink continues to fascinate and
frustrate all of us andabsolutely.
You know, for this deep diveyou've shared news articles,
official statements and evenexcerpts from a true crime
museum's website.
It's crazy.
There's just thousands of tipsand interviews and DNA samples.
It's a lot to sift through.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
What I'm really curious about is after all this
time and with all thisinformation, can we get any
closer to understanding whattruly happened?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
that.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Christmas in 1996?
.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, I think what's fascinating about this case,
even for those who are familiarwith kind of just the basic
facts, is the psychologicalaspect.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Take the ransom note, for instance.
Okay, three pages long, writtenon a pad from the house
demanding the exact amount ofJohn Ramsey's bonus.
Right, it's almost theatrical,wouldn't you say?
Speaker 1 (01:06):
It's very theatrical.
Yeah, it's like something outof a movie script.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
And that detail always makes me wonder was it a
genuine attempt at extortionRight or a deliberate red
herring to mislead investigators?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Yeah, and it's a question that has haunted this
case from the outset.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Now remember.
On that Christmas day theRamsey family had just returned
from a holiday dinner withfriends.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
JonBenet fell asleep in the car.
Jon carried her to bed andeverything seemed at least on
the surface.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Normal yeah, it's a normal night, Like a normal
Christmas night exactly.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
But then the next morning Patsy Ramsey finds this
bizarre ransom note andeverything changes.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
She immediately calls 911.
And you can hear the raw panicin her voice.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
It's hard to even imagine the sheer terror of
waking up to find your childmissing in a note like that.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Oh, absolutely, yeah, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
And, unfortunately, amidst the chaos and fear,
crucial mistakes were made.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Oh really.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Friends and family arrived at the house before the
police even got there.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Contaminating the crime scene.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
So they're just walking through like not even
thinking, oh my God.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So valuable evidence could have been compromised in
those early hours.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Wow, that's so interesting because you would
think you would think yeah.
That.
That would be like the firstthing.
I know that they would sayNobody else, come in, right, oh
my?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
gosh, yeah, and it gets even worse.
Oh no, the police didn'tinitially seal off the entire
house, what?
And John Ramsey, along with afamily friend, conducted their
own search, ultimately findingJonBenet's body in the basement.
Oh my gosh yeah.
He even moved her body beforethe police could properly
(02:54):
process the scene.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Oh my.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
It's impossible to overstate how those early
missteps potentially hinderedthe investigation.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
From the very beginning.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
We can speculate all day about what might have been
found, but the reality is theintegrity of the crime scene was
compromised.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Wow, it's heartbreaking to think about how
those missteps might haveimpacted the search for the
truth.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
It is yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
So, with a contaminated crime scene and
this perplexing ransom note,what did the autopsy reveal
about how John Bonnet died?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Well, the autopsy findings were disturbing, to say
the least.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
OK.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
John Bonnet died from strangulation.
Ok, not just any strangulation,though a garrote was used.
A garrote, wow.
And this detail is particularlychilling because it speaks to a
level of premeditation andbrutality.
Right, it wasn't a spontaneousact.
Yeah, the garrote itself wasfashioned from a piece of cord
and a part of a paintbrush.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
A paintbrush that belonged to Patsy Ramsey.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Oh my gosh, okay, so that detail always sends chills,
down my spine.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
What are the forensic implications of a garrote being
used?
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Well garrote, especially when constructed like
this, suggests a more personal,even intimate, attack.
It requires the assailant to beclose to the victim, exerting
control and force.
Wow, and the fact that thepaintbrush belonged to Patsy
adds another layer of complexityto the case, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (04:18):
It certainly does.
It's almost too coincidental.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
And then there's that detail about the pineapple
found in JonBenet's stomach.
Oh yeah, this seeminglyinsignificant detail has
actually sparked quite a bit ofdebate over the years, hasn't it
?
Speaker 2 (04:31):
It has.
Yeah, the Ramseys claimed theyhadn't given her any pineapple
that night.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
However, a bowl of pineapple was later found in the
kitchen with both Patsy andBurke's fingerprints on it.
Oh wow, so was JonBenet givenpineapple before bed,
contradicting her parents'statements.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Or did someone else feed it to her, and if so, why?
Speaker 1 (04:54):
It's a strange detail that seems to raise more
questions than it answers.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Did the pineapple have any significance in the
investigation?
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Was it ever determined how it ended up in
Jean Benet's system?
Speaker 2 (05:05):
That's where things get interesting, while the
pineapple was never definitivelylinked to the crime itself.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
It added fuel to the fire of suspicion surrounding
the family.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Some theorists believe it could have been a way
to pacify Jean Benet.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Or perhaps even a form of punishment.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
So with the contaminated crime scene, the
unusual ransom note, the Grottemade with Patsy's paintbrush and
the mysterious pineapple.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
It's a lot to take in .
Speaker 1 (05:30):
It's no wonder that investigators started
considering two primary theories.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
The intruder theory and the family theory.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Right, and the evidence supporting each theory
is both compelling andcontradictory.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Let's start with the intruder theory, which on the
surface seems pretty plausible.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Okay, you know yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, there was that open basement window, a suitcase
seemingly used as a step toexit and a boot print that
didn't belong to anyone in thefamily.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
So you know, it paints a picture of someone
breaking in, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (06:00):
It does.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And let's not forget the unidentified mailed DNA
found on John Benet's clothing,a detail that initially seemed
to exonerate the family.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yeah, that DNA evidence seemed like a major
breakthrough at the time.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
What can you tell us about that?
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Well, in 2008, a new technology called touch DNA
testing was used to re-examinethe evidence.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
This technique can analyze DNA profiles from just a
few skin cells Wow, left behindwhen someone touches something.
Okay, they were able to isolatea male DNA profile from the
waistband of Jeanne Benet's longjohns, and it matched the
unidentified DNA found on herunderwear years earlier.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Wow, so two separate pieces of clothing had the same
unidentified male DNA.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
It seems like a pretty strong indication that
someone other than a familymember was involved, right.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
It certainly seemed that way.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
In fact, this discovery led to the official
exoneration of the entire Ramseyfamily.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
By then District Attorney Mary Lacey.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
You know it must have been an immense relief for them
after years of being undersuspicion.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
It's hard to even fathom the weight of that
suspicion.
But then in 2013, a shockingrevelation came to light about
the grand jury's decision backin 1999.
It turns out the public wasn'tgetting the full story.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
What really happened behind closed doors?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Well, investigative reporter Charlie Brennan
uncovered the truth.
The grand jury had actuallyvoted to indict John and Patsy
Ramsey.
What they faced?
Charges of child abuseresulting in death and accessory
to first degree murder.
Wow, it was a bombshell.
That completely contradictedthe later DNA exoneration.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
That's incredible.
Why would the grand jury indictthem if there was DNA evidence
pointing to an intruder Right,and why wasn't this information
made public sooner?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Well, it seems the grand jury believed the Ramseys
were somehow involved, butperhaps there wasn't enough
evidence to pinpoint exactlywhat happened.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
They may have suspected the parents were
covering for someone else, maybeeven unintentionally.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
OK.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
As for why the indictment was kept secret, that
decision lies with the districtattorney at the time, Alex
Hunter.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
He chose not to prosecute, even though the grand
jury had voted to indict.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
That's right, and it's highly unusual for a
district attorney to go againsta grand jury's recommendation,
and Hunter never publiclyexplained his reasoning.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Go against a grand jury's recommendation and Hunter
never publicly explained hisreasoning.
So we have a family officiallycleared by DNA evidence, yet
indicted by a grand jury.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
It's locked.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
It's a mind-boggling contradiction, yeah.
What does it tell us about thecomplexities of this case and
the limitations of the justicesystem?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Well, it highlights the fact that evidence, even
seemingly conclusive DNAevidence, doesn't always tell
the whole story.
There's often context,interpretation and human
judgment involved.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
In this case, the grand jury clearly saw something
that led them to believe theRamseys were culpable in some
way, even if they couldn't proveit beyond a reasonable doubt
yeah.
And then we have the districtattorney's decision not to
prosecute, adding another layerof ambiguity.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Was he convinced of their innocence?
Did he believe a convictionwouldn't hold up in court?
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
We're left with more questions than answers.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
It's like peeling back layers of an onion only to
find another onion underneath.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Where does the case stand today, 27 years later?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Are there any active leads or new developments?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
The case is officially still open and there
have been ongoing efforts tofind answers.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
John Ramsey has been a vocal advocate for continuing
the investigation, pushing formore advanced DNA testing and
hoping that new technology mightreveal the identity of the
killer.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There have been incredible advancements in DNA
technology in recent years.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Could that be the key to finally cracking this case?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
There's always that possibility.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Yeah, in 2022,.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
The Boulder Police Department announced that the
Colorado Cold Case Review Teamwould be assisting with the
investigation, bringing fresheyes and expertise to the
evidence.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
They've been digitizing files, analyzing old
tips and re-interviewingindividuals.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Combined with advancements in forensic science
like genetic genealogy, there'srenewed hope that a
breakthrough might be possible.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
So even after all this time, there's still a
chance we might get some answersRight.
But, as we've seen, the passageof time also brings its own set
of challenges.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Absolutely.
Memories fade, witnesses becomeharder to locate and evidence
can deteriorate.
It's a race against time andit's unclear what, if anything,
the future holds for theJonBenet Ramsey case.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What stands out to you as the most puzzling aspect
of this case?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
You know, honestly, it's just the sheer volume of
information, yet the lack of adefinitive answer that gets me.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Thousands of tips, hundreds of interviews, dna
evidence, yeah, and yet we stilldon't know for sure who killed
JonBenet.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It's like having all the pieces of a puzzle but no
picture to guide us.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
It really speaks to the complexity of this case.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
And how.
Even the smallest misstep inthose early stages of an
investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Can have ripple effects for years to come.
We see that with thecontaminated crime scene.
It casts a shadow of doubt overeverything that followed.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
It makes you wonder what might have been uncovered
if the scene had been preservedfrom the start.
And then there's the ransomnote, three pages long, written
on a pad, from the housedemanding that oddly specific
amount of money.
It's just so strange.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
The ransom note is perhaps the most analyzed
document in this entire case.
Was it a genuine attempt atextortion or a carefully staged
diversion?
Yeah, some experts believe thelength and the theatricality of
the note point to someone tryingto deliberately mislead
investigators.
Okay, it's a detail thatcontinues to fuel debate, even
(11:39):
today.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
And what about the grand jury's decision to indict
the Ramseys, even though theywere later cleared by DNA
evidence Right?
That has always struck me as amajor contradiction.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
It's a perplexing twist, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
It suggests that the grand jury saw something in the
evidence, something beyond theDNA, that led them to believe
the Ramseys were somehowculpable, right?
Maybe they felt the parentswere withholding information or
unintentionally covering forsomeone, right?
We may never know the fullreasoning behind their decision,
especially since the districtattorney ultimately chose not to
pursue the charges.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
It's almost as if the case presents us with these two
competing narratives One pointstowards an intruder, while the
other suggests some level offamily involvement.
After all these years, is iteven possible to reconcile those
narratives and find the truth?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
Yeah?
While advancements in DNAtechnology offer a glimmer of
hope, the passage of time canmake it incredibly difficult to
connect the dots Right.
Memories fade, witnessesdisappear and crucial evidence
may be lost or degraded beyondrepair.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
It's a frustrating reality, but I suppose it's a
reminder that some mysteries mayremain unsolved.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Right.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
Despite our best efforts.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
But, as we've seen in other cold cases, sometimes a
single new piece of evidence.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
A fresh perspective or a breakthrough in technology
can crack a case wide open.
Totally so.
There's always a chance,however slim, that we may yet
learn the truth about whathappened to JonBenet Ramsey.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
I certainly hope so.
This case has captivated thepublic imagination for decades
and there's a collective desirefor closure, I think, not just
for the family, but for everyonewho has been drawn into this
enduring mystery.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
What do you think it is about this case that
continues to fascinate us afterall these years?
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Well, it's a case that touches on so many
universal themes the loss ofinnocence, the fragility of
family, the search for justice.
John Bonnet's story sadlyreminds us that even in
seemingly safe and idyllicsettings, darkness can lurk.
It forces us to confront theunsettling reality that
sometimes there are no easyanswers.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Well said, this deep dive has been a fascinating, if
somewhat unsettling, explorationof one of America's most
enduring mysteries.
Thank you for guiding usthrough the twists and turns of
this complex case.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Of course it was my pleasure.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
And to you listening.
We encourage you to continueexploring.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Read the sources, consider the evidence and form
your own conclusions.
You might find yourselfcaptivated by the details,
questioning long-heldassumptions and perhaps even
uncovering new insights thathaven't been considered before
Absolutely Exactly.
After all, that's what the DeepDive is all about encouraging
curiosity, critical thinking anda deeper understanding of the
world around us.
Thanks for joining us on thisjourney.
(14:24):
We'll be back soon with anotherintriguing topic.
Until then, stay curious.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com