Crime Weekly - S1 Ep7: The Murder of JonBenét Ramsey (Part II)

Episode Date: January 15, 2021

It was December 26th, 1996 in Boulder Colorado. Boulder had seen a great deal of snow fall the previous week, but by the morning of the 26th, only a trace of it remained, just a small dusting that would most likely disappear as the sun rose. In an upper class Boulder neighborhood, the occupants of stately, million dollar homes were still slumbering peacefully, getting in their last moments of sleep before the day after Christmas chaos began, the cleaning up and getting back into the everyday routine.  But inside 749 15th St, the home of the Ramsey family, it was a much different scene. At 5:52 AM, 911 operator Kim Archueletta received a phone call from a frantic mother claiming she had woken up to a ransom note, and her six year old daughter missing from her bed. But JonBenét Ramsey had not been taken, she was not missing from her home, she had been there the whole time, and the events that would follow would lead to one of the most tragic mysteries the true crime world has ever known, a case that has often been referred to as the largest unsolved crime in America. We continue our deep dive...  Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

With McValue at McDonald's, you don't just get deals on the drinks. You get deals on McDonald's drinks. So when you're breaking a sweat, embrace the chill without breaking the bank. And when your crew is running on empty, keep your wallet full while refreshing the squad. Ace the vibe check with drinks like lemonade, frozen Fanta Blue Raspberry, or any size drink for just $1.49. Limited time only, price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Ba-da-ba by i-D. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur.

On this podcast, we do talk about difficult subjects. We're talking about real crimes and real people. And due to the graphic nature of some of this content, listener discretion is advised. Hey guys, welcome to Crime Weekly, part two of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Part one was, I believe, approximately an hour and 40 minutes. We covered a lot, but we really only scratched the surface. Is that fair to say, Stephanie? Yeah, I'm trying to even get a recap of what we talked about. We talked about the day of, we talked about sort of the day before we talked about, um, we talked a lot about John and Patsy, how they came to have this family, kind of who they were in the community of Boulder, who they were in general.

Right. Do you want to just go over a quick, like 35,000 feet chronological layout and catch up to where we are right now? Is that a thing? 35,000 feet chronological? Yeah, like an overview. Yeah, you never heard that phrase before? Never. Where's it come from? I don't know, but I've definitely heard it before. Maybe it's a TV thing. Definitely heard it. A 35,000 feet perspective. It's a thing, I promise. It was like 360 sort of. Yeah, 360 kind of. But this is overlooking everything,

then everything around you. We're on top looking down. 35,000 feet is about the size of the Ramsey's house. I'm just kidding. It was only 7,000 feet. So start off, because I mentioned it in passing at the last episode, because a lot of people harp on this. There was a call, a 911 hang up on December 23rd that came from the Ramsey home. It was concluded by the Boulder police that it was a, it was just a 911 hangup by someone who was attending a Christmas party there. So that brings us up to, you know, the day after Christmas, police dispatchers receive a call 5.52 in the morning from Patsy Ramsey stating that her daughter, JonBenet Ramsey had been kidnapped. Yes. Yes. She'd been kidnapped as she found a, what, three-page ransom letter on the spiral staircase.

Yep. Finds a three-page letter. Police respond. They do a quick search. They allegedly searched the whole house. They don't find anything. And in the meantime, Jon Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey are having friends and acquaintances and people that belong to their

church, I believe, come to the residence to give them, I guess, emotional support as the search is going on, right? Yeah. As the search is going on, as the waiting for the call to come in that the ransom letter said was going to come in, everybody was kind of sitting there waiting for this. Yep. And Detective Linda Arndt is on scene while this is all happening. At one point, according to Detective Arndt, she decides to try and keep them occupied. There was a lot of individuals at this residence. From what I was seeing was approximately 18 people. So 18 people and this one detective was in charge of

keeping them all in a certain area and keeping an eye on them. So at people and this one detective was in charge of keeping them all in a certain area and keeping an eye on them. So at one point she decides to try to keep them occupied. So she goes to Fleet, who then goes to John and says, listen, I want you guys to search the house again. Search it from top to bottom and see if we come up with anything. Maybe there's a clue. Maybe there's something. Not expecting that they're going to find JonBenet. Because she thought the house had already been searched by a police officer before. Do you want to touch on that? How the initial responding police officer did search the house and did go in the basement?

Yep. And I know when we give our conclusions or our opinions on this case and we're not going to solve it, but just our opinions on the totality of the case, that is one thing that I'm definitely going to bring up again. But you can't pinpoint this case or any case really on one thing usually. And in this case, there was a lot of mistakes. the entire outcome is the fact that police officers responded to this address. They searched the premises and did not search the wine cellar door. They did not open that door. And you and I were talking off air, if you want to call it that. And you had said that they said, oh, we thought it was locked. But imagine if at that point, the police officer goes down the stairs in a different dimension and opens that door and finds JonBenet. If they were doing their job at that point, they would have said, hey, nobody enter that

room, tape it off, everyone out of the house. And nobody ever goes in that room. Nobody ever moves JonBenet. And you and I probably aren't even talking about this case at that point. Or imagine in a different dimension where the police officer actually did his job and cleared the house appropriately. And then if he hadn't cleared the house appropriately, JonBenet's killer, if that's what was going on, JonBenet's killer could have still been hiding in that house and he could have come out and killed a bunch more people that were just sitting in the house waiting.

So it could have been worse. It could have been better, but I guess it could have been worse. Yep. We talked about this with Joel Guy, same thing. It's very similar. And at the time as a police officer, as a patrolman myself, at one point, you may go into the house thinking it's not that important. I'm going to do a quick passing and it's fine. Not realizing the significance of what you're doing at that moment and how, let's just face it, how detrimental it ended up being to this case. So that being said, she sends them on a little mission to go search the house. John immediately goes to the basement and within a few minutes, he yells up to Fleet. And before you know it, they're saying they found JonBenet. And Jon Ramsey himself is coming up from the basement with JonBenet in his arms.

Yes. And he places her on the floor of the entry hallway right in front of the front door at Linda's behest. She tells him to place JonBenet there. Yep. And there's that thing we talked about with the interview where Linda describes the interaction between her and John in that moment, how she was counting rounds in her gun. Again, this is her opinion, but how she was in fear of her life based on what she was computing

in her own mind about what had happened to John Bonet. At one point, John Bonet is moved to the living room, we'll call it, where the Christmas tree is. She's placed near the Christmas tree. John grabs a throw blanket. And as he's asking, this is, again, according to Linda, as he's asking her if he can cover her, he's already doing it. Right. So that's obviously tainting her body even more than bringing her up the stairs and moving her throughout the house. So you get a lot of contamination issues right there, chain of custody issues right off the jump as far as who has now had custody, who has now been in possession of this piece of evidence, which unfortunately is John Bonet's body at this point.

And then you have, you know, Linda told John, you can say goodbye to her, but you can't move the blanket. You can't touch her hands. You know, there's certain things you can't do, but you can say goodbye to her. And then Patsy comes in, of course. And, you know, this is a very upset mother and she sort of places her own body on top of Jean Benet's. So this is more contamination. But I think we were talking off air last week about this and you said, it's just Linda there with all the Ramseys and all their friends. What is she going to do? What is she going to say to these grieving parents? You can't touch your daughter. You can't hug her. You can't hold her. There wasn't much she could have done in that moment.

She should have had other police officers there to help her secure the scene and help her get everybody sort of under control. Because typically in a normal crime scene, you wouldn't really allow the parents to do that, would you? No, you wouldn't. And as we go forward in these cases, I'm always going to try to bring the element of identifying what the police officers are not saying, because that's what we do a lot of the times in these press conferences and in these interviews later. And as a police officer myself, I'd like to think I can interpret law enforcement lingo. And when I was watching the interview with Linda and she got to the point of talking about

her being on scene alone and calling for backup and them saying they were in a meeting at the station, what I gathered from that, because I've been in situations, not exact, but similar where the people in charge, the sergeants, lieutenants, whoever's in charge at the station is having their morning meetings about community policing or whatever. And they're thinking this kidnapping is going to turn out to be just a kid hiding in a closet, they're not taking it serious while Detective Arndt is on scene realizing something's off here. And I could tell by the way she was saying it, she felt like, hey, if there had been three or four more detectives on scene, half of this stuff wouldn't even have happened. Yeah, it wasn't right. Wish I could have changed it. But if they had taken it seriously, I got there at 8 a.m. Nobody else showed up till much later in the morning. And if they had been there when they were supposed to,

instead of in their morning meetings, they could have kept eyes on other people and maybe went along with John and Flea as they went throughout the house and accompanied them and were witnesses when he found her for the first time. But they weren't. And Linda stayed in the main portion of the house, let them go off and what unfolded unfolded. But that's definitely something I took away from what Linda didn't say, which was she has a lot of resentment about the fact that she's gotten a lot of scrutiny over this case. But essentially in her opinion, she was left out to dry. She was left in a situation where it was a lose-lose, 18 people with one detective. I think there was a bunch of other police officers there before, and then they left

to go meet with the FBI, and that's when they left her alone. Correct. After the ransom call never came. That's when they left. They left. And somebody with 18 people, and again, she was calling, again, in this interview, she was calling back at the station saying, where are you guys? So you are correct. That meeting wasn't only morning meetings. It was probably to speak with

the FBI, but you know, too many chiefs, not enough Indians is what I'd like to say. You know what I mean? There should have been more. Bob Whitson, I think he said that, uh, there was not a lot of people there. They were understaffed because it was Christmas and a lot of people had taken off. And I mean, once again, we're talking about Boulder, like, like what we talked about, there's not a lot of murders. It's not like a murder happens every single day. So they probably didn't think that they were going to need a bunch of people on typically they didn't. So there was probably not a lot of police officers to be had. Nope. So, so, you know, that's, that's the takeaway I got from her. So now they're, you know, they're praying over her body. There's multiple people there. There's a lot of moving parts. And we're now at a point where it's turned

from a kidnapping to a murder. And at that point, all hands are on deck and obviously, uh, law enforcement, you know, detectives, everyone's responding, including the FBI, as you just mentioned. So it's, uh, now it's ramping up a notch, but here's the issue. For some investigators, they're already starting to develop an opinion on what happened. And that's where this whole story really gets started and starts to take multiple directions and really changes the whole course of this case. Yeah. And I think in this part, what we should do is start off with the autopsy. I agree. So we've kind of caught you guys up where we're going to get into the elements of what happened as far as Patsy and John,

but we want to really dissect some of the specifics of this case, the science from this case, because it will play into our opinions later. So instead of just kind of glancing over it, I agree with you. Let's break it down, you know, the autopsy, the crime scene, and then we'll get into, you know, potential suspects and all that good stuff. But first, let's talk about ID special on Jean Benet, which has just recently come out of Discovery Plus. Absolutely. You know, I think it's, you know, obviously we're covering this as in-depth as we can. You know, we want to make sure we get all the facts right. And it's always good to, you know, second guess your work and what better way to do it than to, you know, go look at our partner's work and see what they did. So have you had a chance yet to watch ID's

new special, John Bonet Ramsey? What really happened? Yep. I have already watched the special. Very good, very different perspective than you're going to get from a lot of the specials that have already been out there. Yeah, absolutely. I found it very interesting. I love that I'm hearing new things that I've never heard before. This one is completely different. This is from Detective Lou Smith. He was working for the DA's office at the time, and his opinion on what happened is very different than the opinion of Boulder detectives. Yeah, it's definitely been helpful to me in doing my research for this podcast. And I like that we heard firsthand accounts from those closest to the case, including John Bonet's father, John Ramsey. Yeah, there's a lot in there and viewers will be drawn into this. There's a lot of pieces of evidence that they may not remember that they'll

be shocked by because it really does tie into the whole question being asked here, which is what really happened to this little girl? You know, we're still sitting here today and no one has a definitive answer. And I think that in and of itself is why people are still drawn to it after all these years. Yeah. And I mean, the fact that her mother, who's now, you know, passed away, has been one of the main suspects in public opinion, at least since this happened. I think it's going to be really interesting to hear what John Ramsey has to say. Yep, absolutely. So guys, if you haven't already, head on over to Discovery Plus and check out JonBenet Ramsey, What Really Happened? All right. So JonBenet's autopsy, it was done on

December 27th, 1996, so the day after. But the pathologist, John E. Meyer, MD, actually went to the address on the 26th at about 8 p.m. So the day that she was found, he gets there. And I think this is pretty common, but you can tell me where the coroner or the medical examiner will actually go to the scene and do an initial exam there. Absolutely. Yes. So he said he initially viewed the body in the living room of the house. That was where she ended up by the Christmas tree. And he said that Jean Benet was laying on her back on the floor. She was covered by a blanket and a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt. He said on removing these two items from the top of the body,

Jean Benet was found to be laying on her back with her arms extended up over her head. And that's because, was it rope and duct tape that was around her wrists or just rope? I believe it was just ligatures around her wrists. It might've been duct tape. I know duct tape was definitely on her mouth, which was removed by John Ramsey before he even came upstairs. Right. Correct. He did take the duct tape off as soon as he saw her body. Which is understandable. Yes. It also says that her head was turned to her right and a brief examination of the body at that point disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature around the right wrist.

Also noted was a small area of abrasion or contusion below the right ear on the lateral aspect of the right cheek. And then there was a prominent dried abrasion present on the lower left neck. And after examining the body, he left the residence at approximately 8, 20 p.m. So he was actually with the body for just roughly 10 minutes. This was just an initial exam. And obviously the actual autopsy, which took place the next day, it gets a little bit more in-depth and gruesome. Right. And just to make sure we cover the on-scene stuff, yes, you are right. In a case like this, the coroner will come out. Some cases, if it's like, you know, we call it basically like, it doesn't appear to be suspicious. We can usually, as a detective, just talk to the

coroner over the phone, give them the download. You know, if there doesn't appear to be suspicious. We can usually, as a detective, just talk to the coroner over the phone, give them the download. If there doesn't appear to be anything out of order, they'll give us the approval to move the body. But in this particular case, just a couple things that you just hit on. First and foremost, there was the ligature on the neck. I was just reading something that states in the autopsy that there was actually, and Lou Smith hit on this as well, there were actually scratch marks near the area of the ligature on the neck. And Lou's interpretation of that and the doctor's interpretation, according to Lou Smith, was that these were indications that someone was trying to get the ligature off the neck.

JonBenet was trying to remove the ligature from her neck. And this would suggest that she was still alive at the time the ligature was applied, which I thought was very fascinating. There's a lot of other things as well. The ligatures to her wrist in the investigation discovery documentary, John Ramsey's in it. And he actually describes that whole moment when he finds her. And in that moment, he says, I went down there, I removed the tape, and then I actually tried to remove the knots from her wrist, but they were so tight, I couldn't even get them off. So I thought that was fascinating to think about how tight it really had to be. And in that moment when he's feeling that, you have superhuman strength, and he still

couldn't get those ligatures off. So there was the neck and the fact that it was not only a ligature around the neck, but it was a garrot. It was a garrot knot and it had a wooden paintbrush in that garrot knot. I'm sure you're going to hit on that heavily in the autopsy report in a minute. But there was a lot of more detail to how she was found. It wasn't just like there was a shoestring tied around her neck. There was some intricacies to it. And as far as the marks on her neck, I think these are the ones you're referring to, but are these the two dots that you're referring to? The abrasions? The abrasions on the neck? Is that what we're talking about? It's one set of two of these marks that

will be found. Yeah. And the other set has not been found yet, correct. So for anyone who doesn't know, these abrasions on her neck, the best way I could describe them, two small dots, dark colored dots. I would even say almost black. Is that fair to say, Stephanie? To me, they look like something, if you saw a TV show about vampires,

it would look like a vampire bite almost. They're just next to each other. Perfect explanation of it. About maybe an inch, inch and a half apart, right? I mean, I'm guesstimating here. I didn't have a scale on it, but I've seen the photos and I think that kind of covers everything that you can see because that's, like you just said, that's what you can see initially. The garrot knot around the neck, the ligature to the wrist, the tape that was on her mouth. These are the things that are apparent to the eye just by looking at her, which is significant and very important going forward.

So yeah, I'll leave it at that. The other thing about the paintbrush, because it does play into the crime scene, is it's important to note that next to JonBenet's body was, I think they call it a speed tray. And it's basically like where you have access to all your paints and your brushes quickly. And the speed tray was actually right next to JonBenet's body. So whatever happened, whoever the perpetrator was, most likely they pulled that paintbrush handle directly from that speed tray when they decided to do what they decided to do. Yeah, it's awful. And we'll get more in depth into the actual paintbrush. But the external exam, basically, I think the external exam is important because it reminds you that this isn't just a

body. And often in these medical exam reports or these autopsies, they refer to the person, the victim, as the decedent. So somebody who's deceased, somebody who's dead. And we have to remember, this is not, this is a six-year-old girl, a six-year-old girl who was brutally murdered. And I mean, often it's reported that this was not an easy death. This was not a quick or painless death. She was tortured. And this external exam says that Jeanne Benet was wearing a long or painless death. She was tortured. And this external exam says that Jeanne Benet was wearing a long sleeve, white knit, collarless shirt. And on the chest of the shirt, there was this silver star decorated with sequins. So something a little girl would wear. And she is also wearing, you know, white pants, white pants that kind of match the pajamas.

And she was wearing white underwear with printed rosebuds and the words Wednesday, the word Wednesday printed on them. And, you know, that just reminds me that she was a little girl. She had a little silver necklace on with a cross on it. She had a little heart drawn on her palm. I think it was her left hand in red ink, you know, just something little girls do. So this is a little girl we're talking about and tied loosely around her right wrist, overlaying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. And the right sleeve of the shirt also had a dried brown tan stain, which was consistent with mucus from her nose or her mouth. She was wearing white pajama pants, and these white pajama pants were stained with urine in the crotch area and the inner thigh area. And the underwear she was wearing was also

stained with urine, and there was also several red areas of staining found. Now, I'm going to try and describe this garrotte contraption. I've never seen one in person, but it was found around her neck, and it's basically just an apparatus that's used to strangle someone. And if I'm right, Derek, the fact that there was a wrist, there was something tied around her wrist as well as her neck. Is that because those two things were connected? No, I don't believe they were connected. So the best way I can describe the garrotte is imagine a loop and inside that loop, there's a stick, maybe four or five inches. And basically what you can do is put your hand on the stick and twist it. And as you're twisting that stick, it tightens the knot.

It tightens the loop around someone's neck. So you slide it over their head and then you twist it a few times. And as you're twisting it, it's a strangling device. That's what a garrotte is for. So it's very simple to understand. Just imagine you have a loop around someone's neck, the sticks behind the neck, and you can just twist it multiple times. And the more you twist it, the tighter it gets, which from an investigatory standpoint would make sense that there would be some scratching around the ligature in the neck

because as it was being tightened, obviously any person, child or an adult, the natural reaction would be to try to get that ligature off your neck. And that's where you would have the scratching, right? The attempt to get your finger underneath the ligature to pull it away from your neck and be able to breathe again, which is, it's compelling from an investigative standpoint, but it's also really tough to think about because if that's the case, it would make sense that unfortunately, JonBenet was conscious in those moments before she was strangled. And it seems like overkill for a six-year-old little girl, doesn't it? I mean, it depends on what camp you're in and we're going to get to it. But man, my head with

this case has gone so many directions. And it sucks that you and I are close and we talk so much without these microphones on because we've talked about it a lot already because we couldn't help it. And it's like every day my mind changes as far as where I lean because why would you need that? Well, if you're in the camp that believes there was an intruder and this person was going to actually kidnap her and take her somewhere to get paid later, well, if something went wrong and the intruder decided that they were going to have to do whatever they wanted to do

right then and there, that would be a reason to do it, right? That would be a reason to do it if that's what you believe happened. If you're in the school that believes the intruder theory, it would make sense. If you're in the school that believes this was kind of an inside thing and the Ramseys were somehow responsible, it seems a little excessive, right? If you're to believe that this was an accident, that there's something that went wrong, what's the need for the strangulation? If she was initially killed by a blow to the head, which from what I've seen, doctors believe that it crushed her skull. It was an eight and a half inch fracture. So that would have rendered her incapacitated.

So if we're to believe that that was the actual blow that incapacitated her, probably killed her, then she wouldn't be reaching for the ligature because she would have already been dead. So if you believe it was an accident, then the ligature itself seems a little excessive. Why do that if she's already dead or close to dead? So I hear what you're saying, but it all depends on where you fall. That's what's so crazy about this case. Oh, I mean, I was just saying it's overkill regardless, no matter who did this, even if you're an intruder, because she's six, she's a little girl. I think you can, you know, you don't need to do all of that too. She's saying you could use your hands. Yeah. You could use your hands. You could use just a regular rope. You wouldn't need that kind of like power

and force. Like, what do you think you're taking out King Kong over here? You know, that just seems excessive. Um, but on, on the other hand, when you're talking about the blow to the head and wondering whether she was alive or not, she may have gotten the blow to the head and been unconscious when she was being strangled. And those abrasions were made just from pulling up on the rope. That could also be a thing because it was a cord that's going to have fibers and things like that that can make these small, tiny scratching abrasions as you're pulling up if that's how she was choked. So that could be the case.

But yeah, once again, and I mean, when we bring the stun gun into it, that's a whole nother level of overkill for me. But we'll get there. So I want to talk about the rope that made this grot. It was just a white cord similar to the one that had been found around her wrist and one end was tied around a length of round tan brown wooden stick which measured four and a half inches long. The wooden stick was irregularly broken on both sides and there were several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. This was a paintbrush that had been used before. It was found in the Ramsey household, or it was from the Ramsey household. The word Korea was printed in gold on one end, and you could see, well, I couldn't see, but the medical examiner could see blonde hair intertwined in the knots, the knot that would have been nearest to her neck.

Yep, a lot of, actually a substantial amount of hair. I'm looking at the photo right now, guys. And Stephanie, have you seen the photo? Yeah, I flipped through them quickly. You could just use the cord, put it around this little girl's neck and be done with it. But to make this contraption seems a little excessive. And it almost seems like this would be something that would be more of a premeditation, something you would keep on you and have. But obviously these items were taken from the house. Not all the items were though, just the paintbrush. They never said the cord was from the house. They don't know. They said the cord can't be sourced from the house. So not all items were though, just the paintbrush. They'd ever said the cord was from the house. They don't know.

They said the cord can't be sourced to the house. I don't know if I buy. So that's what also is a little confusing because you bring your own cord. Okay. And then you see the paintbrush and you're like, let me take the time to fashion this. I mean, this isn't probably something you could have come already with, unless as we were talking about last week with the letter, somebody had stolen the paintbrush previously, left the house, made this't be surprised if that was a mistake. And that cord was, I'll tell you right now, if you threw a cord on my office floor right now, and you asked me where it was from, I would be like, I don't know. I mean, I have, especially about a 7,000 square foot home. I mean, I'm sure they didn't know every single cord that was in their house. So I, to your point, I have a hard time believing that this, if it was an intruder,

they would bring the cord and then decide, oh, I need a stick to make a garrotte, but I'm not going to bring that. Definitely possible. But the official statement is that that cord was not from the Ramsey house. I hear you. Well, if it was a mistake, it was added to the list. Right. And I mean, what really got to me is John Bonney was wearing a bracelet on her wrist and it said her name on one side and the date, 12-25-96 on the other side. So I don't know. She just literally had gotten that bracelet the day before for Christmas. She was wearing it. I want to keep reminding people as we go along that although we're talking clinically about this, this is a little girl, JonBenet Ramsey, a little girl who lost her life. And you know, it's true. Jean Benet was

strangled. We've talked about that. And that was her ultimate cause of death. But this was not her only injury. The medical examiner also found several other areas where the little girl had been hurt. Located on the right side of her chin was a 3 16ths by one quarter of an inch area of superficial abrasion. Located just below her right ear was a small rust colored abrasion i believe that's the one we were talking about the two small little circles another of these rust colored abrasions was located on her left lower back a deep ligature furrow encircled her entire neck and when i say deep i mean it was incredibly it was incredibly deep it was horrible way way too much for this little girl yeah the photos

the photos uh for the obviously for this i wanted to see him and and i and i did and yeah and it was those photos should never have been released and leaked it's disgusting that they're out there but again it shows how the garrotte would have been effective because i don't know well i'm sure a grown man or even a grown woman could have pulled hard enough to create that, the indentation that was left behind. But the garrotte made it a lot easier. It would take no strength at all because all you would have to do is just twist the paintbrush and it would tighten up. So, yes, it was very deep. Just take our word for it.

You don't need to go look at it yourself. Don't look for it. You don't need to go look at it yourself. Don't look at it. There were also abrasions on her right shoulder, and they were sort of described as almost like a, I don't know, like a dragging abrasion. And Denver prosecutor Sheila Rappaport told the Denver Post that such a pattern to her was indicative of sexual assault, saying that the scrapes on Jeanne Benet's back, shoulder, and leg could be a result of Jeanne Benet laying on her back, helpless and unable to escape from her attacker as she was being sexually assaulted. Sheila Rappaport said, quote, I would assume there was some movement, pressure, or force that would

cause that, especially when we're talking about scraping, end quote. So I don't have to be more specific about that. I think we can all put two and two together. Yeah, no, I agree. I think we hit on it enough. You get the point. And if you don't at this juncture, then you're never gonna. It was painful. I saw an interview with John Ramsey's oldest son, not Burke. I can't remember his name right now. I apologize. I think he is, isn't he? I was going to say John, but I wasn't certain, but I think you might be right. It was a great interview. It was, again, it was in the investigation discovery doc. And he basically said right out, we've come to the reality. You'd like to think it happened quickly, but make no mistake about it, JonBenet suffered. And this is his words. And he got choked up when he was saying it, but he's like,

make no mistake about it. She suffered. She was in a lot of pain before she passed. And we know that now. So that was tough to hear. But I can only imagine as a brother or as a father how that must, I can't imagine how that must feel. Don't want to. Well, it was believed that Jean Benet was first struck on the head with an unknown object. And sometime later, and this timing is disputed. Some people say it was within a half an hour. Some people say it was longer as much as an hour and a half to two hours. But sometime later, she was strangled to death.

I don't want to go too deep into the details of the pelvic exam, but it was concluded that Jeanne Benet had been sexually assaulted before she died. And like I said, many believe the abrasions on her back were from her struggling during the attack. And additionally, there were wooden shards that matched the grot handle found in the vagina of Jeanne Benet. And I'd never heard this before. So I was genuinely surprised and horrified to stumble upon this information. And the autopsy report supports the conclusion that she was alive before she was strangled and that she fought her attacker in some manner. Evidence gathered from the autopsy is consistent with the theory that she struggled to remove the garrote from her neck. And I think

it was even beyond those abrasions. I think they found rope fibers on her hands, but don't quote me on that because I've read so many pages of reports and things, I can't say for sure. And again, let me just put the disclaimer out there. I'm only looking at this case from the documents that are available online and the limited research I've done in the last two weeks about this case, which I will say is extensive, but it's still only two weeks. I wasn't on scene, but I will say, and you started off with this, that, you know, it is believed by a lot of people that she was struck first and strangled second. I am not a doctor, but I've seen the autopsy photos and I've seen her skull. And when I say her skull is split in two, it's split in two.

And many doctors have concluded that if she had been struck while awake in the head and had those injuries, she would be at minimum incapacitated, but more than likely dead from this fracture. And to think that that happened before the strangulation, personally, just from my outside perspective, I think that's a little hard to believe. And my reason for that is I think it would be more likely that in the moment that she's being strangled, the strangulation could have been occurring before she was struck. And maybe, because we're going to get to it, I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves, but there was some indication that there may have been a scream. Maybe it was a

last attempt and that's when she was struck. Again, guys, purely speculation on my part, but I just have a hard time believing that she was struck in the head and then strangled. And as you mentioned, there's evidence that suggests she was coherent and fighting while she was being strangled. I guess the question becomes, would she have the ability to fight as much as she appeared to do so if she had already been struck that significantly? I don't know. I guess it's possible. What do you think? Honestly, I mean, we're not doctors, but it seems like common sense to me. I've seen head injuries. I don't see someone being able to defend themselves after being struck like that. I just don't.

I think it ultimately ended up being the petechial hemorrhaging in her eyes that caused the medical examiner to believe she'd been struck first and then strangled because that's why they said the strangulation was the cause of death. Now, whether she was being strangled first and then she fought and got away and then screamed and then got hit in the head and then got strangled again. I mean, at this point. Possible. And, you know, you mentioned petechial hemorrhaging. Essentially, it's when the blood vessels in your skin or your eyes rupture due to asphyxiation caused by an outside source. So it could be a few different things.

It could be strangulation. It could be a hanging. It could be a variety of things. Yeah, and I mean, it can also be found in smothering cases and petechial hemorrhaging. It doesn't just happen in a murder. It can happen for a variety of reasons, a sickness and illness, even certain medications, people who weight lift sometimes get petechial hemorrhaging. It's just a straining, I believe, like you said, just a

rupturing of the blood vessels. So exactly, exactly, Stephanie, it can be caused by a lot of different things. And so, you know, in this particular case with JonBenet, it appears that she had petechial hemorrhaging to both the eyes and the neck area. But for the context of how we'll be talking about petechial hemorrhaging in this episode and in future episodes, just understand that when you hear the phrase petechial hemorrhaging, it's usually referring to some form of manual asphyxiation. Yeah, we're not going to be talking about all those other issues. So in a true crime podcast, you usually hear about particular hemorrhaging due to some kind of crime or some kind of death. At this point, does it matter which which, you know, kind of sequence of events it was? Because I don't think it would necessarily help solve the crime of who did it. I think it might give some insight into what kind of person did it, which would matter, I think.

But overall, the only person who's ever really going to know exactly what happened and how it felt and how fast it was, how painful it was, is no longer with us. I'm going to say one thing. I'm going out on a limb here and I don't want anyone to take this as a direction of what I think happened, but I will say this. For anyone who's in the camp that thinks Burke did this, I want you to go look at that garage because personally I don't believe He would know how to do that now Maybe I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest he would know What that even is I I would think that if there was we would have heard about it by now But it's pretty intricate when you really think about the contraption. It's simple. It's barbaric

But it's kind of I I would say create it. You know, it's, it's more efficient. I don't see a small boy doing this. I see him doing more like you said, Stephanie, just using the cord as is right. Simple pull back. That's it. Sure. I didn't even know what it was. So for me, if you're in the camp that says, Oh yeah, uh, Burke, Burke did this. Burke did this for sure. I don't think that he would have known what that is or how to do it personally. That sounds like something or looks like something you would see from someone who has more experience in life. enforcement. So, you know, and I got in law enforcement when I was 20 years old. So, you know, seeing these different types of ligatures, I didn't see till later in my career as a police officer where to think, how old was Burke at the time? He was nine, nine-year-old boy to create this contraption to strangle someone. Again, you said it earlier, very excessive, just in general, very excessive, nevermind for a nine-year-old boy.

So just something to point out, guys, because I know there's a lot of our listeners who believe that Burke was somehow involved or John was involved or Patsy. An adult, possible. I don't see a little boy doing this. I don't. I don't know how you feel about that. You have a boy. I mean, how old's your son? Nine. Nine. I mean, what's your thought on that? Am I wrong? I don't have a nine year old boy. No, I don't. I don't think you're wrong. Like I said, I didn't even know what it was. I don't know if that's because I'm naive or you know what, but I guess it depends. Maybe he saw it and he, and this isn't us telling you what to think. If you think what you think, you think what you think. We're just asking you to examine

each piece of evidence and say, does this fit with what I think? Does this fit with my narrative? Does this fit with my theory? And if it does, great. And if it doesn't, put it to the side and re-examine it later because that's exactly what we did. But I don't think my son could do it. I mean, the only way I could see it happening is maybe he saw it in a movie and he asked his dad or another adult, maybe an uncle or something like, what is that? And, and the person was like, oh, that's like a contraption you can use to strangle people. That's the only thing when I read it in the court papers, there was court papers I read, and they refer to it as a, a complicated bondage device in, in, which is intended to give the user

more control. So that's why I asked you the cord tied around her wrist and the one tied around her neck, where they connected? Because I think I covered a case before where, where they did have that cord around the neck and the cord at the wrist, and they connected those two almost to incapacitate the person so that they couldn't move. So I was wondering if those two things may have been connected at one point, but that is not how she was found. So no, no, I just want to, again, like you said,

we're just, we're just, we're breaking down each piece. Obviously in any case, there's a totality of circumstances that can develop an overall outcome or an opinion on what happened. It can build a case. It may not be one thing that ultimately results in someone being charged. It may be a totality of things, a totality of evidence that leads to it. But just breaking down the garrot in and of itself, when you think about the most prominent theories that are out there, for me personally, this doesn't fit a young child creating this contraption. Just my two cents. So one more thing I want to talk about, about the autopsy was in Jean Benet'set stomach there was found a small amount of green to tan colored thick mucus material without particulate identified now that's what the

autopsy said and then it continues to say the yellow to light green tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple so i i did call you i think when i saw this because we'd always kind of heard it reported that it absolutely 100% was pineapple. And here it's kind of saying like, it may be pineapple. And I've also heard reports of, we know that she ate this almost right before she died because of how very little it was digested. But this kind of makes it look like it was a little bit more digested than we previously believed. And I read something like they couldn't remember it at Fleet White's if they'd served pineapple, but they said maybe they'd served like a fruit cocktail cup and pineapple may have been in that. So that's always something to keep in mind because the pineapple

thing is going to become a really big point of contention in this case. Yeah. And I'm not even going to really respond right now because I know what we're going to be talking about later. And I'll just save it for that portion when it comes to theories involving certain people, because we are going to crack that nut open and kind of break it down. Yeah. So I won't do it now. So I do want to talk about the DNA found at the scene and on Jeanne Benet's body. Most commonly, we hear that there was unknown

male DNA found in her underwear, but there was also male DNA found under Jeanne Benet's fingernails. Something interesting to note about the DNA found in her underwear is that it's never been concretely identified as semen. Like nobody's ever said, this is semen. They just say male DNA. And there have been many reports that this DNA could have in fact been saliva. Now, DNA was collected from the Ramsey family as well as from friends of the Ramseys. And they did this starting in mid-January of 1997. Binet matched to any of these samples collected. There was also a pubic or axillary hair belonging to a Caucasian male found on the blanket that covered Jean Binet in the wine cellar. So there's two different blankets at play here. There's the one she's found under when John Ramsey finds her in the wine cellar. And then there's another one that he places on her once she's been brought upstairs and is in the living room. This pubic or axillary hair,

which I looked up, I had to look it up. I didn't know what an axillary hair was. It's just an underarm hair. This hair was found on the blanket that was covering her in the wine cellar. Interesting. Yeah. I didn't know about the hair, the DNA in the underwear, and this might be a point of contention. I don't know if this has been confirmed, but I've seen multiple reports that there was two spots in her underwear and they were possibly blood. That was my understanding. And again, I don't know if that was ever confirmed.

I know we had access to the reports. I know you were looking at the autopsy. It said DNA diluted with blood. Okay. I think it was her blood. Yeah. Well, there was two samples. One was confirmed to be JonBenet. I know that for certain. I read that myself. I believe it was her blood. Yeah. Well, there was two samples. One was confirmed to be JonBenet.

I know that for certain. I read that myself. I believe it was in the report. The other was the unidentified male. So maybe that was maybe the second DNA sample was not blood. Maybe it was JonBenet's blood mixed in with the unidentified male DNA. That makes sense. Okay.

So we're on the same page. That's what I got from it. But we could be wrong. They're very vague in these reports, I think, on purpose. I will say this. According to CBS, I'm looking up something here, right here. They did the special with CBS. We're not going to dive into that too much, but in the CBS special, it was two spots of JonBenet's blood found in her underwear. And she was wearing that night. And one of those samples had unidentified male DNA, which is important to point out, did not belong to John or Burke. Not John, not Burke, not anybody, not anybody.

Correct. No one they tested. Correct. And that hair, it didn't match anyone in the Ramsey household or anyone that they've tested either. It hasn't still to this day been tracked back to anyone, which is crazy to me considering it's 2021 now and we are catching the Golden State killer using DNA, but we get all this DNA from, you know, this John Bonnet Ramsey's killer and you can't match it to anyone. So it's unfortunate. And there's some, maybe we'll have this conversation for another day, but again, something you and I spoke about at length, there's some different things now because Golden State was a great case. From a detective side of it, I love that they were creative enough to use a genealogical website and think outside the box and find out who this scumbag was. But unfortunately or fortunately, wherever you fall on this, there are privacy issues. And now to do that, basically, as we talked about on the phone,

detectives were basically making fake profiles, submitting suspect DNA, and seeing if it came back with a familial match. Well, now there's laws and policies in place that aren't allowing it because, which is fair, a lot of the people on those sites don't want law enforcement to have access to their DNA. So I get it personally, just my perspective, and I know a lot of people won't agree with me. I wouldn't care. I know there's people out there who say, hey, you don't want the government having your DNA. They could take it. My understanding was the government didn't have access to your DNA. Basically, all they had was the DNA they were submitting, and it would tell them if the DNA they had matched your DNA.

The only one who has your DNA is the websites themselves, is the platforms themselves. And the comparative analysis that's used by the algorithm in these sites is where the police would get their matches or non-matches. They weren't getting access to DNA samples directly from these platforms. So I didn't have an issue with it. It's not like they could take your DNA and put it somewhere else, like at a crime scene later. They just would be able to tell if their DNA that they were submitting matched anyone else who had submitted to the site. So me personally, I have no issue with it. I wish maybe this is coming. Maybe it's already out there. I'm not a member of any sites.

I wish there would just be something where at the beginning, once you submitted it, if you wanted it to be available to a law enforcement to at least compare it to, you could give them the right to do that because I would check that box all day. Maybe it's a cousin of mine or someone I don't even really know that well that if I can help solve a case like this, I'm all for it. I mean, it's a slippery slope, privacy and things like that because who knows? I don't know. I don't want the police. I know how you think. I know how you think, Stephanie. I'm a conspiracy theorist and I don't want the government to have any of my DNA ever.

Does that make sense what I'm saying? Like, and again, maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding, I don't know, you know, it's not like the law enforcement was getting in there and to like pull samples of DNA that's been submitted and like compare it physically. They were just using the algorithm like you and I would use if we submitted it. So they didn't have access to the samples. They were just, they just had the ability to use the website, like all of us. So it wasn't like they were getting preferential treatment. They were doing it without 23andMe, or I think it was 23andMe, really even knowing they were doing it.

They're falsely representing themselves. So there's got to be some illegal thing happening there. Got to give them credit though. I love it. Paul Holes, shout out to the whole team. You got that scumbag. The Paul Holes team. I'm glad you got that scumbag off the streets. And I know there was a lot more people than Paul holes, but he's obviously like the face of it, you know, but, um, so kudos to them. I'm all for it. I'm team I'm team 23 and me, but that's just me. So I am not, but I, uh, I do want to talk about something. The Boulder daily Camera covered this case incredibly well, like every single day in the beginning. And I believe it was a couple years after, it says a joint report by the Boulder Daily Camera and Nine News analyzed exclusively obtained lab tests, results and reports in the homicide of, you know, Jean-Bernie Ramsey. And it says that they, forensic experts who examined those DNA tests disputed former district attorney Mary Lacey's conclusion that a DNA profile found in one location of the girl's underpants and two spots

on her long johns necessarily belonged to the killer, which Lacey asserted in 2008. And we'll get to that. But evidence experts told the Boulder Daily Camera and Nine News revealed that the DNA samples recovered from the Long Johns came from at least two people in addition to Jean Benet. That's something Lacey's office was told, according to the documents obtained by the news organizations, but a fact that Lacey did not mention. The existence of a third person's genetic markers has never previously been publicly revealed, according to the report, which also raised the possibility that the original DNA sample recovered from Jean Benet's underwear could be a composite and not from a single

individual. It's rather an obvious point, I mean, if you're looking for someone that doesn't exist because actually it's several people, it's a problem, says Troy Eld, a former U.S. attorney for Colorado. So that's interesting. Right. And as you mentioned, the two initial DNA samples were found pretty early on and the other samples weren't found until much later as DNA testing, microchondrial DNA, whatever the scientific name for it was, that they were able to, you know, find something on the Long Johns themselves. And, you know, I've talked to some people, I can't say names, but I've talked

to some people who believe that that DNA could easily have transferred from the underwear to the Long Johns or vice versa. So it may just be one entity that just kind of contaminated the other. So, you know, at the end of the day, it is important. I, and I, we're going to get into it and I don't want to get ahead, but yes, they did basically rule the Ramseys out because of it, which I found interesting. But you know, that, that's, that was her position. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I also want to talk about some other interesting things found at the crime scene.

So the police did their initial search of the house and they concluded, and they'd said this to the media and everyone, that there was no sign of forced entry. However, I think it was three years or no, three months after the investigation started, the district attorney Alex Hunter brought in, I believe he was retired at the time. You just watched the series, right? Lou Smet? Lou Smet. Yep. Detective Lou Smet.

He was with Colorado Springs. He was retired. Yep. He was retired and they brought him in to work on this case specifically. And they brought him in because the Boulder police, they didn't have a lot of homicide experience. There weren't a lot of murders happening in Boulder, but apparently in Colorado Springs there were.

And Lou Smet had this immaculate record of just knocking down these cases and finding his guy. Hundreds of cases and never lost a trial. Yep. That's a great record. But he brought him in and obviously the scene's already been cleared out and everything. But Lou Smith looked at pictures of the crime scene and he found, you know, a bunch of things. He found that at least seven windows were found open in the house on the morning of December 26th. And when I say open, I don't necessarily mean to suggest they're just

like wide open, like come on in, but they were unlocked and they could have easily been opened from the outside. A number of windows were accessible from the ground floor including a window well with a removable grate over three windows that opened into the playroom area of the basement and my house is set up very similarly so when i say window while i see what it means because my house has one but essentially it's just like i don't know like a i don't know like an indentation yeah yeah cut out and you kind of jump in there and then the windows are inside. So you're almost kind of hidden depending on how deep the window well is. Yeah. I would say it's probably designed obviously to see out the window, but also there's probably some fire code things

for it where it's like, you got to be able to get out that window and still be able to physically exit the property if there's a fire and your other point of egress is blocked by fire. Exactly. And that means those windows need to be big enough to get in and out of. So the window well was also located on the backside of the house. So that would have been hidden from the front of the house, from the street, and from most of the neighbors. Initially, the Boulder police had not considered this to be a viable means of entry because they didn't feel that a person could have fit through these windows. But Lou Smith himself illustrated that it could be done when he filmed himself doing it on camera. So Lou Smith was the one who kind of came in after and said, I don't believe it's the

Ramseys. I think it was an intruder who did this to Jean Benet. And this is him kind of trying to prove that. Yep. And he did a lot more than that. I made some notes. I made a lot of notes here. And again, the investigation discovery guys, I'm not just saying it because, you know, their logos on our cover art. Honestly, I really found the special fascinating. It really did. I couldn't turn it off, especially because we were in the middle of doing this. But, you know, he came up with a couple of things. So there was the window itself, which he, as Stephanie just said, he filmed himself climbing through. He did it without really disturbing a spider web that was seen in the video, the crime scene video that was taken, which was a big point of contention for Boulder PD saying, hey, you couldn't go out that window without

disturbing that cobweb that was there the other Crime scene element that was there was a suitcase a suitcase directly below that window And a smear on the wall directly below that window which according to lou smith Believed that would have been how you know If you were sliding in the window like he did Your your foot would rub along the wall as you're coming in. And then to exit, the perpetrator would use the, because it was kind of high, the perpetrator would use the suitcase as a step up to kind of get out the window more easily. And these are things that,

again, according to the crime scene photos and video, he surmised from watching those things. And he didn't only speculate, he went out and did it himself to show how it would be done. Well, there was also in this window well, a bunch of, and I mean, I don't know how they got there, but styrofoam packing peanuts. So I imagine like a package came and then maybe it got put out to the garbage and then it got blown and all these peanuts like kind of flew into the window well because that would be the perfect place for them to get caught along with a bunch of leaves right so in in the window well these leaves and styrofoam peanuts were found to be pushed to either side so there was a disturbance there yep a disturbance and something you and i

spoke about earlier which you made me go back and double check because we were basically and i haven't even discussed this with you we were kind kind of, we're kind of both right. So earlier I call Stephanie like we normally do during the day and not just the day of recording. And I'm like, oh, there was, there was snow on the ground and you know, there was no footprints. And that's what Boulder kind of hung their hat on. And then she was like, Derek, you're wrong. There wasn't any snow. You're definitely wrong. You're an idiot. Why do you make yourself sound so nice and I'm just this horrible, horrible person? Yeah. You kind of talk down to me and you talk about how you're going to abuse me if I- Bring it to HR.

Yeah. Get out of line. But no. So I went back and looked at the photos and then I also compared it to some of the recordings that Lou Smith, because Lou Smith recorded, audio recorded his entire thing. And what it was is in the photos that I saw the front of the house, there is snow that morning. However, the backside of the house, no snow, no snow. It's just the way the sun hit or whatever. But he pointed that out and said, guys, I get it. You're showing me snow in the front of the house. Where I'm talking about, there's no snow around that gate that blocks that window, just pure grass. So again, there's a lot of points of contention on it, but don't take my word for it. Go look at the photos.

They're right there, the morning of. Snow in the front of the house. It's pretty well covered too. Back of the house is based on the way the house is positioned. No snow on the ground. And that's probably because the sun rose in that direction. Yep. Yep. And so that was, and I see a lot of that online. A lot of people saying, oh no, there was snow. You would have had tracks. Guys, I can confirm there was no

snow around that window area. So Stephanie was right. Stephanie was right. Yeah. You're right. Always right. Well, that's very important to remember. But what's also important to realize is the center window. So there's three windows in this window. Well, the center window was broken, but it wasn't broken by this alleged intruder. John Ramsey himself admitted that he broke it the previous summer when he locked himself out of the house and forgotten his keys. And he had to kind of break the window and go in.

And he just failed to get it repaired or to have it fixed, which really kind of bugs me because the Boulder police noticed that this window was broken. They asked him about it. He was like, yeah, I broke it. And then they were like, a man can't fit through that window. So it's a little ridiculous. There's two other things. And I have one question for you and just one thing to add to what we talking about, because it all kind of ties together. Inside the suitcase, right? Inside the suitcase, there was a sham and a duvet cover. It should be noted that there were fibers from

the duvet and the sham found on JonBenet's body. And some have speculated, specifically Lou Smith have speculated that maybe that's an indication that the perpetrator had intended on stuffing JonBenet in the suitcase itself. But the issue was, which he tried, that suitcase wouldn't fit out the window. So that's when he changed his plan or she changed her plan because they realized they couldn't get JonBenet out the window in the suitcase. And that's why everything went down In the basement. So again, this is just the opinion of lou smith if you don't you know, you can go confirm it yourself It's right in the documentary

But it's it's a fascinating theory. It is a fascinating theory But i'm sure there's other explanations for that duvet cover and the fibers being In other parts of the house and maybe getting on her clothing But I did have a question for you because I couldn't find anything that substantiated a hundred percent what it was, but in the documentary, it describes that high-tech footprint that you had told me about. And the footprint, I was under the impression after talking to you that it might be like outside near the grate, but it sounds like it was actually right next to the body. Is that right? There was a couple high-tech footprints, but I want to talk about the suitcase again really quick.

Okay, go for it. The duvet color, the pillow sham, there was also a Dr. Seuss book inside. And these items, according to the Ramseys, were not typically stored in that suitcase. And that suitcase was not typically kept in the basement under that window. So that's interesting. And a lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that Jean Benet was wearing. was not typically kept in the basement under that window. So that's interesting. And a lab report indicated that fibers from the Chamin duvet were found on the shirt that Jeanne Benet was wearing. So not necessarily on her body,

but on the shirt she was wearing, which is interesting. And they also found a leaf and a couple white packing peanuts from that window well in the wine cellar room where her body was found. So this is also more going towards Lou Smith's theory that somebody came in because they tracked this stuff in. Now, as far as the stuff being in the suitcase, it almost made me feel like if somebody was kidnapping Jean Benet, they'd be like, okay, let's get your favorite book and let's get your favorite blanket and

stuff from home so you feel comfortable because I'm going to take you out. And I don't understand why they would go back out that window once they were already in the house. This is a ginormous house. It has a back door, a front door. It's got multiple doors leading in and out. If you really wanted to take her out of the house, why wouldn't you just take a door once you were already inside? So I definitely don't get that. Do you have? I don't either, but it is a fascinating theory, right? I mean, again, we're not pushing this theory on you guys. We're just presenting it as we've interpreted it because of what's out there. And depending on where you fall, you may be like, that's nonsense. But it is really fascinating when you think about it. Because again, if you're to believe the Ramseys, that suitcase was not

packed like that and it was not in that area. So how did it get there? How did it get there? You could say, oh, it was staged. Absolutely. And you wouldn't be wrong in saying that that is a possibility. If it was that intricate of a staging. Yeah, I guess it's possible, but we're not going into that because there's no proof to say it was staged. We're just telling you what was seen. And I've seen the crime scene video myself. You can clearly see the suitcases under the window while it's open. I didn't see any video or photos of the inside of the suitcase, but it is fascinating. And Lou Smith, he's passed away since, but he recorded everything during the investigation and he was adamant that this is what happened to JonBenet.

Yeah. That would be some severely long game, serious planning for the staging if that was part of it. But let's talk about the high tech boots. There was on they were they were called unidentified footprints because one was found in the basement and it was not in the wine cellar room, the full print. So there's a full print, full footprint and then half of one. But they're both made with this high tech boot. The full print was found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. And then another partial similar footprint was found in the wine cellar near where Jean Benet's body was found. And also on the wine cellar floor, there was a palm print that belonged to no one in the home and has yet to be identified. There's also the fact that these high-tech boots, they're supposedly hiking boots. It looks like they're really good. They're not super expensive, but they're waterproof and sturdy. Nobody in the Ramsey home owned a pair of high-tech boots, allegedly. So that's interesting. Yeah. The only thing I'll say, and I'm just going to call it how I see it. I mean,

the Boulder Police Department made some mistakes in this case, especially initially. And when I say initially, I mean the day they got called. And I have to tell you, in any case like this, where you have unidentified footprints, you usually take the impressions of every single patrolman or detective that was on scene that day. And I I'm, I'm assuming that happened, but I'd really like to know if it did or not, because based on some of the other mistakes, I don't know if it has, but I can tell you that when we're in patrol, we wear boots like this, that are very, um, high end, good grip, like, you know, work boots because we're in them all the time. And I really wonder if there were cancellation prints taken from all of the detectives and all of the patrolmen that responded that day.

Now that said, I was under the impression one of the boot prints were inside the wine cellar room. You're telling me it wasn't? The partial boot print was inside the wine cellar room. You know, again, obviously there were multiple people walking around in there. This is the same thing that happened partially on the OJ Simpson case. There was footprints everywhere and it ended up being a lot of the detectives and they had to cancel all those out until they got to the Manolo shoe print. But I wonder if that happened in this case. I would like to think it did. But again, I would love to have access to a detective who had firsthand knowledge and ask him right

out, like, did you guys at least go back to the station and have all the patrolmen and all the detectives who worked that day give you photographs of their foot impressions, of their boots? I feel like they did. I feel like I read it somewhere, but don't quote me. Okay. I hope so. I hope so that the Ramsey family, their friends, and also all law enforcement officers were

canceled out as potential matches. That's what I'm hoping. Yeah. And another thing too, now that we're saying that it's like, we can't, we keep hearing this. Oh, the Ramsey said that suitcase wasn't there. Oh, the Ramsey said they didn't own a pair of high-tech boots. I'm wondering if this is something that they just, the police were like, Hey, do you guys own a pair of high-tech boots? And they were like, Nope, no high-tech boots here. Or if they were like, hey, where's the suitcase usually stored? And the Ramsey's like, you know, not usually under this window. Like, I wonder if they were just asked or if these things were actually kind of looked into and

investigated. I would like to think they were only because as we're going to learn, there were investigators. This is a fact that, you know, that we're honing in on the Ramseys as the potential suspects in this case. And even there was interviews where the DA, Alex Hunter, said, the media asked him, are they considered suspects? And he said, hey, call them what you want, but we're looking into them. And if you're to believe some of the theories out there that Boulder PD was dead set on the Ramseys, then you would think they would try to find anything they could to support their theory, right? Including catching them in a lie about their boots.

Oh, we don't have any high-tech boots here. This might be a gotcha moment. Let's go look at every single pair of boots in this house. And every purchase they've made in the last five years, something like that. Right. You would think that if they really were trying to get something on the Ramseys, they would double check that. But you could be right. We don't know. This is all secondhand. But nevertheless, if we're to take them at their word, you're talking about a pair of boot prints near the body in the crime scene that don't match any pair of shoes that entered that property that day or the day before. That's a problem. That's a problem. Because if it doesn't match anyone who was in the house or. That's a problem. That's a problem because if it doesn't match

anyone who was in the house or anyone who's currently in the house, as far as law enforcement, that means the guy who was next to the body, you haven't identified him yet. And that goes to a different theory other than the Ramseys had anything to do with it. And that's why I think this case is so fascinating. And I think that's why it's so polarizing because there are elements of this case that fit different theories and don't fit the other ones. So that's why everyone's so torn on it. That's ridiculous. That's kind of why it's hard. But that's why you see a piece of evidence. If it fits with what you already believe, fit it in there in the puzzle. If it doesn't, put it to the side and look at it again later because we want to be as unbiased as possible. Right. That's my question right now. If I could ask Boulder PD right now, if I could ask the lead investigator, let's say hypothetically, he said to me, hey, Derek, I believe the Ramseys did it. I'm not saying he would or she would. I'm just saying if, you know, watching the Linda Arndt

interview, watching these things about her counting bullets, if I wasn't in front of Linda right now, I would say, hey, you know, you were counting bullets when you were in front of John Ramsey. Clearly you were, you know, you were in fear. Let me ask you, did they ever figure out whose boot prints that belonged to? Because that would seem like a pretty important question to get answered before coming to any conclusions. And I would love to hear what they had to say about it because that is something that you would have to figure out and have an answer for before deciding who this person was. Because if you can't identify who those boots belong to, well, then there's an issue because that's an open-ended thing.

It's not a red herring. That boot print got in there somehow. And if it was determined that it was recent, that's another question. Was it recent or could it have been from someone who had been in the house months prior? I wonder what the conclusion on that was. They believe it was recent because of the fact that it was on the growing mold. Okay. So that's, yeah, even more to the point that, you know, I don't know if they could determine if it was left within a certain amount of time. I don't think they could, you know, but it's interesting nevertheless. And a palm print, they found a palm print that belonged to no one in the home and has not been identified. So a palm print, I feel like, was it only the palm? Were there fingers in there?

Can you match a palm print to some database? It's crazy. It just feels like there's all this evidence and no answers. And if I was sitting down with Boulder police and I'm asking them questions, the high-tech boots might be one of the questions, but I got a lot of questions. That's true. Yeah, I have a lot of, yeah, I'm with you. I have a lot of questions too.

Now, the wooden part of the garage that was found around Jean Benet's neck was sourced back to the Ramsey home. Like we said, it was a paintbrush that belonged to Patsy. However, the end portion of the paintbrush was never found because remember that this was broken in order to fashion this garage, which makes me wonder if it may have been taken by whoever did this. It's like a trophy of sorts because it wasn't found in the house. They have never found it. That was the only portion of the garage that was traced to the Ramsey home as that cord portion, the white cord that had been tied into these complicated slip knots never was. The contraption was referred to as a sophisticated bondage device designed to give control to the user. Fibers consistent with this cord were found in Jeanne Benet's bed, as well as the body bag that she was later placed in. Because after,

as part of the investigation, they take a vacuum to the body bag that was placed in, and they'll try to get things out of there. I do want to mention something that I read in one of these reports where they said these were very complicated knots and they don't believe that the Ramseys had the skill or like the ability to tie these knots. Nothing about the Ramseys suggested that they did. I do want to remind everyone that John Ramsey was in the Navy for several years. And I think I made a joke with Derek on the phone. I think like all they do in the Navy is tie knots. Like that's what they're known for is like tying knots and things like that. Like if you, if you talk about somebody who's good at tying knots, I don't mean that's all that they do. I don't want anybody who's in the Navy to be offended. I love you guys. Thank you so much guys and girls for your service.

But it's a joke. Like if you're in the Navy, you know how to tie a good knot. So I don't think that it's, it's a crazy thing to say that John Ramsey would know how to tie these knots. Now, whether he did it or not is a whole other conversation. But I think it was a little impulsive or premature to just state in this report that they wouldn't know how to tie these knots because I think that he would. Yeah. And looking at the photos myself, I didn't think they were that sophisticated. I thought the contraption, as you described it, was sophisticated. I thought the garrotte itself was very, very sophisticated and more, for lack of a better way to describe it, in a professional,

efficient way of killing someone. I would envision seeing that with a hitman, someone who wants a clean kill with a lot of control. I don't see that as like a spontaneous thing by a, by a nine-year-old, you know, or even, even a father, but I guess if I could see an adult doing it, you know, your movie, like you said earlier, you know, a movie, anything could, we don't know what they've watched or read over the years that would, you know, cause them to understand what that is and how to use it. But the knot on the, um, the paintbrush stick itself, if you look at it to me again, just from the two stick itself, if you look at it, to me, again, just from the two-dimensional photo, it literally looks like someone tied

it around a bunch of times and just kind of kept, you know, kind of lacing it within itself until it wouldn't come off. It was a very big knot, but it just looked like there was no methodology to it. It wasn't like a nautical knot in nature, in my opinion. Listen, you're not in the Navy. You're not a knot expert. Okay. So take a seat. That is true. That is true. That is true. I did work a case, Rebecca Zahow, and it was all about the knot because the potential suspect was a tugboat captain. And I got a lot of crap for that case, but as far as my opinion on it, but then it came down to the knot. So here we are back at, you know,

down to the knot. Oh, well, I do want to quickly talk about the fact that these fibers consistent with the cord that was tying Jean Benet was found in her bed. That's, that means that she was taken from her bed or that suggests that she was taken from her bed and tied up while she was still in bed. I mean, is that what it suggests to you? I don't know. I'm in the camp that this cord had been in this house for a long time. That's just my opinion. And so this cord would have fibers on it from trace evidence throughout the house. That's my opinion. I have nothing to substantiate it. I personally don't see how this individual or individuals would tie JonBenet up and there wouldn't be some type of struggle as they were bringing her down the stairs where it would alert a parent. I know they were on the

floor above JonBenet, but I would still think that kind of defeats the whole theory that, and we're going to get into the screaming and all that later, but that the Ramseys wouldn't have heard anything. I think if it was right below them and there was a struggle going on while she was being tied, even if she had duct tape on over her mouth, you would still hear it. It wasn't right below them though. Burke was right below them. JonBenet was on the other side of the house below them. Okay. On the floor below them, but I get what you're saying. Floor below on the other side of this ginormous house. It's still a huge risk on the part of the perpetrator though. For sure. I mean, how do you know if she's going to get off a screen before you finish? You know, that doesn't, for me, it doesn't make sense.

I mean, it doesn't make sense. He came into her room, he or she, I don't know who this is. He came into her room. He was holding the rope in case he needed it. He bent down, woke her up and just maybe rubbing the rope on the, on the sheets as he bent down to wake her up or pick her up. It got fibers on there. It could be anything.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. The cord is obviously significant, but it doesn't like, I don't take too much into the fact that the fibers were found in the bedroom. Cause I'm in the school that believes that cord probably by mistake on the Ramsey's part had been in the house the entire time. What just this random cord laying around? It's got to come off a bigger spool or something. It's not just going to be this random cord just laying around the house, making its way around the house. It looks almost like a shoelace to me. I know it's not, but it looks like it could be used for like some type of, you know, they had groundskeepers, they had groundskeepers that worked that property and they could have, I use cable, I use cords all the time to tie up my

water hoses and my extension cables. I just use them to tie a quick knot. Sometimes I'll just cut them off if I can't get them off. So again, I'm thinking outside the box here. I have nothing to go on. It could be from outside the house, but I'm just saying if they were able to determine that it had been in the house and it just, the Ramseys had never seen it because of all the people they had working at their property, that wouldn't surprise me. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, but you've got to assume they've checked the groundskeeper shed.

They've asked the people who work at the house, the gardeners and things like that. Do you have this cord? Right. I hope that they did more than just asking the Ramseys, like, do you have it? Yeah. Yeah. And you would expect to see the other part of the cord where it was severed. Same thing with the duct tape.

You can go back and take the duct tape and find a roll of duct tape in the house and see the tearing and actually match it up. So we're hoping all that stuff was done. I don't know about the duct tape. Do you know if that was, what was the deal with the duct tape? The duct tape also was not sourced to the house and it was ripped at both ends, which suggested that it came off of, you know, an already started roll. I mean, these are, as we're saying these things, again, I don't want to go either way,

but I'm just saying, you know, you call it what it is, you know, all these things that were not in the house per the Boulder PDs, you know, analysis of it. Right. And yet, you know, a lot of people believe the Ramseys carried this out in some way, shape or form. It's very, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Very interesting. Again, I 100% after researching it with you, because I had never looked into it this in depth, I 100% now know why this case has fascinated so many people. Because it really is a true mystery, like in every sense of the word.

It's the epitome of a mystery. You know, it's interesting. Well, there was a bunch of other stuff found in the house that the Ramseys claimed they'd never seen before, including a baseball bat found on the north side of the house. And this baseball bat had fibers on it that were consistent with the carpet fibers from the basement of the house. There was also a brown paper sack with a rope inside of it that was found in a guest bedroom on the second floor. And small pieces of this sack material were found in JonBenet's bed as well, and as well as in the body bag that she was later placed in.

There's also a huge flashlight. I think they call it a mag light or a mac light or something. Mag light. Mag? Mag? Yep, mag light. Well, that was found on the kitchen counter on the Ramsey's kitchen, and they claimed they'd never seen it before. Also found on the kitchen counter was a white bowl with pineapple and milk inside of it. And this has always stuck out to people since that this was in Jean Benet's stomach or the medical examiner found what could have been pineapple in Jean Benet's stomach.

And what I really want to stress is that there was only two sets of fingerprints found on this bowl. And the two sets of fingerprints belonged to Patsy Ramsey and Burke Ramsey, not Jean Benet. So if she'd consumed this pineapple, how had she done so without touching the bowl? And I believe that there was also a utensil inside of the bowl, maybe like a spoon or a fork. And once again, Jean Benet's fingerprints were not on that utensil. Pineapple and milk was reportedly one of Jean Benet's favorite snacks, and she clearly hadn't prepared it for herself. I mean, she was six, so she definitely could have. I wouldn't put it past a six-year-old to be like, I want a snack and let me go to the refrigerator and get some pineapple and milk, but her fingerprints weren't on the bowl. So it would be difficult

to say she'd even fed herself since she clearly hadn't touched the bowl or the utensil inside of the bowl. Now, Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl could be sort of explained if you say, like, well, maybe she washed the dishes or maybe she emptied the dishwasher and put it away. Assuming that she did her own dishes. I know she did have a housekeeper. She said so herself. She had a housekeeper. So I guess I would have to know if she'd emptied the dishwasher that day. I just, I can't see Patsy Ramsey emptying a dishwasher, but she possibly could have. So if she did empty the dishwasher

and that's how her fingerprints got on the bowl. Derek, do you know, like if she emptied the dishwasher and put the bowl away and then like maybe three or four days later, the bowl was taken out and used, her fingerprints would still be on that bowl, right? I don't know. I don't want to say and have someone, I'd have to confirm. I guess it's possible, but I doubt it. I would think with a disinfectant, I would think with dishwashing soap that that would probably at minimum contaminate the DNA sample enough where it wouldn't be identifiable anymore to someone. She washes the bowl or the bowl goes through the dishwasher and then she empties the

dishwasher to put everything away. Oh yeah. Then yeah, I think, yeah, her finger, her DNA would absolutely be on the bowl. 100%. Yep. 1000%. Yep. That could explain her fingerprints on the bowl, but we've got Burke's fingerprints on this bowl as well. So how did his fingerprints get on the bowl? Because according to all of the Ramses, nobody ate pineapple and milk that night. Yeah, this whole pineapple and milk. And we're going to get into theories and all that in part three of this, because we guys, we are going to have to break this down into three parts. And we've kind of covered the overview in part one. We're really diving into the specifics and the science and the autopsy and all that stuff in part two. And in part three, we're going to talk about potential suspects and theories. So I will say this to answer your

question without getting into the part three stuff, this bowl of milk and pineapple has been a major point in this case, especially if you watched the CBS special. For those of you who haven't, this pineapple and milk is a huge component of their theory as to what happened to JonBenet. And we're going to dive into that for sure, but it will be in part three. But yeah, I mean, the pineapple and milk being left out and seen on the countertop the next morning. Also just for me, and this is a personal thing, like if I have a bowl of cereal or a bowl of like oatmeal or whatever, I'm not one to just leave my bowl on the counter near the sink. I'm going to put it in the sink if I'm done

with it. So, you know, the fact that it was just left out like that as a little odd to me, but that's just maybe in my home, people may be listening to this goes, I leave my bowls out all the time. Half, you know, half full. Yeah, dude, I leave everything out, man. My husband's always walking around the house, collecting my coffee mugs, like my ice. Okay. Yeah. And to me, that is more indicative of a child, you know, taking out a bowl of cereal or a milk. I'm just being honest. I'm not hating on you. She's laughing. But like my daughters would leave out like their half eaten Cheerios. And the next morning I get up and I have to like put their bowl away, empty the milk and do that. So you're telling me, you know, that's, that's what you're doing. Savage. Basically, basically that your husband is cleaning up after you. I do that.

But let me say this, Patsy and John, we're used to having a housekeeper who was off that day because it's Christmas. It's the holiday. So if you're used to somebody picking up after you, like I am, because my husband picks up after me, maybe you do just leave your bowls and your glasses everywhere because you're used to somebody coming around behind you and picking it up. Yeah. Sounds like a child. Yo, if somebody cleaned up after you, you would not clean up after yourself.

Now I feel like I have to go and like bring my husband flowers or something. I'm going to text him later and be like, dude, I'm sorry. He's really good about it too. He never yells at me. Well, sometimes, sometimes it gets too much. So yeah, no, the pineapple and milk is definitely something, again, depending on what you believe is a a really important factor in this case as far as possible motive. And there's some other motives too. You mentioned earlier, JonBenet's long johns and underwear were soaked with urine.

That's another theory that we're going to explore a little bit in part three. So yeah, it's an important piece of evidence. It could be a red herring. It could just be a situation like you just said, Patsy puts the bowl away or took it out for someone. Burke was eating out of it, left it hanging around, or there could be more to it. We probably will never know. No. I mean, they asked Patsy about this in her police interview. What'd she say? I can't remember exactly what it is. I'm looking it up. But basically, she said, I don't know how that got there.

I did not get it out. And I can't imagine that any of my children got it out. I would have maybe heard or, you know, they were asleep. They were asleep when we went to bed. Everybody was asleep. So I don't know where that pineapple came from. So she says she has no idea. Okay.

All right. Patsy did not think that Burke had got up in the night, prepared pineapples and fed Jean Benet. As Patsy said, quote, I mean, I would have heard them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the refrigerator. End quote. Yeah. Well, there you have it. But like you said, to your point, your theory, she could have touched the bowl days earlier by just moving around the bowls in the cupboard. She could have, yes. But how did Burke's fingerprints get on the bowl then? Well, to your point, she said she doesn't know how it got there. But again, depending

on what you believe, Burke could have went down there later that evening and snuck down there and grabbed a bowl of pineapple and milk, took a couple bites and went back up to bed. Or if you're under the impression that there was more that happened that night that possibly led to what we're talking about today, then something different happened. They could have. I mean, he could have, but he was also asked about that and he said no. Burke did. I have a hard time believing that the intruder went in there and had a bowl of pineapple. There's a lot of possibilities. I highly doubt that an offender went in there and had a bowl of pineapple and milk before carrying out whatever he carried out. I think one of them are forgetting or there's more to the story. There's also a clear drinking glass found on the counter.

I believe that the drinking glass had Burke's fingerprints on it, but they said that it didn't seem like anybody had taken a drink out of that glass because there was no DNA on the rim. There was also a tea bag, I believe. But once again, we have to remember that the next morning, which would have been December 26th or the morning when Patsy invited all her friends to come over when her daughter was kidnapped, they all kind of just went around this house. They were all there for several hours. So they went into the kitchen, they cleaned up, they got snacks. I mean, she admits to having prepared snacks for her friends while they were there. The friends were cleaning up, they were getting drinks. But that pineapple appears to have been

there before all of that. Yeah. Again, I'm trying to avoid going into the theory portion of it right now. At the end of the day, it's a piece of evidence. It's out there. The crime scene video clearly shows the bull on the counter. And it's something that needs to be considered. We may never know its true value. But it is possible that it's a red herring or it's possible that it tells a

story and explains entirely what led to JonBenet's death. Will we ever know? I don't know. I don't know. There's a theory that Burke and Patsy washed the dishes together by hand. Burke dried the bowl and handed it to his mother who was wearing gloves, like dishwashing gloves. And then she put it in the cupboard or no, she wasn't wearing dishwashing gloves. I'm sorry. He passed it to her. She put it in the cupboard. So that leaves both of their, their fingerprints on, um, on the, on the bowl. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's a, it's a theory, you know, that's, that's basically what it is, is a theory. But the pineapple thing, it keeps people coming back. This pineapple thing is very,

very important to people. I mean, they made a whole special on it. CBS made, I think it was a three-part special on it. And I know the investigators in that case, both very intelligent, very good investigators. There was multiple, but there was like a a six person team that worked this case. Some prominent names, Jim Clemente, Laura Richards, Henry Lee, big, big people, James Fitzpatrick, the guy who solved the Unabomber. I mean, there's some prominent people in that special. And one of the theories, the main theory they focused on involved that pineapple and milk. And we're going to break that down for sure, but I agree with you. According to some people, that pineapple and milk is a pivotal point. It's a smoking gun in their opinion. And it's important to remember

that even if the pineapple found in Jeanne Bonnet's stomach didn't come from that bowl of pineapple and milk, and that's a possibility. She could have had it at the dinner party. One Boulder medical examiner stated that it could have been eaten as early as 4.30 p.m. before the Ramseys left their house for dinner at the White's. That could have been it. But then when the Ramseys are asked about this pineapple, they have no idea where it came from. So to me, that's an issue. If you say that she ate it before and she didn't eat it right before she died, that's fine. She could have had it on Christmas Day before they left for the whites. But then you would think that Patsy would remember cutting it because it's not easy to cut a pineapple, by the way.

It's not like something. And this was fresh cut pineapple. And it was evenly diced and like even little squares. So I definitely think an adult did it. But she would have remembered doing that. But she says she didn't. So I definitely think an adult did it, but she would have remembered doing that, but she says she didn't. So I don't know. The other thing to point out is, and again, stop me if I'm wrong, but the pathologist never confirmed that it was even in fact pineapple in her stomach. They basically said it was an unidentified organic matter that was consistent

with what was it exactly? Could have been pineapple, they said. Could have been pineapple. So guys, we're not saying it was pineapple in her stomach. We're saying if it was. But there has been a lot of contention. Stephanie did a great job with this because we were hearing that it was confirmed it was pineapple in her stomach. So we were talking about it.

And Stephanie does what you guys know she does. And she dug and found it and come to find out, they said in the report, quote, could have been pineapple, but they have never been able to identify. And I remember Stephanie was frustrated. She's like, how do they not know? How do they not know? But they don't. They weren't comfortable enough to say, yeah, this was definitely pineapple in her stomach, which is important because there is a world we live in where it's not even pineapple that's in her stomach. So why are we talking about it? But in their 1998 police interview, I believe John and Patsy said they didn't even know about the pineapple being in the house. Patsy didn't even recall buying pineapple. They don't seem to recall a lot though. Is that fair to say? Yeah.

You said it earlier and I'm kind of joking, but these individuals were very well off. And fortunately for them, they're in a position of financial security where they have a lot of people doing things that you and I do every day for ourselves. So I think they live in a different world than us. And again, maybe that's a little bit of an assumption on my part, but they had a lot of money and they had a lot of people doing things for them that you and I don't have the luxury of. And I have no problem with it, more power to them. But I think, and you said it earlier about, you don't see Patsy doing the dishes or whatever. it's not a knock on them. Cause I wouldn't do my own dishes if I didn't have to. I'm sure, I'm sure you wouldn't either. Um, so, you know, not remembering cutting up the pineapple or something like that. Maybe it's because someone

else cut it up for him. You know, maybe one of the, one of the nannies or whatever, someone who was there who watched, uh, Burke or watch John Benang, you know, maybe they did it and that's why they don't remember. Yeah. But I think if the pineapple wasn't even the house and was just there, that adds a whole new element, right? Adds a whole new layer. It completely cripples the Burke did it because John Bonnet stole his pineapple theory that CBS kind of perpetrated. And it also adds another layer of who knew John Bonnet well enough to know that pineapple and milk were her favorite snack and could possibly tempt her into getting out of bed or tempt her into trusting them. To me, it adds a whole new kind of layer. My guess, and that's all it is, is a guess,

is that again, that pineapple was purchased by maybe somebody else who was doing the food shopping for him and they didn't even know it was in the fridge. Again, but it's no more than a guess. As much as you don't see Patsy washing the dishes, I don't see her doing the food shopping either, if I'm being honest. But I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. We could be complete. We don't know these people's personal lives. We could be completely off base. Patsy could have been a very hands-on. I mean, I think she was a very hands-on mother. She could have been a very hands-on housekeeper. Some women, no matter what their financial means, take pride in keeping their houses themselves or doing little things around the houses, or maybe she just liked doing the

dishes with her kids. Who knows? She could have been very hands-on. I do think she was a little too much of a control freak to let somebody else do the food shopping for them unless she had given them specifically a list. That's my opinion. But I found the part in Burke's interview with the police where they asked him about pineapple and they said, did you and she, referring to Jean Benet, eat pineapple together anytime during the day. And he responded, maybe, like, I don't remember specifically eating pineapple, but very well could have. Like, would you remember eating pineapple 20 years ago? Like, you know?

No, exactly. That interview with Burke was not his police interview. It was when he was much older. I think he was 29 in September of 2016 when Dr. Phil interviewed him. So that's when he said, you know, I don't recall having pineapple. Like, would you remember eating pineapple 20 years ago? And that's a fair question because I definitely don't think I would, but maybe if it was a really traumatic day, I would, but probably not when I'm nine. I don't even remember being nine. So yeah, let's move on from the pineapple, but I really want to hear from you guys listening. Even if you can put something in the reviews, let us know what you think about the pineapple.

Yeah. It's a big, and again, Dr. Phil asked them about the pineapple because it was right after the CBS special. So that's why it was brought up. Well, do you want to talk about how the Boulder police handled the crime scene before we end for today, like mistakes that they made, or do you want to put that in part three? Well, we talked, the other thing I want to talk about, because we brought up the pineapple and milk, and we brought up the CBS documentary, is the 911 call. Because we talked about the 911 call in part one, we kind of went over it you know what it consisted of and in the cbs special the investigators brought it to an audio expert and had it enhanced and the reason they had it enhanced was because

allegedly i don't know the amount of seconds i want to say it's six but there was a small amount of seconds after the call was supposedly hung up so when when Patsy thought the call had ended, where there was an enhancement done and you can hear something according to the audio expert and the investigators. Now, guys, before we go into this, this is purely their opinion. This is their interpretation of these few seconds and what they heard based on the enhancement. So we're not saying this is factual, but I will recite what was transcribed, what is believed to have been said. You come to your own conclusions on it. Stephanie and I are not saying that this is in any way, shape or form fact. So I'm not going to recite the transcript for the 911 call itself. But after that point, after the call takes place where she says my daughter's been kidnapped all that stuff the 911 operator says quote patsy

patsy and then Allegedly, this is all allegedly you can hear john say we're not speaking to you And then allegedly you hear patsy say What did you do? Help me jesus And then allegedly you hear Patsy say, what did you do? Help me, Jesus. And then allegedly you hear a boy, possibly Burke say, what did you find? Now there's other interpretations of these words and that's exactly what it is. Interpretation. It could be just trickery of

the ear, you know, cause you see the transcription going along the bottom and then it tricks your mind into believing you hear the same thing. But there's been other interpretations of different versions where, what did you do? And instead of what did you do, it was, how could you do this? And then there was another interpretation that was, how could you? But that just goes to show you that this is interpretation and speculation in their own opinions based on the enhancement. And there's no real science behind it, in my opinion. I guess some people, audio engineers would argue there is a science, but I tend to believe it's, I've done a couple of these even on television and there's been times where they've interpreted something

for me and I listened to it in person and I don't hear a thing. But again, that's my opinion. I believe the 911 operator, Kim Archuleta, also said in that special that she thought the first words that she heard Patsy say after Patsy believed she disconnected was, we called the police, now what? There was something in there on that as well. And again, I can't emphasize this enough because it's very important. We're not saying this is what was said because obviously if it was said, this is extremely incriminating, right? This would be the nail in the coffin for, not that I shouldn't say the nail in the coffin, but this would be a big component of building a case against the Ramseys. And that's why it's so important to emphasize you guys multiple times like I'm doing that

we're not saying this is factual and that this is just what was in the special. We're relaying it to you guys so that you can consume it and develop your own opinions. And in fact, I would implore you to go back and listen to it yourself or watch it yourself and develop your own opinion. But I think it's safe to say that after Patsy hangs up, there are voices. There's some sort of conversation happening. You can hear that. You just can't hear specifically what's being said.

Yep. Yeah. The tape doesn't hang up and it's something. But, and guys, you can help me out in the comments with this one, the reviews, because I couldn't figure it out. But there was a clip that I saw of a comedian a while back. I think it was a British comedian or something where there's certain popular songs that we all know, and he changes the words of the chorus or a certain section of the song, and he'll say what

he interpreted as and then play the song, but mouth the words he thinks it was. And it makes you laugh because it sounds like that person is saying it like that. The singer was saying that when in fact they were, it was just how it sounded and by him mouthing it as it's playing, instead of you hearing the actual words, you hear what he wants you to hear by him mouthing it. I'm explaining that really tough, but it's the power of suggestion. That's completely understandable. So if you do listen to it and you're watching, you know, maybe that documentary or something on YouTube, like close your eyes so you don't see the words on the bottom of the screen because you're more evidence. The interpretation of that 911 tape is open to speculation depending on who you are and what your theory is and how you want to interpret it. It's really fascinating. I went back and listened to it again, and you can definitely hear what's being transcribed when you read it. I will be honest, I didn't listen to it with my eyes closed, which is probably a good suggestion. I should do that. But it's something we have to bring up because I know if we don't, regardless of whether it's true or not, if we don't bring it up, then the idea that we're going into all the details about this case are not completely true because this is a big part of the case that I know multiple, you know, everybody talks about on the internet,

you know, so for us not to bring it up, it would be a disservice. All these years later, I mean, what are we at right now? Happened in 96, we're 2021, do the math for me. And so we're at like, yeah, it's been a long time and we're still talking about it like it happened yesterday. And I think I speak for you when I say it still bothers me and you as much as it would in 1996. It's terrible. It's terrible that whoever did this is still walking out there freely. You know, it hasn't been held responsible for what they did to this little girl.

Because we do know one thing. This wasn't the act of her dying wasn't an accident. Somebody killed her and nobody has been held accountable for that. And that in and of itself is a tragedy. So I can see why everyone has an opinion on it. I can see why everyone is passionate about it. And I think we really hit a lot of the points as far as the evidence is concerned, as far as the evidence is concerned, as far as the crime scene, the autopsy, how it all relates to each other. We could have probably summarized this in a half hour, but we didn't want to. And we won't even

lie to you guys. We were considering doing this in two parts, but it's just too much. We could make this five parts if we really wanted to, but we wanted to break it down into three segments. And we think this is going to do the best justice as far as the initial case, catching you up to speed, breaking down the evidence, some of which how we see it. The final part, getting into potential suspects and theories, because that's where it gets a little theoretical and we got to be careful and we will. But we definitely want to address it

because we know a lot of you are thinking it. Yeah, absolutely. So let's just plan to reconvene here. Same time, same place next week. See you guys then. Crime Weekly, presented by i-D, is a co-production by Audioboom and Main Event Media.