Comments by "Glamdolly" (@glamdolly30) on "JonBenet Ramsey's Brother Breaks Silence 20 Years After Her Murder" video.

  1. Satanic party?!! He was 9 years olf for fucks sake. Jesus aubrey Aubrey - please keep taking the tablets for the sake of public safety!
    8
  2. No - but you can be elected President!
    4
  3. Lots of children have accidents with golf clubs! Jeeze you need to have a word with yourself about why you're so sure he's guilty. The police would have found evidence, they didn't and that is why he was never accused let alone charged. NEXT!
    4
  4. The guy is socially inept that much is clear - it does not make him a killer!
    3
  5. I haven't Jeremy - that's why I believe the police and the justice system should solves crimes, not the armchair detectives commenting here who are convinced Burke Ramsey is guilty just because they don't like the look of him!
    3
  6. Maggie - I assume you picked up that misinformation from the recent appalling TV documentary - Jon Benet was indeed strangled, and not already dead from a head blow as stated on this show. Autopsy photos clearly show fingernail marks around her neck typical on strangulation victims as they try to loosen a ligature. To say the blow to the head alone killed her and the garrotte was only window dressing was crucial to the TV show's agenda - to frame a 9 year old boy for the killing. Shameful! I'm disappointed so many people swallowed this spurious and sensationalist TV show hook line and sinker. Then again I guess people are gullible - Trump was just elected after all!
    3
  7. That TV special was such a pile of sensationalised shit without a single scrap of new evidence! And they assembled the worst, rag tag bunch of so-called crime experts, has-beens and a British self styled 'forensic profiler' called Laura Richards who has been so widely discredited she can no longer get work in the UK and has had to go to the US to appear on shit pseudo documentaries like this! They set Burke up as the killer from the start then cut and pasted misinformation, speculation and sheer imagination to frame him before declaring him guilty! It was disgraceful trial by television and I'm amazed anyone swallowed it hook line and sinker as you obviously did! Wow how gullible. No one knows if he is guilty - many believe he is because he lacks social skills and they don't like the look of him. Thankfully that is not enough to send someone to the electric chair - FACTS and EVIDENCE are needed. There has not been sufficient produced to prove who killed this poor child. The police fucked up the investigation big time.
    3
  8. You call me a hoe because I don't agree with your opinion? How old are you - 12?
    3
  9. I wish you peace of mind and serenity in 2017.
    3
  10. Its hard not to conclude Burke did it BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTARY TELLS US HE DID! And without presenting any new or compelling evidence either! That pseudo documentary, with a very dubious collection of so-called crime 'experts' was a disgrace. Burke is suing CBS and I really hope he wins. He is an innocent man in the eyes of the law so they cannot call him a killer on national television. Trail by television must never be allowed - if it is, our justice system is shot
    3
  11. Burke is suing CBS and I hope he wins the case. When TV companies are allowed to make sensationalist shows like this one, packed with misinformation and innuendo to support an obvious agenda (that Burke was the killer), it is a very dangerous precedent. The principle of innocent til proven guilty must be respected - this TV show did not respect it but acted as judge and jury. It wasn't as if they had even uncovered any new evidence!
    3
  12. The dna on the underwear was always a problem for the producers of the CBS documantary because it inconveniently contradicted the entire narrative of the programme - that Burke was the killer. I think it was a huge red herring to dismiss that dna as just having come from the factory - the same dna, from a male of Hispanic origin, was found elsewhere on the child's body! But oddly enough - they didn't mention that! Burke is suing CBS and I hope he wins, the programme was a hatchet job on him from start to finish.
    2
  13. vastylark - A sane and sensible person comments on this - Amen! I don't think Burke/the family did it either but that disgraceful CBS documentary set him up. Yes he is clearly socially inept, probably Asbergers but that doesn't make him a killer. By far the most plausible explanation is an intruder who targeted JonBenet because her parents had foolishly courted publicity, given public tours of their home etc. If the Ramsey's are guilty of anything it's making their daughter vulnerable to attack by a paedophile.
    2
  14. And parts one and two of that Godawful, joke documentary were equally ridiculous! Trial by television on an innocent man - they announced a detailed story - totally hypothetical and fabricated by the way - of how JonBenet got out of bed, stole some pineapple from her brother and he hit her on the head with a flashlight and killed her. It would be funny if it weren't so serious - Burke is suing the programme makers and I hope he wins.
    2
  15. Wow you were taken in by this rubbish too? The 911 recording was one of the most ridiculous aspects of this joke documentary. The audio had already been analysed and the exact words supposedly 'deciphered' years ago. These so-called experts then pretended they were identifying these statements made after the phone was inadequately hung up for the first time! They were only repeating what was suggested was said when the tape was first analysed many years ago. I was far from convinced by what they said they heard - it was never clear or definitive and I certainly was not convinced Burke was present. It wasn't clear at all and after all this state of the art audio technology has been applied to the tape its obvious it never will reveal anything about what happened that night!
    2
  16. Jennifer - I agree with your summary, I don't believe the family killed JonBenet it just doesn't add up. Far more likely the child was targeted by an outsider, either a total stranger who may have visited the house before on one of their strange tours or an associate of the family. I've heard it said the nanny's boyfriend was never fully eliminated as a suspect. That makes far more sense to me than sibling accidentally killing her and her loving parents staging a garrotting and rape on their six year old daughter! Whatever the Ramsey's were, I don't believe they were capable of that kind of cover up on their own child.
    2
  17. The CBS show was a disgusting set up to frame Burke for a murder he has never been accused of let alone prosecuted for! It was shameless trial by television and didn't even produce any new evidence against him - just assembled various bits of circumstantial evidence and hypothetical scenarios to sensationally claim he was the killer. Its depressing that some people/sheeple swallowed it hook line and sinker and allowed themselves to be manipulated by programme makers. Burke is now suing CBS and quite right too! If TV companies are allowed to get away with making shitty programmes like this libelling people who are innocent until tried in court, it is very bad news for justice!
    2
  18. Ness O.S. Exactly! It is very depressing that so many people watched that sensationalist, ratings grabbing documentary and swallowed the TV producers' agenda to find Burke Guilty of a murder he has never been formally accused of let alone tried in a court for! Seems some people would send him to the electric chair just because they don't like the look of him! If this had been a family job the police would have found dna linking them to the crime. They did not - and the ransom letter was deemed by handwriting experts NOT to have been written by a family member. I think a stranger did it - this family lived very public lives, enjoyed publicity and even allowed parties of strangers to tour their home. One freak took it into his head to come back at night and commit this crime.
    2
  19. Stranger killings always are the most mysterious - because the killer and the victim have no connection to each other they are the hardest to solve. If a family member had done it some kind of concrete evidence would eventually have been found. It was not and to this day there simply are not grounds to accuse the Ramsey's of killing JonBenet. Horrifying that so many people would see Burke go to the electric chair just because they don't like the look of him! I hope to God these people are never on a jury.
    2
  20. That TV show was a set up from start to finish to declare Burke the killer. Other evidence points to the pathologist photos that show fingernail marks on JonBenet's neck proving she was alive when strangled and was trying to loosen the ligature with her fingers. These nail marks on her neck are typical of strangulation victims. This was not mentioned on the documentary you saw because it destroyed their premise that Burke killed her with a blow to the head and the ligature was only placed on her after death as a red herring to make it look like an outsider killed her. That TV show was a load of ratings grabbing, libellous baloney that did not produce one single piece of new evidence! Burke is suing CBS and I hope he wins. Innocent until proven guilty is a very important principle and as he has never been formally accused or tried for murder, a TV company should not get away with calling him a killer!
    2
  21. Tony Silva - I tend to agree that the family was not involved in the murder. Sadly a documentary was recently made naming the son Burke as the killer, supporting this premise with no new evidence just re-hashed misinformation, rumour and plain old fabrication. It is the most shameful piece of trial by television I've ever seen and I was glad to read today that Burke Ramsey is suing the programme makers CBS. I hope he wins his case. When TV producers are allowed to label someone who has never been formally accused or prosecuted as a killer it is a perilous day for justice and sets a very bad precedent. The TV show shamelessly pandered to the people out there who would see Burke go to the electric chair on no actual evidence - just because they don't like the look of him!
    2
  22. Oh come on! She was six years old - parents don't murder their child because she says she doesn't want to do a pageant! These parents had money and an easy life they were not the type to get stressed and lash out at their children. I believe it was a stranger killing and that if the ramseys had lived a quiet life, ie not put their daughter in pageants and not allowed strangers in to tour their home that little girl would not have been targeted and killed.
    2
  23. Its like a lynch mob against the Ramsey family on this comments section! No one knows who killed that child and there has never been enough evidence to charge let alone convict a family member. But you would happily send Burke to the electric chair because you don't like the look of him! The widespread public hysteria against that family is the most disturbing aspect of the whole case!
    2
  24. Really? Thanks to the bungled police investigation the most likely suspect is OJ Simpson!
    2
  25. If your 'research' is that ridiculous CBS documentary that was made with the sole intention of framing Burke for the killing without presenting any new evidence then no wonder your ideas are so half-baked! Burke is suing CBS and I hope he wins.
    2
  26. MrTron - I totally agree. The disgraceful CBS documentary was made with the sole intention of framing Burke for the killing and ignored or attempted to discredit any evidence that contradicted that. The most powerful evidence of an intruder was the dna evidence on the child's underwear and body which point to a Hispanic male. Ludicrously, one of the so-called experts dismissed this dna on the underwear (not mentioning it was found elsewhere too!) saying it could have come from a factory worker who manufactured them! A total fit up aimed at naming an innocent man as a killer - he is suing CBS and i hope he wins they should not be allowed to get away with trial by television.
    2
  27. That was a totally fabricated, hypothetical story dreamed up by TV producers of the recent documentary everyone commenting here has watched and swallowed hook line and sinker! How on earth can we know that Jon Benet stole her brother's pineapple pieces and he attacked her? The evidence - she had some pineapple in her stomach! It is so feeble as to be funny and it would be laughed out of court if it were ever presented as evidence. Sad that so many people watched that piece of shit show and believed it.. The so-called crime experts (a rag tag bunch of has-beens and a widely discredited British 'expert' Laura Richards - Google her, she is so unprofessional she can no longer get work in Britain) did not produce a single piece of new evidence! Yet they had the arrogance to name Burke as the killer. Trial by television must never be permitted - only courts should perform this function. Burke is suing the TV programme makers and I hope to God he wins.
    2
  28. The TV show everyone is quoting made many mistakes. They claimed the garotte was a set up to make the crime look like premeditated murder - the so called experts claimed Jon Benet was killed by a blow to the head and dead when the garrotte was applied for appearances sake. But that cannot be true as fingernail scratches found on her neck prove she was alive and fought to remove the garotte from her neck as she was strangled. That show got many facts wrong in its desperate attempts to frame Burke for the killing! He is suing CBS and I hope he wins for trial by television should never be allowed.
    2
  29. Did you watch the programme? Burke was clearly tried by television - they presented no new evidence and at the end concluded he was the killer, with a totally fabricated hypothesis about Jon Benet having stolen a piece of pineapple from him and him having hit her over the head with a flashlight! It's so ludicrous it would be funny - but TV shows have no right to be judge and jury like this!
    2
  30. Jeremy - You are taking my words literally - Of course they weren't literally judge and jury, they are a TV company not a court of law! That is my point. They acted as though they had the right to 'try' him for the crime - they do not. Only a court of law has that right. He has never been prosecuted or tried in a court of law, so under the crucial principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty' he is an innocent man. You think him suing them is a 'frivolous law suit'? There's nothing remotely frivolous about being named as a killer on network television! If it happened to you I suspect you would take an entirely different view.
    2
  31. Jeremy - Unless you are broadcasting your claims as fact to millions of TV viewers as this programme about the JonBenet case did, nobody will give a rat's ass what you say let alone sue you! Come on, use your brain here - you're not thinking logically about this!
    2
  32. Jeremy - yet again you are missing the point. I get it that you think he is guilty. Many other people also think he is guilty. The point is, thinking someone is guilty is not justification for making a TV show stating it as fact. If TV companies are allowed the power to give these kinds of supremely libellous and damaging judgements about people like Burke, (who has never even been formally accused of this killing let alone tried in a court of law), it is wrong in principle and very dangerous. A statement of guilt should only ever be made after a fair trial and a guilty verdict. Having seen that incredibly biased TV show that basically TOLD viewers to take their word for it he was the killer (without presenting any new evidence) I still do not know who killed JonBenet but I am less inclined to think it was him!
    2
  33. An innocent man is accused of being a killer on network TV and you don't understand why that would bother him? Are you being serious?
    2
  34. I thought it was rather desperate by the programme makers to call in the telephonist who took the 911 call. What could she really say that would throw any light on the recording of the call we have already heard? She seemed to enjoy the attention - she cried and hinted darkly that she thought the family were in on it. But what evidence did she have for that - that Patsy's tone of voice changed? Very flimsy! The telephonist, like the majority of the public, think the family are involved, but she had no more evidence to add than any other random man or woman stopped and asked on the street. The TV show was devious too - when the 2 so-called experts took the 911 recording to a studio to have it cleaned up and try to decipher spoken words made when the phone was not properly hung up, they pretended they were 'deciphering' those words for the first time. They were not. Back in 2008 sound engineers came up with a transcript of what they believed (they couldn't be 100% sure) were statements made when the phone wasn't properly hung up. These 2 'experts' knew that transcript from 2008 and just repeated it verbatim word for word, but did so as though they had just deciphered those words for the very first time. That was misleading. It also wasn't convincing that what they said they heard was accurate - or that they could hear Burke's voice at all, as they claimed. Way too much innuendo, suggestion and unsupported opinion presented as fact for my liking.
    2
  35. I agree with you, the entire crime is bizarre in the extreme and none of it is easy to explain. It has clearly baffled the police, who spectacularly failed to get justice for that little girl! The ransom note is perhaps the strangest aspect of all. I simply cannot work that out - the family were not stupid so it puzzles me that they would write a long and potentially incriminating letter that they know police forensics and handwriting experts would use as evidence and could link the crime to them. But that letter never was linked to them, was it? Three handwriting experts failed to identify Patsy as the author. Having observed the Ramsey family they don't strike me as cold blooded killers or people capable of staging a murder on their 6 year old - to knowingly tie a garrotte onto your recently deceased child takes a special kind of ruthlessness. I'm just not convinced.
    2
  36. We'll have to agree to disagree Jane, I didn't feel the audio was remotely convincing let alone compelling. The two experts told us they could hear various dialogue clearly through their headphones and we were just supposed to believe them! It was yet another example of the programme makers telling us rather than showing us things and letting us make up our own minds. In my view this is not good programme production but sadly it can succeed in grabbing ratings and manipulating viewers to believe the agenda they are pushing.
    2
  37. Autumn Apples - I agree! People have been suckered in by that ridiculous, manipulative CBS documentary. It names Burke as the killer without presenting any new or compelling evidence. Any evidence that pointed to his innocence was just dismissed or explained away with opposing hypothesis! Depressing that so many people are so gullible and easily manipulated by TV producers.
    1
  38. That documentary was a joke - they were not 'top experts' at all, they were a rag tag bunch of has-beens and never was-es! One of the so-called experts was a British self-style forensic profiler Laura Richards (blonde who looks like a man in drag) whose judgement and professionalism has been so discredited in Britain she can no longer work here and is now trying her luck in the States!
    1
  39. I'm glad you too feel the 911 call was inconclusive. As for the 'shift in tone' from Patsy? What did that actually mean? The programme makers brought in the telephonist who took the 911 call (I got the distinct feeling she thought her moment in the media spotlight was long overdue!) and she makes a vague, tearful statement to the effect that once Patsy Ramsey put the phone down 'her tone changed'. What? Even now, all these years later with the technology we have to improve the audio, we cannot clearly make out what may have been said - let alone whether 9 year old Burke was present! Throughout the documentary reeked of TV producers manipulating the information to fit the conclusion they had already made - that a child accidentally killed his sister. This was dangerous stuff. Let proper courts of law decide guilt, not trashy sensational shows like this one.
    1
  40. Yes, I think the lady wanted to build up her part a bit don't you, and as she clearly thought the family were involved (along it seems with most of the public, despite an inconvenient lack of hard evidence), the programme makers were only too delighted to put the spotlight on her! I was decidedly unimpressed by the group of so-called crime experts the show assembled too, (at least one, Laura Richards, is so discredited in Britain she can no longer work here). These 'experts' were clearly working to a brief given to them by CBS, that Burke was the killer. If any one of them had challenged the premise that Burke was guilty, they would have been thrown off the show with no fee! Truth is, none of us knows who committed this sickening crime. All we know is a little girl died a cruel unnatural death and her killer has not faced justice. The police were woefully inadequate!
    1
  41. Vidya Wati - Wow this 'bashfulbrother' person is very weird - I reckon police should look into unsolved killings in their area, Lol! Makes me laugh that this idiot provides lengthy, supposed 'evidence' about the case but when you quite reasonably ask where they got the info, they say its none of your business! Typical dickhead, armchair detective. Whoever killed this little girl, the fact remains thanks to a badly handled police investigation there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone. Much as idiots like 'bashfulbrother' would like to send people to the electric chair just because they don't like the look of them, thankfully we live in a civilized society where hard evidence is required to convict. I tend to lean towards the intruder theory as it has been proven it was easy to get into the house via the cellar and so-say 'cobweb' evidence was not compelling. Stranger killings, where the murderer and victim are unknown to each other, are the hardest to solve. If a member of the family had done it, written the ransom note etc the police would have pinned it to one of them by now.
    1
  42. You just proved my point entirely Jeremy! How long have YOU worked homicide, Lol!
    1
  43. Yes - I've watched 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit' too!
    1
  44. Your hysteria over this case proves they were right to kick you out!
    1
  45. And what do you do for a living now - I guess like most failed cops you're 'in security' Lol!
    1
  46. Whatever. You keep telling yourself that!
    1
  47. Hi Jane - Much of this is about interpretation, and that can be very subjective. So many aspects of the CBS documentary worried me, I don't know where to start. It is clear they started with an agenda - they believed Burke was the killer then set about making the evidence - and not always hard evidence but also circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, plus some plain old fabrication like the pineapple incident - to support that premise. This is dangerous stuff. Certainly there is not sufficient hard evidence to have put Burke in jail and like everyone else pontificating here, I have no idea who the killer is. Having watched that shameful pseudo documentary, featuring a motley assortment of 'experts' promoting the programme's assertion that Burke is guilty and getting themselves handsome TV appearance fees for their trouble, I am more inclined to think Burke is innocent. It does not help his cause that he lacks social skills, but that does not make him a killer.
    1
  48. Hang on, I'm confused - I thought the TV show theory was that Burke killed her with a fatal blow to the head with the flashlight then the parents attached a garrotte to her neck though she was already dead, to make it look like an intruder murder? The TV show made a big deal of stating she did not die from asphixiation (as stated in the autopsy report) but from the blow to the head. This was crucial to their theory that a nine year old child killed her - because if the autopsy is correct (as I believe it is) and she died from strangulation/asphixiation, then Burke is highly unlikely to be the killer.
    1
  49. I just don't buy the family conspiracy theory - if the parents were going to stage a cover up they would have made it look like an accident, eg put her body at the bottom of the stairs. It beggars belief that they would stage a rape on their 6 year old child. I just don't believe them capable of that kind of ruthless duplicity. If they loved their daughter - and there's every indication they did - I doubt them capable of garrotting her, 'raping' her dead body etc. Whatever her parents are they are not psychopaths.
    1
  50. who's your daddy - if you get incensed by punctuation I'd hate to go out to a bar with you on a Saturday night - what would you do if someone spilled a drink on you?! Scary! Come to think of it, you're the kind who would whack a girl with a flashlight if she snagged a piece of your pineapple!
    1
  51. Hi Jane - When did I even vaguely suggest he's woman/wife beater? I made a sarcastic comment likening him to 9 year old Burke, saying he's so angry I wouldn't put it past him to whack a girl over the head with a flashlight if she took a piece of his pineapple, Lol! It's a big leap from that to say I called him a wife beater! No one made any suggestion of that nature (domestic violence) but HIM which is interesting. Yes the cat strangling masturbator was a new one even for You Tube crazies, wonderful visual image isn't it?! Happy New (You Tube) Year!
    1
  52. Seriously? You're this upset about someone not sharing your opinion? I repeat - it's not normal, get help with your anger issues! And my comment about you whacking a girl was an obvious reference to JonBenet and had nothing to do with wife/woman bashing. YOU mentioned that - which I do think is interesting.
    1
  53. You are entitled to your opinion, as are we all. But people should remember that it is only opinion - no definitive evidence has been found against Burke. If it had, he would currently be residing on death row. I happen to think the killer is not a family member but a stranger or possibly someone with a connection to the family, eg the nanny's boyfriend. I believe it highly unlikely a 9 year old child accidentally (or intentionally) killed his sister and then the parents went to great lengths to stage a cover up (including tying a garrotte around her neck?) This family has never struck me as being capable of that kind of outrage against their own little girl. But I do understand why so many suspect the family and continue to do so. Ultimately it is desperately sad that a 6 year old child was not safe where a child should always be safe - in their own bed - and that the man (for you can be sure the killer is a man) took her life from her in such a brutal fashion.
    1
  54. Feminism has nothing to do with it - statistically the killer is highly unlikely to be a woman or for that matter, a child.
    1
  55. I had wondered how Trump the Chump got elected - now, thanks to you, I know!
    1
  56. I just proved the point I've been making here over and over - Never assume!
    1
  57. Love it! Did you work on the CBS show?!!
    1
  58. And your theory didn't point the finger at Burke so they wouldn't have liked it one bit!
    1
  59. Hi Jane - I think it would be very remiss of the 'experts' on this latest CBS show not to have full knowledge of all the information available on the case, including the previous transcript of the white noise that ended the 911 call recording. That white noise was far from legible when it was first analysed and clearly no more legible today, since they did not report any new information! We were supposed to believe these two experts came up with exactly the same interpretation of what may have been said, WORD FOR WORD all these years later? Frankly for any reasonable person that notion beggared belief. It added to the general feeling that CBS were manipulating the evidence - and their audience - to support a verdict they had already decided upon before the opening credits rolled. As a TV producer myself, I feel this was very shabby programme making.
    1
  60. Like so much 'evidence' presented in the CBS show, the 911 recording is inconclusive and ultimately comes down to personal interpretation. The programme makers deployed the power of suggestion to influence viewer perceptions throughout - and reading some of the comments here, it was effective! Take a look online at 'Rolling Stone - 3 Big Ways the Case of JonBenet Ramsey' Got It Wrong'. The fact is, not a single piece of solid evidence has come to light to incriminate a Ramsey family member in the twenty years since the crime was committed. The CBS documentary, while piecing together a case against Burke Ramsey based on circumstantial, anecdotal and at times totally fabricated 'evidence' (pineapple chunk, anyone?) produced not a single scrap of new evidence against him or his parents. Most outrageously of all, in order to make their case against Burke they had to dismiss the most compelling evidence of all that the family were not involved - the unidentified male dna on the child's body. How convenient that they decided it was the dna of a factory worker on JonBenet's underwear - 'forgetting' to mention the same male dna was found under her fingernails and elsewhere on her body! The Ramseys may have played a part in the death of that little girl but no one has succeeded in proving it, not the police, not the media and certainly not the keyboard warriors who would send Burke to the electric chair because he lacks social skills and smiles inappropriately in a TV interview! This lynch mob mentality leaves me cold. I prefer to see people tried in a proper court of law not on a sensationalist, ratings-chasing TV show and definitely not on internet chat rooms!
    1