By 
Beyond the obviou$ one, there is little reason for Netflix‘s Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey to exist. Nearly 30 years after the tragic murder of six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey, the case remains as cold as the fateful Boulder, Colorado night on which it occurred.
Despite the lack of fresh developments (or maybe because of it), the true crime-consuming public remains captivated with the story of this innocent child pageant participant killed in her upper class family’s home on Christmas night in 1996. Countless online forums are singularly devoted to solving the mystery that has beguiled so many professional investigators for years. JonBenét sleuthing is more than a cottage industry, it’s its own culture nestled within the larger true crime phenomenon. It’s only natural then that streaming titan Netflix would want to break into that conversatoin. Hell, it has done so already with 2017 documentary Casting JonBenet. What’s one more docuseries on top of that?
The problem with that latest effort, Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey, though, is that there is truly nothing left for it to say after decades of other, better articulations of the case. In lieu of anything novel to report, Cold Case largely hands the mic over to one of the chief players involved, JonBenét’s father John Ramsey, and invites him to share his narrative alongside a handful of sympathetic interviewees.
This is not to say John Ramsey’s story is unimportant. Though true crime devotees often view him and the rest of the family as chief suspects due to the crime’s “locked-room mystery” nature, the Ramseys remain very much Not Guilty in the eyes of the law. But his perspective is just that: a perspective. Longtime followers of the JonBenét Ramsey case have more than enough testimony to wade through. What they’re in the market for is more evidence. This three-episode Netflix series, directed by Making a Murderer‘s Joe Berlinger, is unable to provide that. Perhaps nothing can.
Granted, if your only experience with the JonBenét Ramsey case is through watching Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey then you might find the documentary understandably riveting. The JonBenét story has stood the test of time for a reason. But if you’re familiar at all with the mountains of other JonBenét documentaries, books, articles, theories, and forums, then this is all merely rehash. In fact, there are some crucial details about the case missing from this doc. Details like…
The Autopsy Reports Contain Additional Information
Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey‘s three episodes all cover different aspects of the case. Episode 1 “Keep Your Babies Close” largely recounts the details of the fateful 1996 Christmas night and its immediate aftermath. Episode 2 “Umbrella of Suspicion” details parents John and Patsy Ramsey’s experience as chief suspects in the murder of their daughter before the state of Colorado opts not to indict them. Episode 3 “The Truth Is Going to Prevail” looks into several candidates in the “intruder theory” that posits a home invader killed JonBenét.
While the latter two episodes are more openly subjective in presenting John Ramsey’s account and subsequent intruder theories, episode 1 is designed to be the objective foundation upon which the rest of the docuseries rests. Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey does a pretty good job in creating this foundation, even crafting a very useful 3D rendering of the Ramsey house on 15th Street to guide viewers through the events. Still, for all of the crucial bits of information the episode includes (the ransom letter, the garrotte, the broken paintbrush, etc.), it also omits or doesn’t fully touch upon some others.
The most prominent bit of evidence that Cold Case doesn’t dive into concerns the autopsy reports. The docuseries notes that there was evidence of sexual trauma in JonBenét’s initial post-mortem investigation. What it doesn’t mention, however, is that several medical professionals believe there is evidence of sustained sexual trauma in a time period before the day of her murder. In Boulder police detective Steve Thomas’s 2001 deposition for the Wolf v Ramsey civil trial (snippets of which are featured in the docuseries), he mentions the hiring of child sexual abuse medical expert John McCann to look into the JonBenét case. In his 2000 book JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, he alludes to “a panel of pediatric experts from around the country” who looked into the matter and came to the same conclusion that JonBenét suffered genital trauma prior to the day she was killed.
Thomas and his panel’s findings are corroborated by James Kolar’s 2012 book Foreign Faction – Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?, which reports that Boulder County Coroner Dr. John Meyer found evidence of previous sexual trauma in addition to the immediately pre-mortem trauma he first reported. Meyer enlisted child abuse specialist Dr. Andrew Sirotnak for a second opinion, who ultimately concurred.
Another detail from autopsy reports that Cold Case doesn’t dwell on is the pineapple that JonBenét ingested shortly before her death. According to post-mortem examiners in Thomas’ investigation, the condition of the pineapple in JonBenét’s intestine suggested that she had eaten it one and a half to two hours before being killed. Why is this detail important? Truth be told it might not be. Children eat pineapple all the time. But the reality of the situation is that the pineapple is one of the few bits of hard evidence that amateur sleuths have access to and it invariably plays a role in nearly every theory regarding the case.
Those who ascribe to the theory that John and Patsy harmed their child point to the fact that they never mentioned the pineapple in their initial statements to the police, and JonBenét eating at the kitchen table just hours before her death contradicts an intruder timeline. Those who ascribe to the theory that JonBenét’s brother Burke killed her, accidentally or otherwise, point to the presence of his fingerprints on the bowl of fruit and the child-like haphazard cutting of the pineapple as evidence for their claims.
As is the case with pretty much everything regarding this story, we will likely never know the real significance of the pineapple. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t significant. Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey merely tosses the pineapple information in at the end, roughly five minutes before the final credits roll, along with the dismissive text that a 2016 CBS special “speculated that Burke killed JonBenét because she ate some of his snack.” It goes on to note that Burke sued CBS and the producers for $750 million, eventually settling for an undisclosed sum.
There Are Some Flaws in Lou Smit’s Intruder Theory
Much of Cold Case‘s second and third episodes follow the dogged work of veteran detective Lou Smit as he investigates, first in an official capacity and then independently, his theory that an intruder killed JonBenét. Smit is a fascinating figure in this case. Born in Colorado Springs and based there for the entirety of his career, Smit, who died in 2010, was both a deeply religious man and a tremendously gifted investigator. Prior to his work on the JonBenét mystery, Smit was known for his involvement in many prominent murder mysteries, including several that ended up being featured in true crime TV series like Forensic Files and Homicide Hunter. In a 2000 episode of Geraldo Rivera’s talk show, Cold Case boogeyman and intruder theory skeptic Steve Thomas even said that Smit “is a guy I respect, I have a great deal of admiration for, that I still consider a friend.”
Still, despite Smit’s apparent earnestness and talent, many observers of the JonBenét case have expressed doubt in his intruder theory. Part of that skepticism is due to a perceived bias – Smit prayed with the then-suspects Ramseys shortly after meeting them. More of it, however, comes down to the usual problem with every theory this story: there’s just not enough evidence!
In the series’ second episode, Smit shares that he believes a stun gun is the most important missing piece in this case. He points to small, circular bruises on JonBenét’s neck as telltale signs of a stun gun injury from a likely intruder. But of course, no such stun gun has ever been recovered. And no expert of note has concurred with Smit’s assertion that the injuries to JonBenét’s neck came from a stun gun. Stun guns, or TASERS, use pointed projectiles that embed themselves in the target’s skin. JonBenét’s bruises don’t feature any of the telltale puncture wounds that would accompany these pointed probes.
Similarly, Smit’s other purported bits of evidence supporting the intruder theory don’t hold up particularly well. He suggests that the disheveled pattern of JonBenét’s bedsheets resembles someone being dragged out of bed, when, to my (and many others’) untrained eyes it just looks like a child’s normal unmade bed. He concurs with John Ramsey that the suitcase placed under the basement window represented the intruder’s escape plan. This conflicts with one of the crime scene’s more consequential (and sadly poorly-photographed) pieces of evidence of an unbroken spider web extending from the window to the windowsill. Additionally, why would an intruder arrange a suitcase vertically to elevate themselves upward? Surely a horizontal orientation is more stable and wouldn’t run the risk of toppling over? Thinking even further, why wouldn’t an intruder just leave via the front door after committing a crime that the entire house already slept through?
We bring all of this up not to fully discount the intruder theory (which is indeed as viable as any) or besmirch Lou Smit’s well-earned good name. Instead, we bring it up to illustrate Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey‘s fundamental lack of curiosity and its apparent disinterest on pushing back on theories its subjects present.
John Mark Karr (And Many Other Creeps) Have Been Ruled Out
Speaking of the intruder theories, Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey offers up plenty of actual potential intruders to have committed the crime. Through Lou Smit’s theorizing and journalist Michael Tracey’s investigating, Cold Case provides the following names for consideration:
– Gary Oliva
– Randy Simons
– John Brewer Eustace
– John Mark Karr a.k.a. Daxis
The problem with this rogues’ gallery is that they have all already been eliminated as suspects for one reason or another. On October 21, 2003, the Boulder District Attorney’s office publicly declared it had cleared Oliva as a suspect based on a “background investigation” and an “interview.” John Brewer Eustace was similarly ruled out in 1997 with a reliable alibi. Randy Simons was never considered a serious suspect though it is admittedly chilling how closely into the world of child beauty pageants a convicted child sexual abuser was able to get. Simons is actually credited as the photographer of the photo of JonBenét Ramsey that accompanies the Wikipedia entry of this case.
And then there’s John Mark Karr…oh John Mark Karr. Boulder County Investigators can be forgiven for arresting John Mark Karr in 2006 and having him swiftly extradited from Thailand. This is a case that everyone is understandably desperate to solve and Karr’s blunt and detailed confession to Michael Tracey was the most compelling bit of evidence that emerged since that fateful Christmas night in 1996.
Unfortunately, Karr’s confession quickly fell apart under closer scrutiny. His claim of drugging and slowly strangling Jonbenét Ramsey doesn’t correspond to the physical evidence presented by her body. Additionally, his DNA didn’t match any of the DNA found in the crime scene, most crucially the unknown strand of male DNA now popularly known as “UM1.”
In Cold Case, Tracey purports that Karr knew John Ramsey’s nickname for his mother-in-law Nedra was “Neddy.” John Ramsey also claims that his housekeeper reported that she saw a man who looked like John Mark Karr prowling their Michigan property. Are those data points interesting? Sure. But it’s hard to conclude that any coincidences or claims match up against the DNA evidence. As John says himself: “John Mark Karr is a very strange guy but until we have a DNA match, we don’t know who the killer is.”
DNA Might Never Be Enough to Find the Killer
Now, about that DNA. Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey‘s biggest shortcoming is its inability to do a deep dive into the nettle that is DNA evidence in this case. Granted, it can be forgiven for not wanting to fully wade in as the DNA is by far the hardest part of this whole ordeal to wrap one’s head around.
There’s a popular perception that DNA provides the definitive smoking gun in every crime. That is true to some extent – DNA is reliable in positively identifying and ruling out suspects (as it has with several suspects in this case), but it’s also a delicate thing. Scientists require an ample amount of genetic material to extract enough DNA to provide a complete genetic code while legal professionals need an unsullied crime scene and a consistent chain of evidential custody to be confident there isn’t any cross contamination. Unfortunately, the JonBenét case is lacking on both of these fronts.
Perhaps the most useful online resource to understand the implications of DNA in this case comes from the DNA FAQ on the r/JonBenetRamsey subreddit. There, readers can get a better idea of why getting answers in this case doesn’t simply boil down to “run the DNA code, find the murderer.” The long and short of it all is that investigators have had hundreds of items to sort through including underwear, fingernails, ligatures, and more. And the profiles generated from those artifacts are often frustratingly incomplete. None of that is to even mention the contaminated nature of the initial crime scene.
Of course, DNA science is always advancing and some are hopeful that new technologies could provide further clarity. John Ramsey himself mentions this possibility near the end of Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey, pointing out that genealogical databases like Ancestry and 23andMe have been used to find killers through familial DNA as was the case in the Golden State Killer murders. It might not be quite that simple here.
Original grand jury deputy prosecutor Mitch Morrissey (who is interviewed in this doc) explained in a 2020 interview that identifying killers through familial DNA requires more genetic material than JonBenét investigators currently have. “Where you could test maybe eight skin cells and get a profile and, you know, solve your murder or exonerate an innocent person, you can’t do that with sequencing. You’ve got to have a pretty good amount of DNA,” he said.
We May Never Know Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey
The hardest pill to swallow for those who closely follow the JonBenét Ramsey case is that we will likely never know what really happened to this innocent little girl. Everyone has their murderer of choice in this story whether it be John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, Burke Ramsey, or one of the many possible intruders into their home. The real villain here, however, is Christmas.
Because this crime happened in an affluent, safe community on Christmas night, the Boulder Police Department didn’t necessarily have it’s “A-Team” of investigators to dispatch once the 9-1-1 call came in. And since that 9-1-1 call initially reported the crime as a kidnapping, the police officers on-site did not think to properly secure the property as a crime scene. As such, all of the best potential evidence was lost and/or contaminated within hours of police’s arrival. That’s why, some 30 years later, amateur detectives are reduced to arguing about a bowl of cut up pineapples.
Still, we should not let the likely impossibility of ever solving this crime acquit Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey from not even making a worthy attempt. At best, Cold Case is looking to exploit an old story for new clicks. At worst, it’s running cover for one of the suspects involved.
All three episodes of Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey are available to stream on Netflix now.
The post What Netflix’s Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey Leaves Out appeared first on Den of Geek.
