I know a little bit too much about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. I've also followed the latest developments with an arrest and confession in the case a little bit too closely. Sure, I love mysteries, but I'm usually not one for avidly following high-profile homicides. Instead, from the beginning, I've felt a special connection to the Ramsey case.
This is because, possibly unlike the man now under arrest, I was actually in Colorado when JonBenet Ramsey was killed. 1996 being the only Xmas I have not spent either on the farm or in whatever state I happened to be living at the time. I was visiting a friend, and I remember us both seeing the Denver Post story about a murder in Boulder. I said this was going to be a huge national story. My friend said I was overreacting and that it would make tabloid-TV shows but not be bigger than this. So, every time there's been a major news story about the case, it's like there's a personal sidebar to the story saying, "Hey, Jeremy, remember that time you were So Totally Right?"
Of course, I've also thought the whole time that some combination of insiders were responsible. I've never been able to get past the weird ransom note, with its request for $118,000 and "Victory! S.B.T.C." closing. So, if the man who confessed turned out to be guilty, the sidebar will change to "Hey, Jeremy, remember that time you were So Totally Right about that thing about which you were ultimately So Totally Wrong," which doesn't have quite the same ring to it. The current story is that despite the various pecularities of the statements of the man who confessed, he has provided details about the body that were not publicly known. Still, my reaction is not to believe it until more convincing information is made available.
5 comments:
from jecg: I had totally forgotten that I was ALSO in Colorado that Christmas, skiing with family and friends. (But, alas, not with Jeremy.) I, too, have followed this story with more interest than I have for most of this ilk. When the latest news emerged, I was drawn back in, but I couldn't remember why I was originally so attached to the story. Thanks for making me feel a little less creepy about it.
If it hadn't been for the whole creeptastic child beauty pageant thing, the case wouldn't be nearly as huge. For a while I was undecided, but I've been leaning towards the outside-job (at least, not the parents) side. I think learning about the condition of her body is really what pushed me. It just doesn't fit the "oh, it was an accident and now i'm trying to make it look worse to look like it was an outside job" theory. I don't think the Ramsey's are capable of objectifying and brutalizing their daughter like that. You'd have to be a pretty sick f***.
The media has taken this whole ordeal to another level and created the aura that perhaps this weird guy is making a false confession. Regardless of the eventual court outcome, and no matter what the real truth is (which we will never know for certain), the media will make a 3-ring circus out of this. That sells newspapers, pays for airtime, and ups the market share and ratings.
Winston: I disagree that we should feel like we are never going to know the truth about this guy's confession. If it turns out there is proof he was in Alabama in Xmas 1996, that's going to be hard to counterargue. Likewise, while apparently there cannot be a singular DNA match because of the quality of the available sample, if the DNA sample includes only a small proportion of people but includes him, that would vastly tip my opinion, especially if accompanied by any evidence tying him to Colorado.
JECG: I remember now that we were both in Colorado that year. Hee!
Post a Comment