What Netflix’s Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey leaves out

Those who espouse the theory that John and Patsy harmed their child point to the fact that they never mentioned the pineapple in their initial statements to police, and that JonBenét, who was eating at the kitchen table just hours before her death , contradicts an invader’s timeline. Those who theorize that JonBenét’s brother Burke killed her, accidentally or otherwise, point out the presence of his fingerprints on the bowl of fruit and the childishly haphazard cutting of the pineapple as proof of their claims.

As is the case with pretty much everything related to this story, we will probably never know the true meaning of the pineapple. But it doesn’t mean that is not significant. Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey just throws in the pineapple information at the end, about five minutes before the final credits appear, along with the dismissive line that a 2016 CBS special “speculated that Burke killed JonBenét because she ate some of his snack.” It is further noted that Burke sued CBS and the producers for $750 million, ultimately settling for an undisclosed amount.

There are some flaws in Lou Smit’s intruder theory

Lots of it Cold caseThe second and third episodes of the series follow the dogged work of veteran detective Lou Smit as he, first in an official capacity and then independently, investigates his theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét. Smit is a fascinating figure in this case. Smit, who died in 2010, was born in Colorado Springs and lived there for his entire career, was both a deeply religious man and an enormously gifted researcher. Prior to his work on the JonBenét mystery, Smit was known for his involvement in many prominent murder mysteries, including several that were eventually featured on true crime TV series such as Forensic files And Homicide hunter. In a 2000 episode of Geraldo Rivera’s talk show: Cold case boogeyman and skeptic of the invader theory Steve Thomas even said it that Smit “is a man whom I respect, whom I admire greatly, and whom I still consider a friend.”

Yet, despite Smit’s apparent seriousness and talent, many observers of the JonBenét case have expressed doubt about his intrusion theory. Some of that skepticism is due to a perceived bias: Smit prayed with the then suspected Ramseys shortly after I met them. However, more comes down to the usual problem with any theory in this story: there just isn’t enough evidence!

In the second episode of the series, Smit shares that he believes a stun gun is the key missing piece in this case. He points to small, round bruises on JonBenét’s neck as telltale signs of a stun gun by a likely intruder. But of course such a stun gun was never found. And no significant expert agrees with Smit’s claim that the injuries to JonBenét’s neck were the result of a stun gun. Stun guns, or TASERS, use pointed projectiles that burrow into the target’s skin. JonBenét’s bruises show none of the telltale puncture wounds associated with these pointed probes.

Likewise, Smit’s other alleged evidence supporting the intruder theory does not particularly hold up. He suggests that the sloppy pattern of JonBenét’s sheets resembles someone being dragged out of bed, while to my untrained eyes (and those of many others) it simply looks like a child’s normal, unmade bed. He agrees with John Ramsey that the suitcase placed under the basement window represented the intruder’s escape plan. This contradicts one of the most consistent (and unfortunately.) poorly photographed) evidence of an unbroken spider web stretching from window to windowsill. Furthermore, why would an intruder position a suitcase vertically to raise themselves? Surely a horizontal orientation is more stable and does not run the risk of falling over? Thinking even further, why wouldn’t an intruder just leave through the front door after committing a crime that the entire house has already slept through?