Create Content in MinutesGet Started For Free
This article is about how Burke Ramsey finally talked for the first time twenty years after his sister's murder. He claimed he remained quiet until now in order to grow up as much of a normal life as possible. He speaks of how the last time he saw JonBenet alive was on the car ride home the night before she was murdered. This statement clashes with the idea that both JonBenet and Burke were up late together that night. A neighbor claimed to have heard screams coming from their home that night; however, Burke claims he did not here those same screams. Burke said he remained in his room as the crime scene evolved because he usually avoided conflict. This article was informative and able to give me insight to Burke's perspective of the case twenty years later.
This article notes how Burke Ramsey claimed that he did not harm her and he believes a pedophile hurt her. The family friend who spoke with the website claimed that she saw signs of anger outbursts in the young brother, Burke. Judith Philips claims she believes that Burke is guilty of committing the crime. To me, it is hard not to believe her opinions. She was the Ramsey's close family friend and was told not to speak to the public, but instead did so. She took the risk of losing the Ramseys as friends in order to help JonBenet to obtain justice. She says that although people thought of JonBenet as a dolled up child, she was also a big tom girl.
Joyce Carol Oates has noticed how true crime stories are capable of appealing to all people despite their backgrounds. Its a genre that is relatable to everyone no matter the color skin, age, or gender. In some way, these stories are actually able to bring people in society together. We all wonder in the ideas behind the events and mourn for those effected by them. We all want the same answers and have the same questions. For instance, crime writer Ian Rankin said "We wonder where it comes from and whether we ourselves could ever carry out such an act." We desire to know how people fall to committing these wrongful actions. Some say it is due to schadenfreude, the state of being pleased off of other's pain and suffering. But, this article claims there is more to it than this. It is also society desiring to know what we are capable of doing. The most compelling factor of true crime is the fact that it is about real events.
The article begins with a brief history of the recent uprise of television crime series. How they began, and how their population rose. They unite Americans and create the question of whether or not our justice system rightfully deals with crime. The "True crime shows can undoubtedly do a world of good when handled correctly". It can be very dangerous to assess high-profile cases and the way we go about speaking of them. We are re-writing history by bringing up unsolved cases. The farther back we go the "murkier" it gets. I did not enjoy this article neither did I find the information in it useful.
Why we are so interested in these true-crime documentaries and shows may be because they are "often presented with a sympathetic protagonist who’s been wronged by the law". We are angered by the corrupted legal system and the failure for those wronged to obtain justice. One reason we may plunge into these types of shows is in order to prevent them from happening to us. We feel a sense of safety from watching them as if we now know how to prevent them from happening to us. In a sense, we want to "get inside the mind of a rapist and/or killer so I know what to look for". Its fascinating how these events took place to people just like us but they are also "cautionary tales". Once we begin watching a few we become paranoid and feel like we cannot miss a single one. However, the article says there is more behind the obsession. It is also the desire to understand our corrupted legal system and the way it works. We also want to understand the why and what caused the person to do what they did. And lastly, is it somehow immoral? We sit and binge-watch shows based off of a story that tore apart an innocent family.
This article reviews the psychological appeal of true-crime shows. Like many others say, our fascination with the crime stories come from a deep desire to understand these behaviors out of our own fear. The "True crime might be so fascinating because it offers us a glimpse into the deviant parts of the human psyche." When exploring these aspects of human behavior we engage most into them at home where we are safe. It also relates to our instinct for survival. By learning about the murderers and victims people feel as if they are avoiding becoming a victim themselves. It is said that "women are more likely to seek out true crime stories than men". Binge watching these types of shows on the regular can "can potentially increase your feelings of paranoia and inhibit you from taking risks, even minor ones," Lastly, "Prolonged exposure to true crime stories affects your body negatively because your stress levels spike when you’re watching or reading it." This article was helpful because it not only mentioned the why behind the fascination but also its lasting effects.
All of these crime stories have one thing in common, "they all do a great job of having people mesmerized (and stunned) as the story unfolds, giving the audience the right to draw their own conclusions." The story is not always set in stone and often times leaves much room for assumption. This desire to watch these types of entertainment comes from a young age. Even when we are young we are taught about good and evil and are drawn to the difference in our actions. Children want to know why what is right is okay, and what is wrong is not allowed. True crime "connects us to our most primal fears". Watching these shows is a way for people to experience their deepest emotions and feelings without personally acting on them. Also, you can connect with others on fear and anger. This fascination is not part of a new wave, but television shows have been incorporating crime since the 1950s when it became more popular. As far as this fascination of crime goes, it is not harmful unless it becomes obsessive.
This article takes a turn from the others I have read. Instead of saying why we are obsessed with it this article claims it will tell us what our obsession really says about us. This article is written to answer these questions, "Where does this fascination with the genre come from, and what does it say about us? About our personalities? Are we secretly murderers in the making?". Like other articles, this one claims the obsession to be related to "schadenfreude". As explained by Dr. Packer this is "It’s basically a fancy German word that was used by Freud and the psychoanalysts back when they spoke German, about people getting pleasure in other people’s problems and other people’s suffering. And really, it’s vicarious. It’s not necessarily sadistic, but if bad faith had to fall on someone, at least it fell on someone else. Whatever the luck of the draw is, at least someone else got the short straw. So there’s a sense of relief in finding out that it happened to someone else rather than you." Also, she says that some of us feel a sense of relief that it was not us who committed the crime. Some people who watch horror movies do not like to be scared but watch it because they know something bad is going to happen so they are prepared. Some people watch true crime so that if events likewise happened to them or someone they know or love they would be prepared as to what may happen. Dr. Packer says "it could be like a dress rehearsal. Like the old fashioned fire drills or air raid drills, they had to keep practicing in case a devastating event happened, and they expected it to happen. I think there’s a certain degree for that." The article says that it might not be the murder part of the story they are most interested in, instead it is all that falls after the crimes committed. It might be what happens with the legal system and whether or not those who deserve justice obtain it. Dr. Packer closes on this, "People get relief from knowing that they are not the ones that lost control of their impulses. And I think that’s a tremendous appeal."
I have began to see a pattern in these articles I chose on why people are obsessed with true crime. They all follow the same path. People watch them because they want to understand the desires of those who committed the wrongful actions. I am interested to see if this article will say similar things. This article takes the voice of many who study true crime. First off is Harold Schechter, bestselling author. This author says that killers only fulfill their desires when the entire world knows just what they did and in what ways they are punished. Saying this means that the public would need to know the entirety of the story, start to finish. Another person claims that it is based of off "some sort of curiosity or excitement about evil acts that allow the viewer to insulate him or herself from the reality of the horror by viewing the events through the prism of entertainment". In this way, true crime events become less intimidating because they take happen to others rather than yourself. Journalist Phelps says that we want to get inside the mind of the psychopath and understand there mindset. In this way, we feel of power and one step ahead of the killer. Professor Ramsland says there are three reasons. One, "people gawk at terrible things to reassure themselves that they are safe". Two, most true crime events are portrayed as a puzzle the audience has to solve, "giving people a sense of closure" and is "also a challenge that stimulates the brain". Director, Eric Walter, says that the fact that these stories actually happened make set them apart from fictional horror movies. It interests the public that these are real life actions made by humans. The article goes on to list the other ideas of popular people. This article took a turn from the way others were written and I liked the way it offered many perspectives and outlooks while focusing in on one topic.
One of the questions this article opened up with is, "What really happened to JonBenét Ramsay?" and the title of this article is why we are obsessed with true crime. So, instantly I wanted to look over this. Fuller says that we love the way these puzzles make our brains think harder, they are problems and puzzles we have to solve. These shows "please us is that they appeal to our universal sense of human nature". They allow us to explore this dark side of ourselves.
The first sentence of this article was fully loaded saying, "In trying to make sense of the darkest extremes of human behavior, the public turns murderers into myths and monsters." This makes sense to me. It caught my attention and was structures well. It makes me want to read further. The then go on to mention Pogo the clown and how they juxtapose his white leather jacket with is clown costume. This portrays his humanity and his character he puts on. Sam Amirante said, "When he was good, he was the best of good but but when he was bad he was the worst of evil." It mentions how unlike other types of crime, serial killers are apart of our culture. Stories from years ago continue to be referenced and brought up today. Again, like other articles, I liked the questions they included because they were a general question which got you thinking. The two they said are, "What draws people to their dark, disturbing stories? Why do some killers become celebrities while others are forgotten?" This is similar to the question I am attempting to answer in my own essay, why people are drawn to JonBenet's case. Dr. Scott Bonn says that people want to gain an understanding of these people's motives. People want to see into these people's minds and their and what is behind decision-making. Some claim people's childhood for how they act later in life. I think in some situations this could be accurate; however, this not always true. The article says people want to know why he did it more than what he did. Dave Carbone said that the "why is the wow". This interests me because I did not think about how people are more drawn to the motive behind the action than the action itself. I think this makes sense because people are always searching for an answer and knowing why someone would turn to such evil is a desired question to solve. White male serial killers receive more fame and talk than that of females or other races. One reason behind this could be that women use less gory ways of killing. Usually, killers kill within people with the same race. It says that although there are many cases involving African-Americans, whites tend to obtain more media coverage, therefore their stories are told to a larger crowd. It is harder to catch those who fit in and show no signs of committing a crime. It is easier to find the one who committed the crime if they fit one's stereotypical idea of a murderer. Which reminds me of how many held back on blaming the Ramseys because they were a high-profile couple no one imagined could harm their child. The article ends by saying how the stories of the killers are told time and time again as we make them fit our idea of a serial killer. And for those who don't fit our idea, they are slowly forgotten.
"Who Killed JonBenet" is a rather broad question to ask about the JonBenet Ramsey case. The title itself makes me think that this article will be a very broad one since the killer has never been found guilty. The article discusses how forensic phycology could aid in the explanation of the case. This is a different look on the case and a new perspective to view it from. The article goes on to an in depth explanation of the case in the perspective of forensic psychology. It goes on to compare the case to that of O.J. Simpson pointing out that even though the Ramsey parents were exonerated, many still point to them as guilty. They go about examining the case with no presumption or prejudice. In this way they will more clearly investigate the proven facts of the case instead of opinions. The article then explains the facts. This is the first article i've seen to put away their opinions and state the facts which makes it easier to view the case. Also, the way they stated the facts drew my attention in. Within this information, they reported a nearby neighbor having heard a scream coming from around the area of the Ramsey household. The scream came from around midnight and was so loud it woke a neighbor. Hearing this, it would not make sense if the Ramsey's too did not hear it. The questions the article includes about the case are completely unbias and truly got me thinking hard about the case. Here are the questions, "Did the original plan of kidnapping JonBenet, the daughter of a wealthy businessman, for ransom money go awry for some reason, resulting in her murder instead? Could the alleged kidnapper(s), who said they would call the Ramseys by 10:00 AM that morning after Christmas but never did, have somehow believed that her body would not be found there in the basement? Or was there never any serious intention of extorting ransom money from the Ramseys at all? Could the unusually long ransom note have been merely another means of cruelly tormenting and torturing them as JonBenet had been cruelly tortured? Was this evil deed the work of a sadistic psychopathic pedophile? Was the motivation merely to inflict the greatest possible pain and suffering upon the Ramsey family? And, if so, why the Ramseys? Or was the note deliberately designed to deflect suspicion away from the actual perpetrator?" They say that the concrete piece of evidence to solving the case is the ransom note. The ransom note wasn't seemingly fully taken into account in the investigation. They then compare the case to Caylee Anthony as done by another article I read. This article is the part 1 of the authors writings and is the author's attempt at summarizing the facts of the case. I like how everything was laid down in order and the verbs and adjectives used were very interesting.
The murder took place shortly after O.J. Simpson case when the obsession of true crime developed across America. The case filled media in "oversaturated" coverage. This article portrays the reasoning behind the return of the young Colorado girl who was brutally murdered. It claims people are drawn to it because it was a "deep moral drama", something that often times captivates the interest of people. It claims that the interest in this case comes from one's desire to know the "guilty will be punished and the innocent exonerated". Along with this, the case is unsolved. It wonders people how the innocent child in a perfect family could have such a tragedy happen. Also, in reflection to the case today, it is easy for one to be aggravated with the errors in the crime investigation. The article compares the technology back then to that of today showing how the case would've been handled better. The article writes, "There is a moment here in our history where true crime and the search for justice has never been more prominent or more popular." This summarizes how the media gave people almost too much information about the case causing them to still be yearning for the unknown answers.
This article discusses the phycological reasons behind the fascination of the JonBenet case. It mentions how usually, a case that has not been solved actually loses people's interests instead of drawing more people's interests. The article says that its not only that the article hasn't been solved that interests people because there are many unsolved cases that are similar. It also mentions how even if the killer is found, "it's the whole tragic narrative itself, which manages to incorporate elements tied to beauty, violence, death, and much more" that will continue to interest the public. Aside from it being the media's fault, the article says that one reason we stayed glued to the case is because of our obsession with beauty. The article says that "JonBenét's beauty wasn't just a part of the narrative; it was one of the key elements as to why people couldn't look away". Another factor is that people are drawn to the fall of those who are better or different than them. For example, JonBenet was a beautiful pageant girl in a very successful family. It is said "that people enjoy the misfortune of others". Overall, the whole case is pleasing and interesting to the public. The contrast between beauty and violence with a fortunate family is eye-opening. There is an "adrenaline rush we get from observing people in serious situations is one that gives us pleasure." I though that this article was extremely helpful and informative. It drew close to exactly why we are still in awe about the case. It showed that this case is similar to others, but the beauty of JonBenet and wealth of the family draws our eyes to the case. I think the perspective the article is written in takes a different approach then most. Instead of just explaining the case and mere facts that make it interesting, it points out how its not just another case.
The title of this article is just what I want to focus my essay on, the reasoning behind the obsession. They begin by comparing the case to a beach, "The tide goes out and it goes back in, and the police are hoping the next time it comes in, they may catch who did it.” I don't find this to be a good comparison and would have left it out of my article. Schiller said the case should have stayed in the media headlines for only a week, yet it remains to pop up to this day, They say the idea that the parents did it remained steady and interested people. Also, the posting of her dressed up in pageants caught people's attention. The article says how children are murdered everyday but this article is about the “It’s the story, the characters, the setting. The JonBenet case has a lot of the elements of the closed-room mystery: Everybody’s home, no apparent break-in. In general, true crime speaks to these very dark places in our heads that none of us would consciously admit to.” It blows our minds how these parents could be guilty, because if not then who else is? That is basically the end of this article that is actually useful. This one lacked a focus and opinion and was hard for me to read. I would not mirror this writing in my own works.
This article recalls while men and woman still sob over this case and why it is relevant. It also discusses the film within a film on nextflix. However, this information is irrelevant to what I am focusing on. The quote, "If JonBenét was a perfect victim, then her parents were perfect suspects." to me is why people are obsessed with it. It is the perfect scenario to interest people. "A part of us craves these tragic roles". Also, this quote is why we are interested in the case. Its something that we crave. Aside from the focus on the movie, the points they make are very informative. To me, they are the reasoning behind our interest in the case.
"A puzzle who's pieces never fit together." This was an attention-grabber to me. The comparison is quite exact. This puzzle to find the one guilty of murder had many pieces but they never fit into place. The recipe for conspiracy theories is the "The eerie videotapes of the blonde beauty-pageant-contestant child, the big, dark-windowed mansion, the parents who insisted they were innocent, the lurid but inconclusive physical evidence, the strange false confession of schoolteacher John Mark Karr." It states that five new examinations of the case would be released during the twentieth year, it is said that these releases will fuel people's interest in the case. It says how even though there was no facebook or youtube at the time of the case, there still were message boards on websites. Here, people did as they still do today, exchanged their opinions and theories about a case. It is crazy to me how this is still happening twenty-two years later. The article says that it was, "in a sense, America’s first crowd-sourced murder mystery". This was a very public case and the police reported that people around the world messaged them claiming they knew the killer. Just a little while later in late 1997 it was reported that there were over 2,000 websites focusing on her case. This added to the public's interest of the case since they had resource after resource to learn new opinion's and facts on the case. This article had a good attention-grabber; however, I think that as I read on further the article failed to include a strong topic. It was all over the place and not very informative. Also, it was out of order.
This article takes an interesting approach stating that JonBenet would be 26 years old today and although the case is still no closer to being solved more questions than answers have formed in the past years. Also, the article compares how even though other similar murder cases (Caylee Anthony and Laci Peterson) went cold, JonBenet's case remains a subject of discussion. It goes on to mention the amount of shows and books she has been mentioned in and lists each of them. A true-crime author and proffesor, Harold Schechter, stated that "Children are murdered every day." but it's the "It’s the story, the characters, the setting. The JonBenét case has a lot of the elements of the closed-room mystery: Everybody’s home, no apparent break-in. In general, true crime speaks to these very dark places in our heads that none of us would consciously admit to." Factors that drive Americans to want to know the solution is that the "basics of the case read like the setup for a novel—a beautiful, happy family shattered by unspeakable tragedy amid the joy of the holiday season. The fallout is no less sensational. Immediately, the cry for justice—to hold someone responsible—went out around the country." All the factors together (beauty, setting, wealth) are what draws Americans in. It is the perfect setup and drama for Americans to dive into. They desire to feel JonBenet obtained justice and all of the details of the crime scene are intriguing. People also have formed their own opinions although no one was every convicted guilty of the crime. The article quotes that the case is full of "celebrity, family tragedy, violence and mystery" and is what the public holds on too. The murder is made even more horrible since it was an innocent 6 year-old and the idea one of her family member's is guilty. The article closed off with a very powerful sentence claiming "Her tragic story is a dark reflection of our culture and its obsession with both fame and death in equal measure." To me, this was a very useful article which was informative on the factors of the case that make it intriguing.
First of all, after pasting this article into a google docs it was sixty pages in length. For starters, I don't understand the term "missing innocence" so I am hoping that I understand this after reading the article. The article is written by Ann Louise Bardach who will reveal the story behind the crime. The Ramseys were close friends with the Whites who lived not far from them. The night of Christmas the Ramseys went go eat dinner at their house. They both liked sailing and had children around the same age. Both mothers of the families did not work but volunteered often. The Ramseys arrived back at home at around 10p.m. The next morning they woke the Whites to come search their home with them. Originally no one pointed fingers at the parents. It is said two victim advocates were sent to the Ramsey household for comfort. Apparently, when being told to search the entire house John Ramsey bolted straight to the basement. The next part completely amazed me and made me point fingers straight to John, "While Fleet is looking at the window, John disappears down the hall directly to the little room where the body is. It’s a huge basement with a lot of rooms and corridors, but Ramsey went directly to that room." I am so amazed by this and have never heard these things. This also blew my mind, "What was interesting was when Ramsey brought the body upstairs he never cried." To me, a father who just realized they lost their daughter would do anything and everything to find out what happened and punish the killer. It is said that the next day the Ramseys refused to say anything more or answer more questions. If they were innocent they'd be willing to do whatever they can to find who is guilty. Also, they compared her case to O.J Simpson but stated the Ramseys were far wealthier. The article goes on to give a detailed explanation minute to minute of the days after the murder. It goes into details I have never heard before. It explains perspectives of officials reviewing the case. Of all the articles chosen, this was in the most well-written and useful. The facts and opinions it has are useful. The opinions come from those close to the Ramsey family who were there the day of the murder or officials who continuously research the case.
This article says that the case has not been solved yet because of a poor police investigation and the way they handled the case. They set that since media blew the case up they were pressured to act quickly in order to fill in the unknown to the public. Like most articles on the case, it begins with a short explanation of this case. The Boulder police weren't skilled for such a case, "The Boulder County district attorney's office hadn't tried a homicide for years." This was for sure a factor of the missing pieces of evidence necessary to solving the case. It says how the first actions of tampering the crime scene are irreversible. The crime scene was tampered with and wasn't treated properly. Reading this, I get mad at how the case had a higher chance of being solved if the police would've reacted better. The article goes on to mention a list of other faults in the handling of the case. For example, JonBenet's parents were not interviewed till four months later. They stick to their topic and explain all the known reasoning behind why the case remains unsolved. I liked this article because it was well-written, on topic, and orderly.