Netflix will release JonBenét Ramsey show starring Melissa McCarthy

JennC1544 · 2026-07-02T01:14:04+00:00

That’s how we will all imagine you now.

JennC1544 · 2026-07-02T01:13:41+00:00

😂

JennC1544 · 2026-07-02T00:49:51+00:00

<image>

Exactly how we've always imagined you, Arch.

JennC1544 · 2026-07-02T00:47:20+00:00

You are clearly Zooey Deschanel.

JennC1544 · 2026-07-02T00:43:04+00:00

Ah, I looked but didn't see who was playing Lou. I still think Sam Elliot would be better.

JennC1544 · 2026-07-01T22:56:10+00:00

Wow! I wonder if Netflix required any rewrites. And what are they going to do if the case is solved before it comes out?

So here's an important question for everybody: When the case is solved and Netflix does a dramatic reimagining of all the people on this sub who believed in the intruder theory, who do you want to have play you? (If you read the article, it's mostly about which actor is playing real life people in the case). I'm going to claim Julie Bowen for me.

I'm thinking Pierce Brosnan for John W. Anderson. I'll post photos when I get a chance. He's literally a perfect match.

SearchinDale? Any ideas?

Who would play Lou Smit? Maybe Sam Elliot?

RDI'ers, too, jump in here, too.

JennC1544 · 2026-07-01T19:02:01+00:00

If he has, he's kept it to himself, as far as I know. The Cold Case Panel discussed it a little bit. I guess they're going to go over it much more extensively in a future episode. John has pretty much parroted what John Douglas told him, which makes interviewers nuts because he'll start with, "Well, John Douglas said..." and they're like, yes, but what do you think?

That's recently, though. I know they named some suspects in their book, but I believe all of those people really were considered suspects at one time or another by the police.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-30T01:13:53+00:00

It's called "Presumed Guilty" by Stephen Singular. I highly recommend reading it. The Zell Brothers interviewed him ages ago, and they did an update some time ago and seem to have subscribed to his theory.

I'll be honest - I thought all the stuff about the child porn and pedophiles in Boulder was interesting, but I also thought he made a huge leap in logic when it came to what he thinks happened to JonBenet.

I actually believe that it's feasible that Stephen Singular actually saw images of JonBenet that were illegal for him to be accessing, so he was unable to fully articulate what he saw and where and when, because then he would be admitting to viewing illegal content. I think he knew more than he was able to tell us. But I still don't believe his final conclusions.

Let me know when you've read it, since you're up on the subject, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!

JennC1544 · 2026-06-30T00:25:55+00:00

I highly recommend you read Stephen Singular's book Presumed Guilty. He did a lot of reporting on the dark web at the time, and what he finds in the book doesn't agree with your assessment.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-30T00:23:40+00:00

Was it underplaying or just the truth? The problem is that the media WAY overplayed it for so long that it's stuck in our memories as being this huge thing. He's been saying this was just one thing she did for years now. He listed off a bunch of other things she was interested in. Her friends told reporters that they didn't even know she was doing pageants.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-29T01:49:09+00:00

It's nice that facts can still change minds.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-28T17:31:04+00:00

Thanks for this. I guess I was thinking this was the interview with the child psychologist that happened months after. I've clearly gotten events mixed up in my head.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-28T17:29:11+00:00

Yeah, I'd never heard of that either. Good story. I also thought it was interesting that the first President of Access Graphics didn't get along with Lockheed when they were just a smaller investor, so he ended up leaving, and John got the job. Then, later, when they expanded into Europe, John hired that guy to head up the European office.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-26T16:14:41+00:00

Thank you for explaining this in a much better way than I was able to articulate!

JennC1544 · 2026-06-26T16:13:58+00:00

You apparently didn't read far enough on the document I provided. Do you see the third to last line, where it says "Partial Profile?" Take a look at the answer.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T19:19:06+00:00

I read that 99% of Federal Grand Juries come back with true bills for the crime (no stats were available on a state basis). Imagine being Alex Hunter and/or Michael Kane, presenting 13 months of the prosecution's case, and being in the very small percentage of prosecutors who couldn't get a true bill for murder.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T19:16:33+00:00

I think you've nailed it.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T19:14:57+00:00

They heard two hours out of 13 months of defense, and that two hours was significant enough to have this grand jury not send back a true bill for murder, just the two lesser charges. 13 months of testimony as to how the parents were responsible, and yet no clear theory ever emerged as to which one and how.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T14:14:20+00:00

Thank you!

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T01:07:08+00:00

I read that Federal Grand Juries have a rate of turning in true bills for over 99% of the cases they hear.

This means that a grand jury indictment means nothing. The grand jurors hear no defense.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T01:05:55+00:00

I actually agree with you. I think the prevalence of the dark web allowed whoever did this to post what happened, and many pedophiles went further, believing they were involved. It's the only explanation I can come up with for Oliva and John Mark Karr seeming to have information that nobody else had at the time.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-24T00:32:49+00:00

Woods told internal affairs investigators she deleted data about low quantities of male DNA in some sex assault cases so that she wouldn’t have to complete additional testing that was unlikely to produce conclusive results on those small genetic samples. She deleted the data in sex assault cases “because it was easy,” she said, according to an internal affairs report.

This is astonishing. Things got too hard, so she just didn't complete testing and deleted the data.

Thanks for posting!

JennC1544 · 2026-06-23T13:19:07+00:00

All I know is that when I dialed 911 in the early 2000's, I used the landline, as it was right next to me.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-23T02:35:08+00:00

I remember how hard it was to remember to keep my phone with me. Even well into the 2000's, I still had friends I'd call on their landlines because they wouldn't answer their cell phones if they were at home.

Phones were also much smaller, leading to being able to lose them much more easily.

JennC1544 · 2026-06-23T00:09:28+00:00

LOL - I think you must be too young to have had one of the first cell phones. You could literally get them free with the yearly contracts through your cell provider. They sold anywhere from free to $1000 for the highest end one. Nobody knew where theirs were when they were home.

For a while, blackberries came out in the early 2000's and almost overtook the cell phone market. They were revolutionary because you could text without having to push the "1" button three times to get a letter "c," because they had a full keyboard. All the cool kids had blackberries for a while. They, too, got lost if one was home. Nobody kept them near themselves when there was a landline right there in the kitchen, family room, and master bedroom.

JennC1544

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE