813 users online (136 members and 677 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878

    A new look at RDI theories

    Let's give IDIs a chance to show they are open minded and can think "outside the box".

    IDIs do your best to fashion a workable RDI theory. Don't ignore evidence that you think contradicts RDI, either figure out how RDI would still be possible, or simply say that the evidence can't be explained consistently with RDI theory. The point here, like the other thread, is to try to think from the other guys POV.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,986
    Excellent idea. Thank you for an equal opportunity thread, Chris-
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Gee, no IDIs trying to think outside the box. What a surprise!
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,986
    I noticed that as well...

    Sincerely, IDI's please give it a shot... We are willing to try it from your perspective. Try it from ours. I would be very interested to see at what point you hit a brick wall in your RDI theories that convinces you to return to an IDI.

    Aren't you willing to give it a shot???
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    LI, NY
    Posts
    3,268
    Man! This thread is dead!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by angelwngs View Post
    I noticed that as well...

    Sincerely, IDI's please give it a shot... We are willing to try it from your perspective. Try it from ours. I would be very interested to see at what point you hit a brick wall in your RDI theories that convinces you to return to an IDI.

    Aren't you willing to give it a shot???

    I am afraid that most IDI's cannot get past their belief that a parent could not have done this to their child. From the few I have spoken with, that is the main idea that holds them to their IDI opinion. Not speaking for all IDI's of course.

    This is a great compliment thread to the other one..would really love to see some posts from IDI's. Turn about is fair play.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by angelwngs View Post
    I noticed that as well...

    Sincerely, IDI's please give it a shot... We are willing to try it from your perspective. Try it from ours. I would be very interested to see at what point you hit a brick wall in your RDI theories that convinces you to return to an IDI.

    Aren't you willing to give it a shot???
    angelwngs,

    An IDI that might go some way towards explaining away some evidence might one involving Burke and some male Friend, say someone who returned back to the house with them after visiting some house on the way back from the White's?

    Said Friend and Burke may have indulged themselves and allowed JonBenet her pineapple snack. After playing doctors or some asphyxia game, it all goes horribly wrong, resulting in JonBenet's death. Patsy and John phone Friend's parents and have him removed, a staging is then enacted, hastily removing as much evidence as possible.


    Alternatively a male teenager who became infatuated with JonBenet snuck into the house for a secret meeting, resulting in her death.



    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    angelwngs,

    An IDI that might go some way towards explaining away some evidence might one involving Burke and some male Friend, say someone who returned back to the house with them after visiting some house on the way back from the White's?

    Said Friend and Burke may have indulged themselves and allowed JonBenet her pineapple snack. After playing doctors or some asphyxia game, it all goes horribly wrong, resulting in JonBenet's death. Patsy and John phone Friend's parents and have him removed, a staging is then enacted, hastily removing as much evidence as possible.


    Alternatively a male teenager who became infatuated with JonBenet snuck into the house for a secret meeting, resulting in her death.



    .

    I like your second theory better, though I wouldn't limit it to teenagers.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    Gee, no IDIs trying to think outside the box. What a surprise!
    The surprise would be "IDIs" posting in this thread....

    Everyone's been suffocated in the Ramseys did it propaganda. No such thing as thinking "outside the box" regarding such a thing.

    The "overkill factor" is what immediately leads the crime away from the parents. She was basically killed twice--the blows to the head and the strangulation. Then we have the sexual aspect of the crime which is extremely degrading to Jonbenet, which also leads us away from the parents. Then factor in the fact the killer(s) knows nothing about childrens clothes sizes.

    That is not typical of parents who murder their children. If it winds up being John or Patsy, new chapters will immediately be written in psychology books worldwide.


    The only RDI scenario I thought possible was Patsy losing her mind temporarily over Jonbenet soiling her pants. They had a really long day, and as everyone knows, stress is always higher during the holidays. So she snaps and hits Jonbenet over the head with something.However, the events that followed(the "second death", sexualization of crime scene,etc.) leads away from Patsy.

    Another theory that although controversial but indeed possible is some sort of porn film being made(by John and friends) and it goes too far. Basement has always been an odd place for whatever happened, and it makes a bit more sense when throwing a scenario such as this into the mix. Would help explain the bizarre crime scene and how its littered in puzzles, but this theory does seem a bit far fetched. Still possible though, and in my opinion more likely than Patsy being involved.


    I do agree with RDIs that the ransom note defies explanation, but I believe it defies explanation even more when considering the possibility the Ramseys did it. Yes I realize there are a few personal remarks in it, but that points more to someone else intentionally putting them there than it does the Ramseys actually writing it. There's NO reason why the Ramseys would put such a specific monetary amount in that note. If they did, the note's basically an admission of guilt, which I don't believe. The use of movie references means nothing as they are etched permanently in pop culture and have no bearing on the Ramseys.

    The pineapple is a bizarre clue as well, but doesn't really lead us in a specific direction.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    You assume they knew she was still alive after the head blow.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    You assume they knew she was still alive after the head blow.
    I'm not assuming anything. Its a fact she received two fatal wounds. Its irrelevant whether she was dead or alive when either happened. Both happened. Its irrefutable evidence. No need to assume anything on that matter.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Yes, the pineapple does lead us in a direction. It's there- its existence is not a supposition. Yet the parents deny feeding it. Only R prints are on the bowl, and NONE are JBRs herself. PR even denied owning the bowl at first, despite the fact that it appears on her dining room table in a photo from the Dec.23rd party. PR denied even BUYING the pineapple, despite the fact that there was pineapple in the fridge that tested as identical to the pineapple in her stomach.
    So even if an intruder fed her the pineapple, why would the parents' lie about owning it? Only to protect themselves or someone eating it with her.
    Why would an intruder wipe the flashlight and BATTERIES clean of prints yet not wipe the pineapple bowl?
    Well one explanation is that the flashlight was used in the crime and the pineapple was forgotten about until it became an issue after it was found in the autopsy.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by santos1014 View Post
    I am afraid that most IDI's cannot get past their belief that a parent could not have done this to their child.
    Not true at all. Every single day parents kill their kids. Everyone knows that. What parents don't do is kill their child two ways, humiliate their dead child sexually, and then write a ransom note with an exact monetary amount that leads back to them.

    Got any examples(other than Jonbenet) where parent(s) have killed their child in similar scenarios? Will look forward to reading those.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckethead View Post
    Not true at all. Every single day parents kill their kids. Everyone knows that. What parents don't do is kill their child two ways, humiliate their dead child sexually, and then write a ransom note with an exact monetary amount that leads back to them.

    Got any examples(other than Jonbenet) where parent(s) have killed their child in similar scenarios? Will look forward to reading those.
    Actually the FBI has said that there had never been an case of a STRANGER/INTRUDER/KIDNAPPER who had killed a child and staged a crime scene the way that the JonBenet Ramsay case had been.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckethead View Post
    The surprise would be "IDIs" posting in this thread....

    Everyone's been suffocated in the Ramseys did it propaganda. No such thing as thinking "outside the box" regarding such a thing.

    The "overkill factor" is what immediately leads the crime away from the parents. She was basically killed twice--the blows to the head and the strangulation. Then we have the sexual aspect of the crime which is extremely degrading to Jonbenet, which also leads us away from the parents. Then factor in the fact the killer(s) knows nothing about childrens clothes sizes.

    That is not typical of parents who murder their children. If it winds up being John or Patsy, new chapters will immediately be written in psychology books worldwide.


    The only RDI scenario I thought possible was Patsy losing her mind temporarily over Jonbenet soiling her pants. They had a really long day, and as everyone knows, stress is always higher during the holidays. So she snaps and hits Jonbenet over the head with something.However, the events that followed(the "second death", sexualization of crime scene,etc.) leads away from Patsy.
    That's what I was trying to say on another thread. The events after the head bash don't fit with a normal parent who had a temporary fit of rage.
    There's an abrupt shift in psychology. I've never liked the rage theory for that reason. I don't really see a need for the rage theory. No problem believing the blow to the head was intended - though perhaps the perp underestimates his strength. I don't think this automatically leads to IDI.


    Another theory that although controversial but indeed possible is some sort of porn film being made(by John and friends) and it goes too far. Basement has always been an odd place for whatever happened, and it makes a bit more sense when throwing a scenario such as this into the mix. Would help explain the bizarre crime scene and how its littered in puzzles, but this theory does seem a bit far fetched. Still possible though, and in my opinion more likely than Patsy being involved.
    It might explain a lot, but I agree it's far fetched for the reason that JR wouldn't need any money from making such films, and even were he "into" that sort of thing I still can't see him "sharing" JBR in that way. But who knows.

    I do agree with RDIs that the ransom note defies explanation, but I believe it defies explanation even more when considering the possibility the Ramseys did it. Yes I realize there are a few personal remarks in it, but that points more to someone else intentionally putting them there than it does the Ramseys actually writing it. There's NO reason why the Ramseys would put such a specific monetary amount in that note. If they did, the note's basically an admission of guilt, which I don't believe. The use of movie references means nothing as they are etched permanently in pop culture and have no bearing on the Ramseys.
    Exactly the opposite in my opinion. If you were an employee of AG and knew JR's bonus, and you were also the author of the RN, why would you point police to the small group of people who knew the amount of John's bonus - particularly as the group includes YOU ? It really only makes sense as a desperate attempt by the author to point away from the R's.

    The pineapple is a bizarre clue as well, but doesn't really lead us in a specific direction.
    I have no problem with JBR having eaten pineapple. IMO that alone proves nothing. Children will sneak a snack when parents aren't looking. What does bother me is the denial about putting it out -it was there on the counter. It was in a bowl belonging to the R's. It had PR's prints on it. The senseless denial makes me suspicious of the Rs.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2151
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 01:36 AM
  2. Theories: Who and Why?
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Skyla Whitaker and Taylor Placker
    Replies: 521
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 07:50 PM
  3. Replies: 445
    Last Post: 12-19-2009, 03:00 PM
  4. Theories
    By Ravyn in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 05-28-2009, 04:33 PM