Which is strongest RDI evidence?

Which RDI claim is easiest to prove?

  • PR/JR handled the weapons or sexually assaulted.

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • PR/JR wrote the ransom note or helped to write it.

    Votes: 113 65.3%
  • PR/JR were motivated to hide prior abuse or rage.

    Votes: 14 8.1%
  • PR/JR used words or actions that prove their guilt.

    Votes: 38 22.0%

  • Total voters
    173
As we know, use of a stun gun was NEVER verified. In fact, is wasn't even attempted to be verified because DA refused to allow the coroner to keep the body for further testing, the parents refused to allow an exhumation, and the DA refused to ask for a warrant to override their refusal.

"The parents" did not disallow, or refuse, an exhumation. They had no authority in the matter. The BPD had absolute control, not the Ramsey's, not the DA. The only obstacle inhibiting the exhumation was the Boulder Police Department.

Second, the coroner found NO physical evidence that she had struggled at ALL.
I don't know where to begin. Whaaaat???

marks on her throat were petechial hemorrhaghes, NOT scratches.

Let's not forget the abrasions observed by Dr. Meyer & recorded in the AR.

There were NO skin cells or blood under her fingernails (her own or anyone else's).

Well, I haven't seen the slides, but I know JB's DNA profile & a foreign male DNA profile was isolated from fingernail scrapings. Chances are, the genetic material was epithelial cells.

The only correct comment here was that she screamed.
???
 
A few posts above, there was talk about purchasing DOI. I did the same thing from Amazon.

The main theme of the book wasn't JBR's death; it was how everyone was mistreating John, Patsy and to some extent BR. Yes, it talked about her murder, but more time was devoted to: how the police were out to get them, how the DA was out to get them, the media, ex-employees, the maid, ex-friends, etc... Of course, none of this could have been cause by them. Your daughter's dead so go on CNN. Have a memorial service and invite the press. Gosh, we didn't invite them. It was someone who works for us.

I loved the part where people who visit sites like Websleuths are all crazy.

And this was only my opinion.
 
I think the Ransom Note is, It incriminates Pasty and John IMO, If the killer was an intruder why write a note?

So an intruder kills JBR and then writes a lengthy Ransom note and then leaves? or an Intruder writes a lengthy Ransom note then decides to kill JBR and decides to leave the ransom note for whatever reason? Whoever wrote the note obviously had no fear of being caught.

In my opinion John/Patsy were involved in writing the Ransom Note to protect somebody in the House. Had they just called police that morning and said JBR was missing or they found her body most of the suspension would be on the Ramsey's but with the Ransom note they were able to convince people an intruder killed their daughter.
 
A few posts above, there was talk about purchasing DOI. I did the same thing from Amazon.

The main theme of the book wasn't JBR's death; it was how everyone was mistreating John, Patsy and to some extent BR.

I think it's very telling that their book is called The Death of Innocence to begin with. Already, just with the title of the book, they're sort of making the murder not only about JonBenet, but about themselves. Did they ever explain why they named the book what they did?

Yes, it talked about her murder, but more time was devoted to: how the police were out to get them, how the DA was out to get them, the media, ex-employees, the maid, ex-friends, etc... Of course, none of this could have been cause by them. Your daughter's dead so go on CNN. Have a memorial service and invite the press. Gosh, we didn't invite them. It was someone who works for us.

I think the Ramseys should've spent less time blaming the police for trying to solve the murder and a little more time blaming the "intruder" for committing the murder in the first place. Instead, they decided to forgive the murderer of JonBenet and detest the Boulder Police Department. That thought process puzzles me.

I loved the part where people who visit sites like Websleuths are all crazy.

The Ramseys really wrote that? Did they not realize that included the people who were defending them?
 
I left out the part were some of the 'crazy people' were actually defending them. They have lunch with someone who ran a web site who sympathized with everything they were going through.
 
DOI, in my opinion was all about them instead of JB. The title does not refer to their deceased child but to the death of their innocence in a court of law. They were not presumed innocent until proven guilty. Along with O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, And Jodi Arias.
We all knew they were guilty so we told them so via the media. The book was never even supposed to be about JB from the get go. Yes, it explains that morning thru the parents eyes but only to catch the reader up on what caused all the chapters to follow. And honestly, i think patsys words are most of the book. John only had a small hand in the book.
 
DOI, in my opinion was all about them instead of JB. The title does not refer to their deceased child but to the death of their innocence in a court of law. They were not presumed innocent until proven guilty. Along with O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, And Jodi Arias.
We all knew they were guilty so we told them so via the media. The book was never even supposed to be about JB from the get go. Yes, it explains that morning thru the parents eyes but only to catch the reader up on what caused all the chapters to follow. And honestly, i think patsys words are most of the book. John only had a small hand in the book.

Maybe so but "presumption of innocence" is a fallacy really. If you find a guy holding a knife, standing over a dead body, covered in blood, would you presume him to be innocent? To be honest I think the Ramseys were treated more fairly than any other murder suspect I have ever seen. Evidence pointed to them, they were uncooperative, and their stories were inconsistent. What did they expect? They were just offended that people of their stature would even be considered as suspects.
 
Maybe so but "presumption of innocence" is a fallacy really. If you find a guy holding a knife, standing over a dead body, covered in blood, would you presume him to be innocent? To be honest I think the Ramseys were treated more fairly than any other murder suspect I have ever seen. Evidence pointed to them, they were uncooperative, and their stories were inconsistent. What did they expect? They were just offended that people of their stature would even be considered as suspects.

andreww,
The smoking gun in this case was JonBenet herself found hidden away in the wine-cellar, dressed in size-12 underwear, subjected to a horrific sexual assault, the latter then being wiped down.

All the evidence points to the remaining Ramsey's, each one colluded in the homicide of JonBenet, with assistance from the DA, and the silent GJ members!

.
 
I agree 100% except I don't think the GJ was silent. The DA kept them silent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree 100% except I don't think the GJ was silent. The DA kept them silent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
I guess so, similarly for James Kolar who always cites his legal position. Unless the evidence to the GJ was managed in such a manner as to present a BDI, thereby excluding one or both of the parents from a first degree homicide charge, the case is BDI, something Kolar said made me realize that the former scenario suggests it could actually be PDI!

James Kolar said he reviewed all the photographs from the Whites but could not remember how JonBenet wore her hair that night, or that the remaining size-12's had been returned to BPD or the DA's office. The importance of the latter is that dna analysis of the remaining size-12's would test the hypothesis that the touch-dna arrived during manufacture. Kolar saw no reports to that effect.

I base part of my BDI on the fact that JonBenet's ponytails are asymmetric, suggesting after arriving home Patsy dressed JonBenet's hair and readied her for bed, shortly after this JonBenet is in the kitchen snacking pineapple.

Now the big Q is: did Patsy serve up that pineapple snack, or did it happen behind her back, did she go to bed thinking JonBenet was settled in her bedroom, or did the R's simply forget about the pineapple snack when citing their version of events?

BR could have constructed that ligature/paintbrush device, this might explain away how amateurishly it was made with JonBenet's hair caught in the knotting, the internal injuries might be perimortem as a result of pathalogical behaviour, the size-12's BR already knew about, only the longjohns and gap top are curious since why bother changing her underwear if you are going to also change her pink barbie nightdress?

The reason I cited JonBenet herself as a smoking gun is that I reckon there is valuable forensic evidence to suggest BR was involved, although not conclusive, it contributes to a more coherent BDI.

I'm currently reviewing Kolar's analysis since I'm sure he would not lend credence to a BDI if it was really PDI, yet you never know!

.
 
UKGuy, guess I've been asleep but when I read your "asymmetric ponytails" in the above post it made me wonder if Patsy (or someone) grabbed one of the ponytails and used it to man-handle (fling, pull, control etc.) JonBenet.

As Superdave would say ... just spitballing.
 
UKGuy, guess I've been asleep but when I read your "asymmetric ponytails" in the above post it made me wonder if Patsy (or someone) grabbed one of the ponytails and used it to man-handle (fling, pull, control etc.) JonBenet.

As Superdave would say ... just spitballing.

BOESP,
Sure, wht not? The position of JonBenet's arms after rigor mortis has set in, strongly suggests her body was dragged by the arms, thus causing the abrasions on her body?

.
 
Their actions and words are the strongest evidence against them. Yes, I agree. From the beginning, they have covered up, I believe for something their son did that night. They would have been much better off if they would have called 911 and let it go from there. There would have been an article in paper or on news, but would soon die down. They kept it going by being on tv constantly, declaring their innocence. Burke, if he is guilty,would have gotten help, no jail time. Yes, it would be a scandal on the family. But as it is,the scandal is worldwide. I don't believe, for a minute, that it would be in public's eye for almost 20 years.
 
Their actions and words are the strongest evidence against them. Yes, I agree. From the beginning, they have covered up, I believe for something their son did that night. They would have been much better off if they would have called 911 and let it go from there. There would have been an article in paper or on news, but would soon die down. They kept it going by being on tv constantly, declaring their innocence. Burke, if he is guilty,would have gotten help, no jail time. Yes, it would be a scandal on the family. But as it is,the scandal is worldwide. I don't believe, for a minute, that it would be in public's eye for almost 20 years.

To that end, carolbell, I said a while back (I don't remember where), that the Rs would not have done well in front of a jury. To illustrate my point, take a look at the Youtube documentary. Her barely-contained hostility and that "buggy-eyed" look of hers would not win her many friends.
 
To that end, carolbell, I said a while back (I don't remember where), that the Rs would not have done well in front of a jury. To illustrate my point, take a look at the Youtube documentary. Her barely-contained hostility and that "buggy-eyed" look of hers would not win her many friends.

But could a jury have pinned anything on John Ramsey? Although his demeanor was creepy and his story has more holes than Swiss Cheese, is there any evidence that he did anything criminal? He very well may have slept through the night and woken up to that nightmare. John is smart enough that he would have figured out what likely happened very quickly but for one reason or another kept quiet about it. Is that a crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I might be not up to the times, but I can not picture a 9 year old boy making a garrotte, changing sister's underwear. I do believe that he caused the head injury and then got Mom. I believe that is how fibers from her sweater got on J.B. as she fell over J.B., sobbing and crying, when she came down. I believe that is where John's part came in, the garrotte etc. Patsy went up and made R.N. Burke was sent to bed .They wanted to protect Burke and the family name. They thought she was dead and couldn't be helped.
 
But could a jury have pinned anything on John Ramsey? Although his demeanor was creepy and his story has more holes than Swiss Cheese, is there any evidence that he did anything criminal? He very well may have slept through the night and woken up to that nightmare. John is smart enough that he would have figured out what likely happened very quickly but for one reason or another kept quiet about it. Is that a crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


At least one forensic specialist who studied the case said that if JB had been brought to a hospital, the father (meaning JR) would have been arrested. This was because of the CLEAR evidence of sexual contact that would have been detected. I believe at the very least, a jury could have found him guilty of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting (BR) the killer as well as tampering with evidence. (the body). If it could have been proven that the vaginal stab with the paintbrush handle happened postmortem- that is desecration of a body. If it had happened before her death to cover up sexual penetration, that too would be considered sexual assault.
 
I might be not up to the times, but I can not picture a 9 year old boy making a garrotte, changing sister's underwear. I do believe that he caused the head injury and then got Mom. I believe that is how fibers from her sweater got on J.B. as she fell over J.B., sobbing and crying, when she came down. I believe that is where John's part came in, the garrotte etc. Patsy went up and made R.N. Burke was sent to bed .They wanted to protect Burke and the family name. They thought she was dead and couldn't be helped.

This is pretty much the way I see it too.
 
I agree 100% except I don't think the GJ was silent. The DA kept them silent.
I ran across something recently while looking for something else. It just struck me as, well... read it for yourselves and see what you think. It’s a transcript of the Larry King show from March 30, 2000:
KING: (sbm) Greta Van Susteren, who was on our show -- you saw her on Tuesday night -- called in with a couple of questions. I'll relay them to you.

Under Colorado law, is it possible that a grand jury could indict and a prosecutor not file?

HUNTER: Yes, because there has to be -- there has to be joint action. So the prosecutor's to sign off.

KING: So you have to...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNTER: But you know, I'm not going -- and Greta knows this -- I'm not going to talk about what the grand jury did or didn't do.

KING: No, the question was only...

HUNTER: Yes.

KING: ... is it possible that they could indict and a district attorney says, it's not -- despite the fact...

HUNTER: The district attorney has got to sign it.

KING: Just as a judge could throw a case out.

HUNTER: Right.


Seems like Greta Van Susteren had some reason in 2000 to suspect what Hunter had done with the RGJ’s indictment. Hunter did his best to sidestep going into detail and actually answering the question. Hiding behind the cloak of GJ secrecy, he tried to say he couldn’t talk about it, but he did finally answer the question as a generality that no one paid much attention to back when this was going on.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/30/lkl.00.html
 
But could a jury have pinned anything on John Ramsey? Although his demeanor was creepy and his story has more holes than Swiss Cheese, is there any evidence that he did anything criminal?

That's a very good question, andreww.

Number one, while I myself find his demeanor to be very off-putting, he didn't get to be a wealthy executive for nothing. That takes charisma, the power of persuasion, as it were. It might be easy for him to make others believe that he had nothing to do with it, whether PR or some schlemiel took the blame.

He very well may have slept through the night and woken up to that nightmare. John is smart enough that he would have figured out what likely happened very quickly but for one reason or another kept quiet about it. Is that a crime?

To paraphrase Fred Thompson from Law & Order, figuring it out is a far cry from knowing ie, being an eyewitness or accomplice. In those cases, failure to report can be considered a crime, depending on what state you're in. But merely thinking something, even with good reason, is a different animal.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
1,921
Total visitors
2,103

Forum statistics

Threads
589,951
Messages
17,928,083
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top