Toltec,
Apparently this item originates from U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes evidence list?
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8.html
BlueCrab states:
.
Which is strongest RDI evidence?
- Thread starter Holdontoyourhat
- Start date
Toltec,
Apparently this item originates from U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes evidence list?
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8.html
BlueCrab states:
.
midwest mama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 46
:bump:You were spot on with this post back when, SD! When this thread came up fresh today, and I looked through the voting options, I couldn't make a choice, since the only answer for me would be an added: All of the above.
The only way this case can go forward to a trial at this point, and have any hope of bringing a resolve and some justice for JB is to use a Felony Murder charge against JR.
Then, there would have to be someone with enough hutzpah , combined with skill and the Lord's blessings to build a prosecution based on available forensice evidence supported fully by a volume of circumstantial evidence. :moo:
midwest mama,
This case would make or break any DA's career. Given that their profession is a stepping stone to politics and being allocated some safe seat, who would have the courage to defy the Colorado Mafia?
Also this would be the trial of the century, MJ and OJ would have to make way for JR. The media would love it, it would run and run for months after it was all done.
BR in the dock being asked Do remember telling LHP to go away and close the door, as you lay in bed under the covers with JonBenet?
Or JR, Why did you not want JonBenet doing pageants in Vegas?
Nearly everyone would get their questions answered, the sealed evidence would be placed on the table, possibly excepting who actually sexually assaulted JonBenet that night.
Sadly politics will decide if JR is ever charged, but you never know, some DA might just decide I'll be famous if I prosecute JR, and can ignore any prior inducements.
.
Nom de plume
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 24
BBM
So true. Politics.....always politics. Let's hope the current DA has the stones, and the heart, to do what should have been done 16 years ago!
Darlene733510
Active Member
We all have the hope that someday someone with lots of guts will decide to review this case, and bring charges. One thing that gives me hope is that they would start digging into the items that AH refused to send to the lab for testing. I think it was in ST's book about AH protecting the R's, and his denial to look into things that made the R's look guilty.
If this would ever happen, can't you just see us all glued to the TV, and then on to this blog? Maybe Super Dave will be JB's hero, and that when his book comes out it may be the incentive for the people who need to take a second look at this tragedy.
We can only pray for justice, and hope that our prayers are answered.
If this would ever happen, can't you just see us all glued to the TV, and then on to this blog? Maybe Super Dave will be JB's hero, and that when his book comes out it may be the incentive for the people who need to take a second look at this tragedy.
We can only pray for justice, and hope that our prayers are answered.
Nom de plume,
Sometimes when you turn up for the informal DA interview you are told what cases are off limits and what the intended scope of of your legal remit is to be, i.e. the little people.
In Oliver Stone's JFK he offered a perspective from a DA who had stones. Some say this was a romantic tale for the masses.
.
Yep. There is not one single piece of evidence I'd bank the case on; it's the combination of everything involved.
A slight hope, midwestmama. He could just put all the blame on Patsy, if he had nowhere else to go. It's not like she can defend herself.
And the clods in the DA's office just didn't have any of that. God forbid an elected official getting rich on taxpayer money should have to do any WORK, right?!
SuperDave,
Excellent summary. At some point I will publish my RDI to the Members Theory Thread. Only forensic details holds me back.
For those uncertain or undecided research Patsy's behaviour this is the big clue. Patsy herself paints herself directly into the homicide of JonBenet, with her remarks about the red turtleneck, and about the likeness of the doll to JonBenet creating tension. Then we have a doll in the wine-cellar, oh my why?
Also can you paint DS into this scenario, well maybe, consider the events of the 23rd and why? Those acquainted with the psychographics of abuse, might see a profile?
That is was JonBenet being abused on a regular basis, i.e. pageants, was Patsy circumloventing the abuse of JonBenet?
For the 25th there are only two people why assaulting JonBenet on that date must matter.
So to avoid litigation I wil desist from outlining in detail my ST theory, yet I am certain you can generate some variant thereof.
To cut a long story short I believe JonBenet was being abused on a historical basis. This was recognised by the family, but not accorded the value, due to dysfunction!
Others in the R's immediate circle did notice and pickup on the abuse angle, saying hey we intended to discuss the Mega JonBenet thing before it got out of control?
Did you Get It
.
Darlene733510
Active Member
It has been mentioned that maybe DS was at the R's that night, and that he was going to Charlevoix with the R's. It seems to me that JR once stated that at 3:00 AM there were other people in the house. I have been thinking about this for some time.
What if DS was there, and either participated or saw JB sexually assaulted, or bashed in the head? Wouldn't the R's immediately call the Stines to have them come and take DS home?
Why weren't the Stines called to the house when PR called all the others after the 911 call?
Why did the R's stay at the Stines, when they supposedly weren't good friends? Why did SS act as PR's pit bull and send the cops away on the 23rd?
If DS was there and witnessed something, even a horrible accident, would these two sets of parents work together to protect the guilty party, if it was a child, or children who caused the injury to JB?
What if DS was there, and either participated or saw JB sexually assaulted, or bashed in the head? Wouldn't the R's immediately call the Stines to have them come and take DS home?
Why weren't the Stines called to the house when PR called all the others after the 911 call?
Why did the R's stay at the Stines, when they supposedly weren't good friends? Why did SS act as PR's pit bull and send the cops away on the 23rd?
If DS was there and witnessed something, even a horrible accident, would these two sets of parents work together to protect the guilty party, if it was a child, or children who caused the injury to JB?
fruity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,300
- Reaction score
- 96
I would have voted for 'all of the above' but since it wasn't an option I voted for the ransom note. With the ransom note, all other theories crumble. Nothing can explain the fact that Patsy wrote that note (well, there's a 1 in 55 million chance that she didn't).
http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
Darlene733510,
Over the years there have been a few DS was there theories, including he left on the bike.
The Stine's behaviour appears similar to JR's on the morning of the 911 call, i.e. JR is injecting himself, lock stock and barrel into the case, why so?
Consider the latter in conjunction with sometimes overlooked aspect that the death of JonBenet is actually a staged homicide. This was brought to my attention again this week, when the first ever criminal trial was broadcast on UK TV.
Guess what it was staged homicide. There was no body, and little forensic evidence to implicate anyone, still Nat Fraser was found guilty.
In this case client attorney privilege mattered not a bit, as the prosecuter advised us: all that is required is for the prosecuter to establish beyond probable doubt that the person in the dock carried out the crime
What other attorney's know or do not, seems irrelevent, even to the point where everyone is regailed with a prosecution witness, Hector Dick, who recounts how a body could be dissapeared via a meat rendering machine.
Only by actually watching the trial can you convince yourself that the prosecutions case might be fiction and that a guilty man walked free, yet the jury believed it and returned a guilty verdict.
Similar to the case of JonBenet, Nat Fraser injected himself into his own case, he describes forensic evidence which may or may not be present, hello JR, broken window etc.
i.e. you know, I know, everyone else and their dog, including all participating attorney's, know that the version of events being recounted is false.
If you consider some theories where strict logic is applied, i.e. RN only makes particular sense, yet when JR fingers himself at the outset, well that usually never gets a mention.
So what does Nat Fraser and the Stine's have in common? Well in the former some might speculate that a guilty person walked free. some might suggest that the Stine's injected themselves into the case, even to the point of impersonating a serving officer of the law? Why so?
One aspect that I find curious is this. JonBenet's case is unique in that it spawned a new genre: internet sleuthing. Yet where are JonBenet's classmates, even those of BR? They are grown up now, you might think they could tell us what they knew way back then, but nothing is said.
.
I think the spectre of LW and his lawsuits stand over the heads of ANYONE who knew JB then, including classmates, playmates, and the guests (including kids) who were at the White's party as well as the R's party on the 23rd. I don't necessarily think that JB had been molested for a long time before her death> It could have been weeks or even days. The coroner had said that some of the injuries could have been a few days old- I am looking at the party on the 23rd at the Rs own house as the possible start of the molestation. This is the party where JB was found crying on a staircase, and a 911 call was made that has never been truthfully explained. (Several explanations were given- the best indication that they are lies). The police were called and it has never been explained why they violated protocol and did not enter the residence from which the call was placed. They must always do this- whether the call was made in error or not. Everywhere but Boulder, I guess.
DeeDee249,
I think it was possibly one molestation in a long recent sequence which included the sons of the Ramsey's friends.
There are oblique references to this possibility in the descriptions of how BR and JonBenet socialised.
Apart from the obvious risk of litigation, I guess they probably do not wish to be associated with the USA's largest unsolved homicide, particularly in the age of the internet which has banished anonymity to the margins.
.
ATasteOfHoney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,898
- Reaction score
- 235
Does anyone know if detectives/interviewers had ever asked PR why she would make the 911 call without ever mentioning the fact that the "writers" of the ransom note *specified* not to alert LE (or risk losing your little girl's life)?
Why would PR choose to ignore those warnings and just make the call without indicating caution to LE?
Was PR asked about this point specifically?
Why would PR choose to ignore those warnings and just make the call without indicating caution to LE?
Was PR asked about this point specifically?
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,754
- Reaction score
- 42,947
And was she asked how the heck she was able to hop over an entire rung of a spiral staircase, in a poorly lit room, without breaking her neck?
Charterhouse
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 3
I have never believed there were no fingerprints on the ransom note other than the officer who took the note. I know that is what the PTB say but I still have never believed it.
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
Oh exactly right? When the police arrived did they just park right out the front? IF and I mean IF the note was genuine wouldn't that have been the most important thing on everyone's mind .. to keep the action at the house LOW KEY?
bettybaby00
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 10
I'm not sure if it was ever disclosed how the police arrived on the scene. Regardless, the police should have been aware that they needed to keep a low profile, I mean it's pretty standard for kidnappers to warn "don't contact the police."
But even if the police did keep a low profile at the scene, it still doesn't explain why the Rs were compelled to invite over numerous "guests" when they were warned they were being watched. Just one of the many examples of the Rs actions completely at odds with innocent parents.
IMO of course
gramcracker
Indentured Cat Servant
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 100
the first PD car (and the second IIRC) were moved a couple streets over after the LEOs read the RN
Officer French was assigned to guard the premises and PR asked him to remove his uniform shirt/gun belt. was that her concession at an attempt to obey the RN instructions? while disregarding the cars of the Fernies/Whites and the pastor parked in front?
PR's earliest statements wavered as to whether she touched/picked up the RN and then she went with "no." during JR's earliest statements he was a little hard to pin down as well and settled on "may have/could have" (because the RN moved from the stair tread to the floor in the hallway outside the kitchen, and it didn't get there under its own power)
it was important to deny that PR touched it (because they sought to totally and completely distance the scribe from the evidence she produced = a "tell" resulting from guilty knowledge IMO)
later, LE asked PR what she would say if told that her prints had been found on the RN and she said things like she might have carried it upstairs to show it to JR or might have handed it to him downstairs
I believe the BPD allegation that no R prints were found, because they never picked it up to read it or carry it upstairs and JR didn't squat down in his underwear to read it in the hallway. they were already aware of what it said, because they wrote it
Officer French was assigned to guard the premises and PR asked him to remove his uniform shirt/gun belt. was that her concession at an attempt to obey the RN instructions? while disregarding the cars of the Fernies/Whites and the pastor parked in front?
PR's earliest statements wavered as to whether she touched/picked up the RN and then she went with "no." during JR's earliest statements he was a little hard to pin down as well and settled on "may have/could have" (because the RN moved from the stair tread to the floor in the hallway outside the kitchen, and it didn't get there under its own power)
it was important to deny that PR touched it (because they sought to totally and completely distance the scribe from the evidence she produced = a "tell" resulting from guilty knowledge IMO)
later, LE asked PR what she would say if told that her prints had been found on the RN and she said things like she might have carried it upstairs to show it to JR or might have handed it to him downstairs
I believe the BPD allegation that no R prints were found, because they never picked it up to read it or carry it upstairs and JR didn't squat down in his underwear to read it in the hallway. they were already aware of what it said, because they wrote it