Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > JonBenet Ramsey

Notices

JonBenet Ramsey What really happened to 6 year old JonBenet? Someone is getting away with murder. All information posted on this site is gained through published documentation on this case. It is strictly opinion only.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-31-2006, 09:26 PM
Brutal Truth Brutal Truth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
IDI'S answer me this.

I have seen alot of people saying over the last week that an intruder murdered JBR. And that the ramseys loved their daughter or couldnt have brutally murdered her and then staged the scene.

Ok fine. Now put yourself in the ramseys shoes. If you knew beyond the shadows of doubt you were innocent and loved JBR with all your heart.

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice?

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead?

What loving parent would want to deal with a flight to Atlanta after the stress of your daughters death? Would you not want to stay and help?

Would you not feel compelled to tell LE that you would help in any way you could? Rather than run with your tail tucked between your legs.

Why would you feel insulted about a lie detector test by LE, when you want justice for your daughter and their the ones conducting the investigation?

Why would the only action you would take in your daughters death is legal action?

Why would you spill the beans on national TV, yet you wouldnt give LE the time of day?

Why would you have so many holes in your story each time you told them?

Would common sense not dictate, that if they clear us they can move on with the investigation?

Why would you try and play the victim?

When there was only one victim and that was JBR. LE was just doing their job.

I ask you these question because these are the actions taken by the wonderful, loving parents John and Patsy Ramsey. And these questions dont even scratch the surface of the love these parent showed to bring justice for JBR.

Forget any minute evidence of an intruder. Would these actions by loving
parents not spell out guilty?

And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys. That has been proven false. It just so happened out of everyone questioned things always seem to come ful circle and point to the ramseys.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-31-2006, 09:52 PM
Bronte Nut Bronte Nut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
I have seen alot of people saying over the last week that an intruder murdered JBR. And that the ramseys loved their daughter or couldnt have brutally murdered her and then staged the scene.

Ok fine. Now put yourself in the ramseys shoes. If you knew beyond the shadows of doubt you were innocent and loved JBR with all your heart.

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice?

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead?

What loving parent would want to deal with a flight to Atlanta after the stress of your daughters death? Would you not want to stay and help?

Would you not feel compelled to tell LE that you would help in any way you could? Rather than run with your tail tucked between your legs.

Why would you feel insulted about a lie detector test by LE, when you want justice for your daughter and their the ones conducting the investigation?

Why would the only action you would take in your daughters death is legal action?

Why would you spill the beans on national TV, yet you wouldnt give LE the time of day?

Why would you have so many holes in your story each time you told them?

Would common sense not dictate, that if they clear us they can move on with the investigation?

Why would you try and play the victim?

When there was only one victim and that was JBR. LE was just doing their job.

I ask you these question because these are the actions taken by the wonderful, loving parents John and Patsy Ramsey. And these questions dont even scratch the surface of the love these parent showed to bring justice for JBR.

Forget any minute evidence of an intruder. Would these actions by loving
parents not spell out guilty?

And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys. That has been proven false. It just so happened out of everyone questioned things always seem to come ful circle and point to the ramseys.
Excellent questions, and there is no satisfactory overall answer. Everything you have listed is another nail in the Ramseys' well-nailed coffin.

Added to that, you have the way they deliberately ignored the 'kidnappers'' demands and flooded the crime scene with people, and the fact that despite an alleged intruder having prolonged very close physical contact with the child, there was NO, repeat NO credible non-Ramsey DNA at the crime scene.

Any intruder who was capable of carrying this out without clear signs of entry, without leaving ANY DNA - requiring special all-body suiting, face/headwear, footwear and gloves - would not have jacked around with a ridiculous note written by a moron. A moron like Patsy Ramsey. If they wouldn't even leave DNA, why would they leave such a note? A kidnapper of this level of stealthy sophistication would have been in and out in as short a time as possible. The note, if any, would have been pre-printed, not hand written, and it would have made sense. This is pathetic.

Nothing about the case suggests that the Ramseys were telling the truth. Absolutely nothing. Yet there are countless things pointing to their guilt.

Gee... what a tough call...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:04 PM
olive's Avatar
olive olive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronte Nut
If they wouldn't even leave DNA, why would they leave a note?
Excellent question and observation.

The only thing that bothers me is a lot of RDI speculation. Why would they not cooperate? Don't know. Why would they hire attorneys? Don't know. Certainly, I would not react that way. However, none of that PROVES guilt. It is all speculation. You need actual evidence to prove guilt. The fact that fibers of theirs were on the body is no big deal. They live there. She lived there. Doesn't seem to me to prove anything. Patsy's fibers should be in the paint- it was her paint. Her fibers should be on JBR- I'm sure they hugged, I'm sure she put her to bed. No one seems to think that an unknown arm or pubic hair left on the blanket is a source of concern, so why would fibers of the people who live there be one?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:10 PM
i_dont_chat i_dont_chat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
I have seen alot of people saying over the last week that an intruder murdered JBR. And that the ramseys loved their daughter or couldnt have brutally murdered her and then staged the scene.

Ok fine. Now put yourself in the ramseys shoes. If you knew beyond the shadows of doubt you were innocent and loved JBR with all your heart.

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice?

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead?

What loving parent would want to deal with a flight to Atlanta after the stress of your daughters death? Would you not want to stay and help?

Would you not feel compelled to tell LE that you would help in any way you could? Rather than run with your tail tucked between your legs.

Why would you feel insulted about a lie detector test by LE, when you want justice for your daughter and their the ones conducting the investigation?

Why would the only action you would take in your daughters death is legal action?

Why would you spill the beans on national TV, yet you wouldnt give LE the time of day?

Why would you have so many holes in your story each time you told them?

Would common sense not dictate, that if they clear us they can move on with the investigation?

Why would you try and play the victim?

When there was only one victim and that was JBR. LE was just doing their job.

I ask you these question because these are the actions taken by the wonderful, loving parents John and Patsy Ramsey. And these questions dont even scratch the surface of the love these parent showed to bring justice for JBR.

Forget any minute evidence of an intruder. Would these actions by loving
parents not spell out guilty?

And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys. That has been proven false. It just so happened out of everyone questioned things always seem to come ful circle and point to the ramseys.

I fall in the camp of those who think Burke did it (my opinion only -- not based on anything but my observation of the facts).

The reason LE can't charge the parents is simple. The DA has no evidence that the parents killed JonBenet. That is because they did NOT do it. I think Burke did it and it was an accident. He caused her death, but he didn't intend to. There is plenty of evidence that the parents obstructed justice, lied, altered the scene, did everything they could to take Burke out of the picture.
__________________
Everything I submit on this subject is my own personal opinion. I am basing my opinion on nothing other than the known facts in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:13 PM
olive's Avatar
olive olive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 831
It is just so hard for me to imagine that scrawny kid having the strength to strangle or bash anything. There is no doubt that it takes great strength to sustain a hold long enough for it to kill someone. Not to mention to muster the force it would take to cause a fracture of that stature.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:14 PM
Brutal Truth Brutal Truth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_dont_chat
I fall in the camp of those who think Burke did it (my opinion only -- not based on anything but my observation of the facts).

The reason LE can't charge the parents is simple. The DA has no evidence that the parents killed JonBenet. That is because they did NOT do it. I think Burke did it and it was an accident. He caused her death, but he didn't intend to. There is plenty of evidence that the parents obstructed justice, lied, altered the scene, did everything they could to take Burke out of the picture.
I disagree. They had evidence on the Ramseys. And I truly believe if they were ordinary common people without so much clout, they would be in jail and thats where Patsy would have died.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:18 PM
Brutal Truth Brutal Truth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by olive
Excellent question and observation.

The only thing that bothers me is a lot of RDI speculation. Why would they not cooperate? Don't know. Why would they hire attorneys? Don't know. Certainly, I would not react that way. However, none of that PROVES guilt. It is all speculation. You need actual evidence to prove guilt. The fact that fibers of theirs were on the body is no big deal. They live there. She lived there. Doesn't seem to me to prove anything. Patsy's fibers should be in the paint- it was her paint. Her fibers should be on JBR- I'm sure they hugged, I'm sure she put her to bed. No one seems to think that an unknown arm or pubic hair left on the blanket is a source of concern, so why would fibers of the people who live there be one?
It may not prove guilt but it certainly implies your guilty. And the fiber were a big deal considering Patsy said she was never in the basement in those clothes. And her fibers intertwined in the garrote knot. Come on thats not something that just appears there.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:22 PM
LinasK's Avatar
LinasK LinasK is offline
Verified Insider-Mark Dribin case
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 17,430
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
It may not prove guilt but it certainly implies your guilty. And the fiber were a big deal considering Patsy said she was never in the basement in those clothes. And her fibers intertwined in the garrote knot. Come on thats not something that just appears there.
Don't forget, John's shirt fibers were found in JB's genital area, that doesn't happen just by living in the same household!!!
__________________
Please help locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff and bring them home.


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:25 PM
olive's Avatar
olive olive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
And the fiber were a big deal considering Patsy said she was never in the basement in those clothes.
She wouldn't have to be. She wore the clothes just that night- I'm sure she left fibers on JonBenet from their contact during the evening. Hugs, etc. Fibers could have been transported on JonBenet herself, not by Patsy.

As far as the garrot.. that is disputable depending on how they were intertwined. I don't know enough about this subject, so feel free to correct me. But couldn't it be possible that fibers were left on JonBenet's hair and neck from hugging her mom that night, and that is how they got stuck in the garrot? Remember, the garrot was furrowed deep into her neck- it would definitely pick up whatever was on the skin.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:27 PM
olive's Avatar
olive olive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by LinasK
Don't forget, John's shirt fibers were found in JB's genital area, that doesn't happen just by living in the same household!!!
But I have read many accounts that think these were left by a washcloth, from wiping her. That they weren't necessarily from his shirt- they could have been fibers from a variety of things. Steve Thomas states he thinks they are from a washcloth.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:28 PM
Cypros Cypros is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,660
IMO, the problem was NOT that they didn't have enough to charge A Ramsey with the murder of JBR, but that they didn't know WHICH Ramsey did what. You cannot charge John Ramsey for murder if you aren't sure if it was him or Patsy that actualy killed JBR. And the same for Patsy.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:29 PM
LinasK's Avatar
LinasK LinasK is offline
Verified Insider-Mark Dribin case
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 17,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by olive
But I have read many accounts that think these were left by a washcloth, from wiping her. That they weren't necessarily from his shirt- they could have been fibers from a variety of things. Steve Thomas states he thinks they are from a washcloth.
And I have read, although I can't quote source, that the fibers were from the black shirt he was wearing that night that was made in Israel.
__________________
Please help locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff and bring them home.


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:32 PM
LinasK's Avatar
LinasK LinasK is offline
Verified Insider-Mark Dribin case
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 17,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypros
IMO, the problem was NOT that they didn't have enough to charge A Ramsey with the murder of JBR, but that they didn't know WHICH Ramsey did what. You cannot charge John Ramsey for murder if you aren't sure if it was him or Patsy that actualy killed JBR. And the same for Patsy.
I say charge 'em both for collusion, and obstruction of justice!
__________________
Please help locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff and bring them home.


Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:32 PM
Brutal Truth Brutal Truth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by olive
She wouldn't have to be. She wore the clothes just that night- I'm sure she left fibers on JonBenet from their contact during the evening. Hugs, etc. Fibers could have been transported on JonBenet herself, not by Patsy.

As far as the garrot.. that is disputable depending on how they were intertwined. I don't know enough about this subject, so feel free to correct me. But couldn't it be possible that fibers were left on JonBenet's hair and neck from hugging her mom that night, and that is how they got stuck in the garrot? Remember, the garrot was furrowed deep into her neck- it would definitely pick up whatever was on the skin.
Right, but this girl was wiped clean. How did her fibers get under the sticky side of the duct tape, when she was never in the basement? And the fibers werent just laying on the knot. They were actually intertwined in the knot. That does not come from a hug.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2006, 10:39 PM
olive's Avatar
olive olive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
Right, but this girl was wiped clean. How did her fibers get under the sticky side of the duct tape, when she was never in the basement? And the fibers werent just laying on the knot. They were actually intertwined in the knot. That does not come from a hug.
No, what I'm saying is that if Jonbenet had her face burrowed on her mom, in a hug for instance, and Patsy was wearing the jacket, those fibers could have been on her neck, hair and face. The duct tape was put over her mouth, which is part of her face. All it would take is for her to burrow her face on her mom's jacket, and fibers would be on her face. And the fibers could become intertwined due to how deep the ligature was in her skin. Her bottom was wiped clean, not her face.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-31-2006, 11:02 PM
SleuthingSleuth SleuthingSleuth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 252
If it was IDI and the Ramseys are completely innocent...one would have to face up to the fact that the intruder left behind no DNA, no prints, no fibers, and no footprints.
Pretty much, he'd have to have been in a plastic suit, and touched nothing with his actual body or clothing.

Then you have the issue of how he got in and out. I do not believe the evidence points towards anyone entering or exiting through the basement window.
So, it's unknown how this intruder entered the house and then made his escape hours later.

The "garrotting" strangulation, cord around the wrist, duct tape over mouth, and the RN were all elements of staging. The use of the paintbrush handle on the vagina possibly was also staging.
An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene to look like the work of an intruder.

This intruder would also have to feel very comfortable in a large house with 3 other people sleeping in it while he does his work, and mind you, a house he's not been in before. He thumbs his nose at alarm warnings. Lady Luck is on his side as he comes on a night when the dog isn't there.

This intruder also managed to feed his victim pineapple in the dead of night and also seemed to know which was the victim's favorite nightgown.

It's also unlikely an intruder who just committed such a perfect crime in a house of people would stop at one. Abductions would seem downright boring to such a person now...he would have continued.
Are there any similar cases though in the last 10 years?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-31-2006, 11:27 PM
JMO8778's Avatar
JMO8778 JMO8778 is offline
..at the beach!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
I don't know if this has ever been mentioned before,but what sticks out in my mind when you mentioned JR trying to get everyone to Atlanta not long after JB's body was found is this: not only would an innocent parent want to stay and help with the investigation (i can understand if JR wanted to get PR and BR to a safe place),an innocent parent would also be kind and caring enough to accompany his murdered dd's body to the morgue.It's like putting flowers on a loved one's grave,because it's one of the last things you can do for a loved one.I don't think I have ever heard JR's explanation for that.(which would probably be excuses anyway,no doubt).To me that alone was showing some guilt.
I know many people here probably have pets, so think about how you behaved when a beloved pet passed away.It was probably more caring than the R's acted.To me, running off to another state so soon would be abandoning my child, even if she was already deceased.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-31-2006, 11:30 PM
Jolynna's Avatar
Jolynna Jolynna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,656
  • If it was IDI and the Ramseys are completely innocent...one would have to face up to the fact that the intruder left behind no DNA, no prints, no fibers, and no footprints.
While the Ramsey's left fibers all over the crime scene.

How many men can come in from outside after walking through snow or melted snow and dirt and not leave traces on the carpet?

  • Then you have the issue of how he got in and out. I do not believe the evidence points towards anyone entering or exiting through the basement window.
  • So, it's unknown how this intruder entered the house and then made his escape hours later.
The neighbor's yappy dogs didn't even bark.

From the neighbor's interview?

Dog That Didn't Bark. "A third neighbour, to the West, said that her dogs who barked at anyone in the alley, just as they did when the police came to question her, made no noise Wednesday night." [Note: Wednesday refers to the night of Christmas, i.e., the night JBR died] (Thomas 2000a:49).

  • The "garrotting" strangulation, cord around the wrist, duct tape over mouth, and the RN were all elements of staging. The use of the paintbrush handle on the vagina possibly was also staging. An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene to look like the work of an intruder.
A sex-crazed pedophile would not have been afraid to touch JB "there". He would have done things that would have left hair, fibers, bites, and good forensic evidence.

One of the red flags that drew the BPD's suspicion about the sex-scene was the tidiness. It didn't ring true to experienced investigators.

Although Ramsey fibers were everywhere. Even twisted into the garrotte.

  • This intruder would also have to feel very comfortable in a large house with 3 other people sleeping in it while he does his work, and mind you, a house he's not been in before. He thumbs his nose at alarm warnings. Lady Luck is on his side as he comes on a night when the dog isn't there.
  • This intruder also managed to feed his victim pineapple in the dead of night and also seemed to know which was the victim's favorite nightgown.
  • It's also unlikely an intruder who just committed such a perfect crime in a house of people would stop at one. Abductions would seem downright boring to such a person now...he would have continued.
Your post was great Sluething Slueth.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-31-2006, 11:36 PM
Brutal Truth Brutal Truth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleuthingSleuth
If it was IDI and the Ramseys are completely innocent...one would have to face up to the fact that the intruder left behind no DNA, no prints, no fibers, and no footprints.
Pretty much, he'd have to have been in a plastic suit, and touched nothing with his actual body or clothing.

Then you have the issue of how he got in and out. I do not believe the evidence points towards anyone entering or exiting through the basement window.
So, it's unknown how this intruder entered the house and then made his escape hours later.

The "garrotting" strangulation, cord around the wrist, duct tape over mouth, and the RN were all elements of staging. The use of the paintbrush handle on the vagina possibly was also staging.
An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene to look like the work of an intruder.

This intruder would also have to feel very comfortable in a large house with 3 other people sleeping in it while he does his work, and mind you, a house he's not been in before. He thumbs his nose at alarm warnings. Lady Luck is on his side as he comes on a night when the dog isn't there.

This intruder also managed to feed his victim pineapple in the dead of night and also seemed to know which was the victim's favorite nightgown.

It's also unlikely an intruder who just committed such a perfect crime in a house of people would stop at one. Abductions would seem downright boring to such a person now...he would have continued.
Are there any similar cases though in the last 10 years?
Precisely. This guy did it all. He was a kidnapper, murderer, pedophile, house cleaner, and the worlds stealthiest criminal all in one.

You said some that sticks out to me. "An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene to look like the work of an intruder".

Thats right especially when theres no evidence of him in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2006, 12:14 AM
magnolia's Avatar
magnolia magnolia is offline
War Eagle
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 58,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by olive
Excellent question and observation.

The only thing that bothers me is a lot of RDI speculation. Why would they not cooperate? Don't know. Why would they hire attorneys? Don't know. Certainly, I would not react that way. However, none of that PROVES guilt. It is all speculation. You need actual evidence to prove guilt. The fact that fibers of theirs were on the body is no big deal. They live there. She lived there. Doesn't seem to me to prove anything. Patsy's fibers should be in the paint- it was her paint. Her fibers should be on JBR- I'm sure they hugged, I'm sure she put her to bed. No one seems to think that an unknown arm or pubic hair left on the blanket is a source of concern, so why would fibers of the people who live there be one?
Olive, I agree. There is a lot of RDI speculation. I have yet to read any evidence that links the Ramsey's to the crime.

For some people, running is a normal human response to an ordeal they simply are not capable of handling. They have a desire to get as far away from the situation as possible.
Also, put yourself in the place of the Ramsey's that morning. They were in shock and terrified. I certainly would have been.
The fact that they hired an Attorney means nothing. From what I have heard, a friend of John's advised him to retain an Attorney and he followed his advise.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-01-2006, 12:48 AM
LinasK's Avatar
LinasK LinasK is offline
Verified Insider-Mark Dribin case
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 17,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnolia
Olive, I agree. There is a lot of RDI speculation. I have yet to read any evidence that links the Ramsey's to the crime.

For some people, running is a normal human response to an ordeal they simply are not capable of handling. They have a desire to get as far away from the situation as possible.
fight or flight response, yes, but not when your daughter's body has just been discovered. Would you really leave her there for hours for the coroner to take her to the morgue all by herself and have flown out of state- NOT ME!!!
__________________
Please help locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff and bring them home.


Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-01-2006, 12:48 AM
Bronte Nut Bronte Nut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal Truth
I disagree. They had evidence on the Ramseys. And I truly believe if they were ordinary common people without so much clout, they would be in jail and thats where Patsy would have died.
F...... A, they would...

Poor folks would have been eaten alive by the cops.

Hey Brutal, have you noticed how little the IDI community have responded so far?

Interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-01-2006, 01:22 AM
K. Taylor K. Taylor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34
Quote:
The only thing that bothers me is a lot of RDI speculation. Why would they not cooperate? Don't know. Why would they hire attorneys? Don't know. Certainly, I would not react that way. However, none of that PROVES guilt. It is all speculation.
To me, it's the opposite. That us RDIers look at the evidence and see where it points, whereas IDIers only look at the evidence as to how it can be explained away to point to anyone other than the Ramseys first, then an intruder second. "Yes, but..."

There is far more IDI speculation, IMO. For example in the current Ramseys did it thread, there's a bunch of speculation from IDIers as to how people with cancer act so Patsy couldn't have done something, how parents who kill act a certain way every time and Patsy didn't act that way, etc. There is far more speculation that people act a certain way at all times, and parents like the Rams don't seem the type to have killed their kid.

Not to mention the wild speculation about what type of intruder it could've been, a pedophile, a grudge-holder, a college student, a pageant groupie, etc. I'm and RDIer because it's just common sense. No intruder theory has ever come close to being plausible, IMO, because the weight of the evidence is so strong against it. Aside from the issue of no DNA, fibers, the notion that someone would decide to kill JonBenet and break into the house on Christmas on Christmas and not only not leave any entry or exit point, any disturbance, any footprint on a carpet or a floor seems to me science fiction. But what really seals the deal is that that intruder would not bring anything himself: his own weapon, his own ransom note, his own rope or duct tape. This intruder that carefully planned a break-in so perfectly that he was able to enter and exit undetected also decided to just take a chance and say, "Oh, I'll just improvise with whatever is around - hey, that Maglite looks good! I'll just stick around a few hours on Christmas when I know the Ramseys are still in town and bound to show up any moment and wander around the house and I'm sure I'll find something." And then, despite being a master at entering and leaving the house undetected, once he grabs JonBenet he doesn't leave with her, he instead kills her violently in the same house where three other people are sleeping? When all it would take is one unforeseen noise from JonBenet and his jig would be up? Don't forget the intruder would've not only had to have snatched JB but also would've had to returned to her room to get her favorite nightgown. So even if she left her room on her own, followed the intruder to the cellar, the intruder would've still had to have returned upstairs and gone rummaging in her bedroom. Not to mention running water at one point to wipe her down, etc. So the guy was basically wandering around the house at night while three other people were there and no one saw or her anything and no traces were found?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-01-2006, 02:16 AM
Zelda Zelda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 782
IDI or RDI

I never thought of an intruder staging the intruder scene.

Why would anyone do that unless the killers were staging an intruder scene
to draw attention away from what really happened. Very good point!

I'm still undecided about IDI or RDI, I usually straddle the fence, and drop down to either side depending on posts in this forum and what I've been reading on the case.

The fact that Wendy Murphy doesn't believe the IDI theory, is a big influence on the RDI side. I still don't know, and unless someone else confesses we'll probably never know.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-01-2006, 02:27 AM
K. Taylor K. Taylor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34
In both scenarios, the intruder would've been in her bedroom. There are only two options in that IDI theory:

1. Intruder snatches JB from her room.

2. JB goes downstairs and meets intruder.

So in the case of #1, you'd also have to believe he not only grabbed JB but also her favorite nightgown, possibly underwear from her drawer, etc. So he stopped in the midst of his kidnapping to rummage around in her closets and drawers. What was JB doing? Sleeping? Sitting there, watching?

In scenario 2, what happened? JB wandered downstairs for a snack of pineapple? So the intruder just sat in the kitchen on the off-chance that JB would wander downstairs in the middle of the night? Was JB suprised? If it was a stranger, are we to believe she never cried out? If it was someone she knew she didn't squeal upon seeing her friend, Santa Claus, whoever? Did JonBenet happen to carry her nightgown downstairs with her while she grabbed a snack? If not, then the intruder would've had to have gone back upstairs to grab the nightgown.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!