If JonBenet's death was an accident...

[Ames]

It's funny to see RDI coming up with so many scenarios to explain their theory, they end up cancelling each other out. It's like watching a group of contortionists playing twister.

Really now? Just what theory has been cancelled out? RDI's are pretty much on the same page. We weren't there...and neither were you...so we don't know exactly WHAT happened that night, only that the parents were involved. It's like a puzzle....you fit all of the evidence together, and when you are finished, you have a picture of the Ramseys, that you can frame and hang on your wall.

 

[Ames]

Actually, the KNOWN RDI FACT would probably be

"They were in the house WHEN JBR was killed."
with a helping of
"And it has yet to be proven that anyone else was in the house"

Conclusion?
They are the best suspects available.


Logical steps there I'd suggest. no?

And that is the reason that they are NOW "UNCLEARED".

 

[MurriFlower]

And that is the reason that they are NOW "UNCLEARED".

So, Ok, Ames. Let's just say there WAS another person in the house that night. In your opinion, would that make this person more likely, less likely, or equally likely to be the murderer?

 

[cami]

It's also one of the reasons I disagree with ST's theory.Maybe it's more complicated than a bed wetting issue/accident/cover-up,actually I am sure of it and I am not sure of many things in this case.Not at all.

ITA, I don't think much of ST theory either. This was not toilet rage. There is proof JB was being molested.

 

[SunnieRN]

Ah yes, the KNOWN RDI FACTS. Just remind me again of what these are??

A lot of people have already addressed this one. My suggestion, if you want to know what, how your 'enemy' thinks, study their tactics. Try reading threads that will answer this question.

But their presence in the house does not make them guilty. You must have some PROOF they were involved in her murder. Otherwise the KNOWN RDI FACT is simply that they were in the house, sleeping presumably, while some unknown person killed JBR.

You seem to believe that someone has to be a resident in the house in which a victim was killed in order to be a murderer, and likewise anyone outside of the house was innocent. The house was not a fortress, so there was nothing to stop others from entering and leaving.

Have you heard the expression, 'Burden of proof'? RDI has crossed that bridge, as the other 3 R's were known to, never denied that, they were in the house when JBR was killed. NO ONE has EVER proven another person was in the house that night.

So, Ok, Ames. Let's just say there WAS another person in the house that night. In your opinion, would that make this person more likely, less likely, or equally likely to be the murderer?

Depends upon whom they were. A stranger, a doctor, a pastor, a fixer...etc etc etc. Show us proof MF. Also, please address my original question. You have been off on tangents for several weeks now. These ALL cancel one another. You are accusing us of twisting facts, but you are guilty of worse. Remember, our suspects have been PROVEN to be present.

 

[cami]

But their presence in the house does not make them guilty. You must have some PROOF they were involved in her murder. Otherwise the KNOWN RDI FACT is simply that they were in the house, sleeping presumably, while some unknown person killed JBR.

Nice dodge to the question you were asked. Where is the PROOF an intruder was involved? And please as the previous poster stated, don't spout that dna at me as it's bogus. Mary Laci and Lyn Wood have pulled the wool over your eyes if you do.

 

[cami]

Thanks SD.

I realize that PR was a clotheshorse, nothing wrong with that.

Just wondered who would describe it with such a harsh word. LHP.
Makes sense.





Heyya SD

I realize that PR was a clotheshorse, nothing wrong with that. -TP

I was just stating my position on PR clotheshorse ways, being formerly, err, one myself.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, never really considered you would have a personal opinion on the issue. Good to know your stance.

Not only was she wearing the same clothes she wore the night before (party clothes), she was in full makeup with her hair done.

Someone didn't go to bed that night, IMO.

 

[madeleine]

But their presence in the house does not make them guilty. You must have some PROOF they were involved in her murder. Otherwise the KNOWN RDI FACT is simply that they were in the house, sleeping presumably, while some unknown person killed JBR.

You seem to believe that someone has to be a resident in the house in which a victim was killed in order to be a murderer, and likewise anyone outside of the house was innocent. The house was not a fortress, so there was nothing to stop others from entering and leaving.

their presence in the house doesn't make them guilty,I don't think that's what people think.
it's other things that bother us,like -they never helped the cops to rule them out,actually they made it pretty difficult,look at what LW did during the Atlanta interviews.
DNA isn't definite proof that someone else killed JB,it only proves someone unknown to US handled her clothes at some point.
you can't put the murdr weapon in the hands of a R but you can't place it in the dna owners hands either,hey we don't even know what the murder weapon was,we are not even sure what the CAUSE of death was.

you need so much more in order to name this dna owner the killer of JB.
and on the other hand there are so MANY questions that the R's simply refused to answer and so many suspicions regarding their behaviour post crime.
their timeline s#cks for example,things just couldn't have happened like they said.so many I don't recalls and I don't remember.they don't recall important things but they remember ridiculous details,makes you wonder.bad lawyering?don't think so,LW is GOOD.he fought hard,that tells me he had good reasons and it's not just about the R's IMAGE.

 

[Toltec]

Not only was she wearing the same clothes she wore the night before (party clothes), she was in full makeup with her hair done.

Someone didn't go to bed that night, IMO.

Exactly...there is no way in the world Patsy would get into a tiny plane unshowered...can u imagine the smell? She said she wanted to impress Melinda's boyfriend Stewart.

Patsy did not shower because she did not go to bed that nite and knew she was not going to get on that plane.

 

[madeleine]

So, Ok, Ames. Let's just say there WAS another person in the house that night. In your opinion, would that make this person more likely, less likely, or equally likely to be the murderer?

am not Ames but I would love to answer.
it all depends on who this person was.could be the killer,could be an accomplice,could be a doctor,could be someone from AG called over to clean up the scene.
its not about IF there was someone else there that night ,it's about who it was.unless they got a name they got nothing.IMO

 

[MurriFlower]

their presence in the house doesn't make them guilty,I don't think that's what people think.
it's other things that bother us,like -they never helped the cops to rule them out,actually they made it pretty difficult,look at what LW did during the Atlanta interviews.
DNA isn't definite proof that someone else killed JB,it only proves someone unknown to US handled her clothes at some point.
you can't put the murdr weapon in the hands of a R but you can't place it in the dna owners hands either,hey we don't even know what the murder weapon was,we are not even sure what the CAUSE of death was.

you need so much more in order to name this dna owner the killer of JB.
and on the other hand there are so MANY questions that the R's simply refused to answer and so many suspicions regarding their behaviour post crime.
their timeline s#cks for example,things just couldn't have happened like they said.so many I don't recalls and I don't remember.they don't recall important things but they remember ridiculous details,makes you wonder.bad lawyering?don't think so,LW is GOOD.he fought hard,that tells me he had good reasons and it's not just about the R's IMAGE.

My big bold

Well, when I asked what was the proof, that is what I was told. In the house = guilty.

 

[MurriFlower]

am not Ames but I would love to answer.
it all depends on who this person was.could be the killer,could be an accomplice,could be a doctor,could be someone from AG called over to clean up the scene.
its not about IF there was someone else there that night ,it's about who it was.unless they got a name they got nothing.IMO

Why do you need to know who was in the house to decide if that person was equally, more or less likely to be guilty? It appears that RDI believes that simply the presence of someone in the house is sufficient evidence of guilt.

 

[MurriFlower]

But their presence in the house does not make them guilty. You must have some PROOF they were involved in her murder. Otherwise the KNOWN RDI FACT is simply that they were in the house, sleeping presumably, while some unknown person killed JBR.

Nice dodge to the question you were asked. Where is the PROOF an intruder was involved? And please as the previous poster stated, don't spout that dna at me as it's bogus. Mary Laci and Lyn Wood have pulled the wool over your eyes if you do.

Well, the problem is, DD stated "JR is guilty". I'm trying to get one RDI to answer specific questions about what has led to this belief, as I'm accused of lumping all RDI together, while they all have different theories. I'm not wanting to go off on a tangent with my own theories. I still don't have an answer from DD, but many others trying to divert my attention. I'd like to discuss one theory at a time from one person at a time. I'm hopelessly outnumbered and don't have the time or energy to fend off a whole ship load of RDI badgering me to prove them wrong. If I can't have a simple exchange of views with someone without you all attacking me, then I'll just go AWOL again.

 

[SunnieRN]

Well, the problem is, DD stated "JR is guilty". I'm trying to get one RDI to answer specific questions about what has led to this belief, as I'm accused of lumping all RDI together, while they all have different theories. I'm not wanting to go off on a tangent with my own theories. I still don't have an answer from DD, but many others trying to divert my attention. I'd like to discuss one theory at a time from one person at a time. I'm hopelessly outnumbered and don't have the time or energy to fend off a whole ship load of RDI badgering me to prove them wrong. If I can't have a simple exchange of views with someone without you all attacking me, then I'll just go AWOL again.

It is way too late for you NOT to go on a tangent with your theories MF. You have listed several the past few weeks. All of them cancel eachother out and you have presented NO proof to support your theories, diversions or smoke and mirrors, depending upon how you choose to describe them.

As for discussing one theory at a time from one person at a time, this is a FORUM, on a public board, where any member can post and discuss any issues they so choose at any time. If you are feeling 'badgered', look at your own name calling behaviors.

Respect in earned MF and people are responding to your questions, politely, instead of ignoring you, or in your words, 'badgering you'. As for going AWOL, I am not sure that was truly by choice, was it? Were you not in time out for some reason? Or are you speaking of a different instance? I am truly confused by that part of your comment.

Peace out MF.

 

[SunnieRN]

QQuotes seem to be 'off' again. MF, I was quoting and responding to your post, with your post, above. Not sure why Camis' name came up?

 

[DeeDee249]

Well, the problem is, DD stated "JR is guilty". I'm trying to get one RDI to answer specific questions about what has led to this belief, as I'm accused of lumping all RDI together, while they all have different theories. I'm not wanting to go off on a tangent with my own theories. I still don't have an answer from DD, but many others trying to divert my attention. I'd like to discuss one theory at a time from one person at a time. I'm hopelessly outnumbered and don't have the time or energy to fend off a whole ship load of RDI badgering me to prove them wrong. If I can't have a simple exchange of views with someone without you all attacking me, then I'll just go AWOL again.

JR is guilty, but not necessarily of murder. Of course you a;ready KNOW that I am RDI, not JRDI, PDI or BDI. I honestly don't now who killed her. But the fact s that they were ALL home when she was killed and NO, that does no mean any of them killed her just because they were home.
There has never been a single link to anyone ELSE.
Their behavior from Day 1 tells me they KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, They know WHO. They know WHEN and they know HOW.
However, the burden of proof is on the rest of the world. One possible perp is dead, one cannot ever be charged even if he confessed to it, and two have lawyers that will never allow him to be questioned again. And a fourth, JAR, was very likely in the house that night as well, yet that cannot be proven.

 

[MurriFlower]

JR is guilty, but not necessarily of murder. Of course you a;ready KNOW that I am RDI, not JRDI, PDI or BDI. I honestly don't now who killed her. But the fact s that they were ALL home when she was killed and NO, that does no mean any of them killed her just because they were home.
There has never been a single link to anyone ELSE.
Their behavior from Day 1 tells me they KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, They know WHO. They know WHEN and they know HOW.
However, the burden of proof is on the rest of the world. One possible perp is dead, one cannot ever be charged even if he confessed to it, and two have lawyers that will never allow him to be questioned again. And a fourth, JAR, was very likely in the house that night as well, yet that cannot be proven.

Thanks for your response DD. Yes, you said you knew he was guilty, but not of murder but of covering up (for someone else).

You see, on the one hand you are saying there is no proof that anyone else was in the house "DD:Well- one of them is that ONLY Patsy, JR and BR were PROVEN to be in the house at the time JB was killed. FACT." and this is what leads you to believe one of them was responsible. But on the other hand, you are suggesting above, that JAR was very likely in the house that night even though this cannot be proven. So you will not entertain the thought that an unknown person was in the house, but are happy to believe it may have been JAR.

What I was trying to ascertain is in your opinion: If an unknown person WAS in the house, would this make them just as likely, more likely or less likely to have been the murderer than PR, JR or BR, based solely on the fact that this person was in the house, not on the identity of the person.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for your response DD. Yes, you said you knew he was guilty, but not of murder but of covering up (for someone else).

You see, on the one hand you are saying there is no proof that anyone else was in the house "DD:Well- one of them is that ONLY Patsy, JR and BR were PROVEN to be in the house at the time JB was killed. FACT." and this is what leads you to believe one of them was responsible. But on the other hand, you are suggesting above, that JAR was very likely in the house that night even though this cannot be proven. So you will not entertain the thought that an unknown person was in the house, but are happy to believe it may have been JAR.

What I was trying to ascertain is in your opinion: If an unknown person WAS in the house, would this make them just as likely, more likely or less likely to have been the murderer than PR, JR or BR, based solely on the fact that this person was in the house, not on the identity of the person.

OK let's see how this plays out...Let's define "unknown person- there are THREE options. One, a person known to the Rs and known BY them to be with them in the house that night but no one else knows of it. Two, a person known to the Rs but someone the Rs were unaware was in the house that night. Three, someone entirely unknown to the Rs (stranger, SFF, etc) was in the house that night. ANY person PROVEN to be in the house that night could be the killer. This includes an intruder, as yet unproven. That s what I mean when I say that it is a fact that ONLY the three surviving Rs were proven to be in the house that night. JAR is suspected to have been there, but not proven to have been.
Now- all THREE theories can make that unknown person as likely as the Rs to have killed JB BUT the Rs would not cover up the crime for anyone other than a family member, IMO. It is not the presence of JR, Patsy and BR in the house that makes them suspect. It is the absence of any link at all to anyone else (I discount the male DNA) combined with their behavior and actions from the very first moments on that convince me they know what happened that night, they know who did it and how.

 

[MurriFlower]

OK let's see how this plays out...Let's define "unknown person- there are THREE options. One, a person known to the Rs and known BY them to be with them in the house that night but no one else knows of it. Two, a person known to the Rs but someone the Rs were unaware was in the house that night. Three, someone entirely unknown to the Rs (stranger, SFF, etc) was in the house that night. ANY person PROVEN to be in the house that night could be the killer. This includes an intruder, as yet unproven. That s what I mean when I say that it is a fact that ONLY the three surviving Rs were proven to be in the house that night. JAR is suspected to have been there, but not proven to have been.
Now- all THREE theories can make that unknown person as likely as the Rs to have killed JB BUT the Rs would not cover up the crime for anyone other than a family member, IMO. It is not the presence of JR, Patsy and BR in the house that makes them suspect. It is the absence of any link at all to anyone else (I discount the male DNA) combined with their behavior and actions from the very first moments on that convince me they know what happened that night, they know who did it and how.

Well, I guess if you discount unknown male DNA found in two places on the underclothing of the deceased as not being important, then I'm not sure that any further discussion is necessary. Because this IS A FACT, just as it IS A FACT that the three Rs were in the house. Why would you dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of the perceived unusual behaviour of someone?

 

[joeskidbeck]

"Why would you dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of the perceived unusual behaviour of someone?" Respectfully snipped

Murri, the dna is not the only "physical" evidence found in the house. It is a very small part, as a matter of fact. The rest of the physical evidence belonged to the R's. Of course I'm talking about the fibers and paint brush to name a couple. Together with the fact that we know there were 3 members of the family in the house, how would you come to the conclusion that an intruder ever went into the home? The evidence against the R's is not just about their presence that night or their "behavior". It's both. Now, I ask you, how could you ignore the preponderance of physical evidence in favor of one piece which cannot even be connected to a name?