A new look at RDI theories

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Chrishope, Aug 2, 2008.

  1. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. angelwngs

    angelwngs New Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent idea. Thank you for an equal opportunity thread, Chris-
     
  4. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee, no IDIs trying to think outside the box. What a surprise!
     
  5. angelwngs

    angelwngs New Member

    Messages:
    4,986
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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???
     
  6. LI_Mom

    LI_Mom New Member

    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Man! This thread is dead! :crazy:
     
  7. santos1014

    santos1014 Nana to Madelynn and Ethan

    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
     
  8. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.



    .
     
  9. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I like your second theory better, though I wouldn't limit it to teenagers.
     
  10. Buckethead

    Buckethead Former Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You assume they knew she was still alive after the head blow.
     
  12. Buckethead

    Buckethead Former Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Buckethead

    Buckethead Former Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  17. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got any examples of real kidnappers leaving 3 page RN's? Look forward to reading them.
     
  18. Buckethead

    Buckethead Former Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it doesn't. Mister Magoo could jump out of a comic strip and kill Jonbenet and the pineapple still has no relevancy regarding the murder itself.

    No one is denying that pineapple exists. So there's no point in trying to prove its existence.

    So? What's your point? Maybe they didn't feed it to her. There's ZERO proof regarding who fed her the pineapple. If there is proof, either post it or stop insinuating they are lying over such a minor issue of the case regarding the actual murder.

    Family prints on the bowl are irrelevant. Surely this has been mentioned here at least a thousand times.

    Its a known fact Patsy was heavily medicated in the weeks following Jonbenet's murder(and probably longer). I'm not surprised that details such as what snacks Jonbenet ate in the days/hours/weeks prior are fuzzy.

    Go tranquilize yourself and see if you remember what your kid had for a snack a week ago. Then when you cant remember, hopefully you hold yourself to the same standards you've set for Patsy.

    Funny you don't ask this same question about Patsy, but that would mean you gotta aim your sights somewhere else.

    Someone in the family has NO reason to wipe prints off of anything, INCLUDING murder weapons. Amazing that you don't realize this.

    How convenient. The pineapple isn't an issue for the Ramseys. The pineapple was on their property, along with the bowl the pineapple was in. The spoon is also their propery, and fingerprints better be on there somewhere or something is wrong.

    Yet you think the pineapple is proof of their guilt??
     
  19. Buckethead

    Buckethead Former Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Definition: No examples of parents killing their children in such fashion, so I resort to throwing it back at a person who never claimed kidnappers committed the crime.
     
  20. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Family prints on the bowl are irrelevant. Surely this has been mentioned here at least a thousand times.

    Its a known fact Patsy was heavily medicated in the weeks following Jonbenet's murder(and probably longer). I'm not surprised that details such as what snacks Jonbenet ate in the days/hours/weeks prior are fuzzy.

    Go tranquilize yourself and see if you remember what your kid had for a snack a week ago. Then when you cant remember, hopefully you hold yourself to the same standards you've set for Patsy.

    This is what bothers me about many IDIs, they ignore anything that doesn't fit their theory and change time and other facts as they go along.

    Family prints on the bowl are irrelevant, but the denial isn't irrelevant. Why deny owning the bowl, buying the pineapple? All they had to say was, "hey, the bowl of pineapple was on the table, maybe she helped herself to some when we weren't looking". That would be no big deal in itself, but of course this doesn't fit with the story that she was carried up to bed, already asleep. They could even say maybe she got up w/o our knowledge and had some pineapple. But instead they deny having any knowledge of pineapple in their own bowl, on their own kitchen counter.

    PR wasn't being asked to remember a snack fed to a child a week before. She was being asked to remember pineapple that was out on the counter, the night of the murder.
     
  21. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. It isn't the pineapple, the bowl or whose prints were on it- its the lie. BUT the family's prints WOULD be expected to be on the batteries. I concede that any intruder may have wiped the flashlight itself if it was used in the crime but NOT the batteries. It is exactly because the R prints SHOULD be on it and were not that makes it suspicious.

    And medicated or not, I'd remember what my child ate/wore/did on the night she died.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice