Evidence of IDI...?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Nuisanceposter, Aug 22, 2006.

  1. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm serious here...those of you who believe an intruder was the killer(whether it was Karr or not), what evidence are you basing your opinion on? I'd like to go through it all point by point and discuss it.

    Personally, I can't see any forensic evidence that indicates anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night, other than perhaps the underwear DNA (and IMO that DNA is too old to have depostited in JB's undies at the time of the murder.)

    -The doors weren't unlocked. John and Patsy Ramsey both originally told police and friends that all doors were locked that night, only to change their story later.

    -No one went through the window, the chair was in front of the door and the web was intact.

    -The prints belong to Ramseys.

    -Patsy wasn't excluded as the author of the RN.

    -JonBenet wasn't asleep - both her parents originally said she wasn't, only to change that story later, and Burke testified that she walked in the house herself that evening. The pineapple says she was awake after arriving home as well.

    -Burke owned HiTecs, and there's no way to date that footprint. The smudge under the window no one went through is a water mark.

    -No one has proven a stun gun was used - experts testified that the marks were too close together and those were abrasions and not burn marks.

    -Experts have claimed evidence of prior sexual abuse.

    -The cord was tied with a fixed knot and not a noose knot, and it was "built" on her neck with no signs of struggle from JB. Her wrists show no signs of struggle. The tape shows no signs of struggle.

    -The head wound was fully developed and appears to have preceded the strangulation due to its development.

    What did I forget?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would like to add

    - Officers first on the scene report that there were no footprints leading to the house.
     
  4. T Broodwater

    T Broodwater Former Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think everyone gets all of these points - they've been said over and over.

    Why do you guys care so much that some people disagree with you?

    If anyone actually answered this you'd just bombard them with how wrong they are. I've seen it happen over and over.

    I'm on the fence - because that's how you truly investigate all angles of anything - I (FOR ONE) can read and have read all of this and where it comes from. Get ya Hear ya.
     
  5. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh dear, I'm not looking to bombard anyone. I'm looking for a discussion of the evidence, and I'd appreciate hearing from someone who holds an opposite point of view of mine and listening to why they feel that way in the interest of discussing it.
     
  6. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the strange thing is that some still claims that there are no evidence.
    And at least I want new people to the forum to get a clear picture of the case.
    With correct info posters can contribute and maybe give new insight to the case.
     
  7. T Broodwater

    T Broodwater Former Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go look and see how this discussion goes...


    The problem is - If someone believes the IDI theory - they have to debate their points with RDI believers who often times argue the IDI points with "facts" that are really based in all or part on a very strong "opinion" - based on "science" that may have been conducted in a manned that the IDI disgrees with and that takes the "debate" in a tailspin - because the RDI believes in it fully.
     
  8. T Broodwater

    T Broodwater Former Member

    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By the way - I'm debating this right now - not being argumenative.
     
  9. christine2448

    christine2448 Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    10,385
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :clap: :clap: :clap: :woohoo: :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  10. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am with T Broodwater. this discussion is on every thread already.
     
  11. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree. Reference to it is on every thread, but actual discussion of it in a concise conversation is not. That's why I wanted to open a conversation specifically about individual pieces of evidence. Someone yesterday mentioned that she has seen enough evidence to exclude the Ramseys, and I asked her what that evidence was - and now I can't find the thread where I asked, and if I did, that doesn't mean she can find it or will answer.

    I just figured it would be easier if there was a discussion solely about the evidence and how people see it indicate either RDI or IDI. Sorry if it offends people. Maybe I should have chosen a different title.
     
  12. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I said, those that have not yet formed an opinion should have all the info from both viewpoints. It has to be debated somewhere. Better to debate it in a thread with a proper name than to hijack other threads and confuse the subject.

    because the RDI believes in it fully

    Talk for yourself. Why do you debate?
     
  13. christine2448

    christine2448 Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    10,385
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is/has been debated, all over the place, in other threads, in it's own threads. Do you see how many threads are in here? Why not go back and look.

    You are debating whether or not this should be debated....apparantly no one wants to have this debate AGAIN. :doh:

    ETA...it's been debated to death. The evidence has not changed since Dec of 1996...with the exception of the evidence that has been withheld from the public, once and if a trial happens, and new evidence comes to light, the we can pick up the debate again, at this point, I see no reason to keep debating the same facts over and over.
     
  14. Hbgchick

    Hbgchick New Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Totally agreed with what T Broodwater has said so far.

    I tried to have this discussion from an IDI point of view, once. What I got was a load of RDI's jumping on me and wanting to "debate points". Basically, here's how it went:

    RDI: There were no footprints in the snow
    IDI: There WAS no snow on the sidewalk so there could not have been footprints there
    RDI: Well then, there was a spider web stretched across the window
    IDI: Spiders can form complete webs in less than an hour
    RDI: Well then, Burke says she was awake
    IDI: Patsy and John said she wasn't. Burke was nine. Could he have been mistaken?
    RDI: Well then, there were fibers from Patsy's sweater on JBR

    See how it goes? The RDI camp refuses to actually debate or listen to anything other than their pre-concieved theories that were formed over ten years ago. I personally thought the Ramsey's did it ten years ago too. BUT, over the past ten years I've read and seen enough to convince me they didn't. And I'm not going to debate it again.
     
  15. Hbgchick

    Hbgchick New Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What Christine said too.

    (Off topic - nothing new on Ray Christine. We're still here though! :blowkiss: ).
     
  16. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it's been debated all over, and all of those posts are wide-flung all over this board. As a very disorganized person with the attention span of a mouse, I thought it might be nice to try to consolidate that info in one thread. I'm actually interested in hearing another point of view and discussing it, and I didn't expect to be reprimanded for it. Just because you and one or two other people have said they don't want to debate it again doesn't mean no one else wants to.
     
  17. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even then new people come along asking questions about the stuff. Where should they get the info? Appearantly they are not capable of finding it themselves so why not be helpful? This thread should be as good as any, it even has a good name.
     
  18. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correct, and then people reading can start thinking themselves and build their own opinion. And sometimes a poster can even contribute with new info or new insight. Isn't that what the forum is about. What do you wan't to debate?
     
  19. Hbgchick

    Hbgchick New Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A person new to the case can go here:

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html


    To read the facts in the case pre-Karr. Then that person could form their own opinion, and come back here if they wanted to get into a debate, or they could just keep their opinion to themselves. A new person should also know that there are a bunch of people that believe the Ramesy's either actually killed Jonbenet or were involved somehow, and an equal bunch of people who do not.
    That's all a new person needs to know. They don't need to watch yet another "debate" between one person saying "The Ramsey's did it" and another saying "no they didn't". It is useless and pointless to do it again.
     
  20. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good idea about the link. Unfortunaltely this thread will soon be down under and the link is gone. Links like these already exists as stickys but that doesn't keep people from asking about the basics.

    And again, what do you wan't to debate if it is not the evidence?
     
  21. Nuisanceposter

    Nuisanceposter Remembering Little Miss Christmas

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    About your link, Hbgchick...that's Court TV, known for being kinda Ramsey-biased because they're afraid of being sued. This link and the opinion it presents is exactly why people need a place for debate about the evidence in the case. People need a series of different links to all kinds of different sources in order to make an informed opinion. I'd hate for people to go the CTV and read through that series of articles and think that's all they need to know about the case.

    I can't believe you're actually saying "that's all a new person needs to know." I strongly disagree and think that's why new people need somewhere to talk about the evidence and make a decision based on many points of view.
     

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