Why I will never believe any IDI did it theory

Ponytale

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2024
Messages
346
Reaction score
1,246
There are so many aspects in this case that do not make any logical sense to begin with. One of them for me, is the IDI theory. To begin with the obvious - we can not name any actual, factual, scientific or forensic evidence of an intruder that can not be explained away. Yes, even the foreign DNA can be explained away as it is not in any way a fact that it came from an intruder that night.

And to see all that was wrong in that morning, when this was just the kidnapping that they all had to believe it to be, all one has to do is put themselves in the same situation - if you were the parent in this situation, what would you do and not do? And I'm not referring to any specific psychological or behavioral aspects like a person's way to cope with the situation (like for an example, the claims that John went through the mail that morning because he was nervous and it was his way to deal with the situation, or that they stayed in the separate rooms the entire morning, and so on), but of the case in general.

If my child was abducted there is no way I would not cooperate with the police or anyone in the world who could help me to find my child. I would call, talk and meet with them day or night. AND I would do it even if they all think that I was the kidnapper of my child or played a part in it. Period. If I knew that the whole world hates me and thinks of me as a culprit it would still never stop me for fighting for my child. I would be heard and seen demanding for justice from the moment it happened until I would die. I would never hide. I would never not answer questions. I would never have anything better to do then find my child and get her back to me, back home safe.

I would search every inch of my house, my backyard. Knock on the doors of my neighbors. I would talk with my family members, friends and anyone who might have seen her, talked to her or even met her, to find out if anyone knows something.

And mostly, I believe if I and my family were innocent to begin with, I would never change even a slightest detail in my story. Because I would know for sure from the beginning and I would remember that day till the day I die.
If one goes through a traumatic experience it will stay with them, they will remember. They'd be playing this over and over again in their head to figure it all out and make sense of it, that they would remember all the details to tell the police and detectives. What they thought, what emotions they felt. Even the smells around them and what they were wearing. They would reflect back on their own and others actions to before it happened, and try to find anything that was amiss or odd. They would desperately try to figure it all out, to think if they are the ones who missed something important or could have done something differently to prevent it from happening.

And yes there would still be some things that I might not be sure of to say for certain, because it is normal and there are always simple things that just wont be remembered, but then I would go and say so from the day one - I would admit that from the beginning that I really do not remember if it was this or that or what was the exact sequence of the events and make it be clear that I really do not know for sure. And I would go ask my husband or others what they remember about how it was exactly, to help me remember too.

I would read the ransom letter a 100 times with my husband to figure out how can we contact the police if the kidnappers might be watching us, not to risk my child to be killed because of that. I would find another way to alert them - like call my friends to go to the cops. I would never let my other children out of my sight for no matter how long. I would trust no-one. I would be afraid for their life and my life too, if a stranger had entered my house and writes about beheading my child. I would be anxiously waiting for that ransom call to be made as it would be my only hope to get my child back safely, and I would keep my eyes on the clock and even count the seconds. And if that time would be passed without any call, I would scream and demand for FBI and search dogs and the whole secret service to be there in my house and figure it all out to find my daughter fast and alive. Especially if I had the money, means and the power to do it all. And the Ramsay's did.

If the parents have the money, power and means to pay big amounts to find the monster who kidnapped their child and find justice, but choose to spend that money on lawyering up, defending themselves and needing to prove their innocence instead, it is a huge red flag. This is not the behavior of an innocent parent.

I write this because that is the expected reaction of a parent who's child is missing. Of a parent, who's child has been kidnapped in the middle of the night in their own house. Of a parent, who is completely innocent and does not care about anything else in the world, than the safe and fast return of her beloved child. Period.

And I believe all the parents and grandparents here reading this would feel exactly the same way if they were in this situation.
No innocent parent will never feel the need to have to prove their innocence to the public.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the Ramsey interview with S. Thomas on Larry king an thought to myself - why would innocent parents feel such need to protect themselves and need to make everyone believe that they are innocent? Why be so upset that a detective believes that they are guilty? You could just see the anger there. They wouldn't even let him speak. If I were an innocent parent I would not care if anyone thought I am guilty or involved in their eyes. It would just not matter to me. My world would be crushed anyway, no matter what someone thinks of me. My goal would be finding the killer, not proving my innocence. The show just showed how scared they were... and how little they actually thought about JB in that show. It really shows something when they are put under the pressure.

And most telling to me is when Patsy said that "IF there was an intruder..." If... What?
 
Do you know what I truly think? I think two of your sentences is the key..... and I'm certainly not the first to come to this conclusion. You said in your first post that (essentially) nothing makes any logical sense. I assume what you meant was that no matter which theory you (anyone) likes, it all makes sense......right up to the point where the evidence doesn't fit that theory anymore and it falls apart. Burke? Sure. John? Sure. Patsy? Sure. Intruder? Sure.

Nothing fits. You're right. It makes no logical sense.

I believe 100% that is by design. Once you allow your mind to go there - things start making sense, as crazy as that sounds.
 
Do you know what I truly think? I think two of your sentences is the key..... and I'm certainly not the first to come to this conclusion. You said in your first post that (essentially) nothing makes any logical sense. I assume what you meant was that no matter which theory you (anyone) likes, it all makes sense......right up to the point where the evidence doesn't fit that theory anymore and it falls apart. Burke? Sure. John? Sure. Patsy? Sure. Intruder? Sure.

Nothing fits. You're right. It makes no logical sense.

I believe 100% that is by design. Once you allow your mind to go there - things start making sense, as crazy as that sounds.
What I wrote was that the IDI theory does not make any sense and explained why so in the entirety of this post. I do not see anyone understanding it differently than what I wrote. No need to read between the lines as there is nothing more there. Plain and simple. IMO
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FMB
What I wrote was that the IDI theory does not make any sense and explained why so in the entirety of this post. I do not see anyone understanding it differently than what I wrote. No need to read between the lines as there is nothing more there. Plain and simple. IMO
You are correct. I agree with you 100%. I don't think it was an intruder either and I would have done everything you stated too if I was a parent in their position. IE: leaving no stone unturned and cooperating fully with anybody and everybody.

In my post as a follow up, I am afraid I was too cryptic. It was me being cryptic, not you. - (as I don't want to get sued either, haha)

What I was trying to say is that there was a coverup of epic proportions, from multiple points. DA? Yep. Others, (cough Johns cell phone records?) Yep. Stonewalling the investigation from the start to this very day? Yep. (How do you stonewall PERFECTLY - every single time, no matter the questions to this very day WITHOUT extremely powerful outside help?) It simply doesn't happen in any murder case - except this one and JFK. The Ramseys were a lot of things but "master criminals" isn't one of those things. The "evidence" points in every which way under the sun - and what *I* was trying to say is that was absolutely by design, a massive coverup, and once anyone allows their mind to "go there" - things begin to make a little more sense, with the evidence that doesn't make any sense.

There is no "intruder." Someone from the outside was either invited in, and it was a SA thing, OR it had to be someone in the house. - Again, I agree with everything you said. "They wouldn't even let him speak" (Det. Thomas) on that CNN thing - exactly - a politicians "tactic" to silence and muddy the waters. That was coached, etc....
 
You are correct. I agree with you 100%. I don't think it was an intruder either and I would have done everything you stated too if I was a parent in their position. IE: leaving no stone unturned and cooperating fully with anybody and everybody.

In my post as a follow up, I am afraid I was too cryptic. It was me being cryptic, not you. - (as I don't want to get sued either, haha)

What I was trying to say is that there was a coverup of epic proportions, from multiple points. DA? Yep. Others, (cough Johns cell phone records?) Yep. Stonewalling the investigation from the start to this very day? Yep. (How do you stonewall PERFECTLY - every single time, no matter the questions to this very day WITHOUT extremely powerful outside help?) It simply doesn't happen in any murder case - except this one and JFK. The Ramseys were a lot of things but "master criminals" isn't one of those things. The "evidence" points in every which way under the sun - and what *I* was trying to say is that was absolutely by design, a massive coverup, and once anyone allows their mind to "go there" - things begin to make a little more sense, with the evidence that doesn't make any sense.

There is no "intruder." Someone from the outside was either invited in, and it was a SA thing, OR it had to be someone in the house. - Again, I agree with everything you said. "They wouldn't even let him speak" (Det. Thomas) on that CNN thing - exactly - a politicians "tactic" to silence and muddy the waters. That was coached, etc....
I also agree 100%. The only way this gets pulled off is with a lot of help, and the Ramseys had it in spades. Those who want to ignore this and discount all the powerful connections there were with influential players as "conspiracy theories" are in my opinion quite naive.

More than one investigator who took part in the interviews that were finally agreed to 4 months after the fact have said how well prepared the Ramseys were. They were coached. They had plenty of time to agree to what was going to be said and what was going to be ignored or "not remembered". They have described it as "scripted".

The Larry King interview with Det. Thomas was very telling IMO.
 
If I found a ransom note, that I know I did not write, that said my child was kidnapped and my child wasn’t in her bedroom, I’m not sure I would immediately search the rest of the house. Maybe the other bedrooms and bathroom on that floor, but not some obscure basement room. Honestly, I think I’d do what they did—freak out and call LE.
~~~
 
If I found a ransom note, that I know I did not write, that said my child was kidnapped and my child wasn’t in her bedroom, I’m not sure I would immediately search the rest of the house. Maybe the other bedrooms and bathroom on that floor, but not some obscure basement room. Honestly, I think I’d do what they did—freak out and call LE.
~~~
That is a fair response. It's fair.

What I am suggesting is AFTER THE FACT - The Ramseys , after that morning, did every little thing - every detail of it, absolutely perfectly. PERFECT. That continues to this day.

Arguably, they even had extremely high ranking FBI persons conflicted. I'm suggesting that doesn't happen unless intentionally. Give just enough detail to lead everyone in every conceivable direction so that they ultimately conclude that ANY possibility, is in fact - a possibility. (Reasonable Doubt)

Once I wondered - "Did they call anyone before they called 911?" - (to get help?) (IE; a *CRIMINAL* attorney) (dirty attorney, doesn't play by the rules, etc, literally a criminal lawyer - Ala "Saul Goodman" )

The police must have wondered that too - hence why they wanted the Ramseys phone and cell phone records. And low an behold when those records finally were produced - Johns cell phone record for the month of December were completely blank.....not 1 phone call. John had apparently "lost" his cellphone the previous month. Sure...whatever.

Interesting thought just occurred to me - A man with a $1 billion dollar business can lose his cell phone, but also is a participant in a perfect murder that cannot be solved??????? Not buying that for a moment. Nope. They had help. And I mean serious, high, high, high up serious help. In my mind it's JFK jr .....we'll never know. That's that, IMHO.
 
I also agree 100%. The only way this gets pulled off is with a lot of help, and the Ramseys had it in spades. Those who want to ignore this and discount all the powerful connections there were with influential players as "conspiracy theories" are in my opinion quite naive.

More than one investigator who took part in the interviews that were finally agreed to 4 months after the fact have said how well prepared the Ramseys were. They were coached. They had plenty of time to agree to what was going to be said and what was going to be ignored or "not remembered". They have described it as "scripted".

The Larry King interview with Det. Thomas was very telling IMO.
It is a conspiracy theory. Who are these mysterious players and what exactly is it that they are supposed to have done? Thomas and White rant about Democrats (because of course they do) but none of them has anything more than "vibes".

That is a fair response. It's fair.

What I am suggesting is AFTER THE FACT - The Ramseys , after that morning, did every little thing - every detail of it, absolutely perfectly. PERFECT. That continues to this day.

Arguably, they even had extremely high ranking FBI persons conflicted. I'm suggesting that doesn't happen unless intentionally. Give just enough detail to lead everyone in every conceivable direction so that they ultimately conclude that ANY possibility, is in fact - a possibility. (Reasonable Doubt)

Once I wondered - "Did they call anyone before they called 911?" - (to get help?) (IE; a *CRIMINAL* attorney) (dirty attorney, doesn't play by the rules, etc, literally a criminal lawyer - Ala "Saul Goodman" )

The police must have wondered that too - hence why they wanted the Ramseys phone and cell phone records. And low an behold when those records finally were produced - Johns cell phone record for the month of December were completely blank.....not 1 phone call. John had apparently "lost" his cellphone the previous month. Sure...whatever.

Interesting thought just occurred to me - A man with a $1 billion dollar business can lose his cell phone, but also is a participant in a perfect murder that cannot be solved??????? Not buying that for a moment. Nope. They had help. And I mean serious, high, high, high up serious help. In my mind it's JFK jr .....we'll never know. That's that, IMHO.
It was 1996. Cell phones were convenient, not vital, and the Ramseys had no control over their phone records. Certainly no one altered them, that notion is just bizarre.

Though your joke that it was JFK jr is pretty funny, I admit. Nice one!
 
There are so many aspects in this case that do not make any logical sense to begin with. One of them for me, is the IDI theory. To begin with the obvious - we can not name any actual, factual, scientific or forensic evidence of an intruder that can not be explained away. Yes, even the foreign DNA can be explained away as it is not in any way a fact that it came from an intruder that night.

And to see all that was wrong in that morning, when this was just the kidnapping that they all had to believe it to be, all one has to do is put themselves in the same situation - if you were the parent in this situation, what would you do and not do? And I'm not referring to any specific psychological or behavioral aspects like a person's way to cope with the situation (like for an example, the claims that John went through the mail that morning because he was nervous and it was his way to deal with the situation, or that they stayed in the separate rooms the entire morning, and so on), but of the case in general.

If my child was abducted there is no way I would not cooperate with the police or anyone in the world who could help me to find my child. I would call, talk and meet with them day or night. AND I would do it even if they all think that I was the kidnapper of my child or played a part in it. Period. If I knew that the whole world hates me and thinks of me as a culprit it would still never stop me for fighting for my child. I would be heard and seen demanding for justice from the moment it happened until I would die. I would never hide. I would never not answer questions. I would never have anything better to do then find my child and get her back to me, back home safe.

I would search every inch of my house, my backyard. Knock on the doors of my neighbors. I would talk with my family members, friends and anyone who might have seen her, talked to her or even met her, to find out if anyone knows something.

And mostly, I believe if I and my family were innocent to begin with, I would never change even a slightest detail in my story. Because I would know for sure from the beginning and I would remember that day till the day I die.
If one goes through a traumatic experience it will stay with them, they will remember. They'd be playing this over and over again in their head to figure it all out and make sense of it, that they would remember all the details to tell the police and detectives. What they thought, what emotions they felt. Even the smells around them and what they were wearing. They would reflect back on their own and others actions to before it happened, and try to find anything that was amiss or odd. They would desperately try to figure it all out, to think if they are the ones who missed something important or could have done something differently to prevent it from happening.

And yes there would still be some things that I might not be sure of to say for certain, because it is normal and there are always simple things that just wont be remembered, but then I would go and say so from the day one - I would admit that from the beginning that I really do not remember if it was this or that or what was the exact sequence of the events and make it be clear that I really do not know for sure. And I would go ask my husband or others what they remember about how it was exactly, to help me remember too.

I would read the ransom letter a 100 times with my husband to figure out how can we contact the police if the kidnappers might be watching us, not to risk my child to be killed because of that. I would find another way to alert them - like call my friends to go to the cops. I would never let my other children out of my sight for no matter how long. I would trust no-one. I would be afraid for their life and my life too, if a stranger had entered my house and writes about beheading my child. I would be anxiously waiting for that ransom call to be made as it would be my only hope to get my child back safely, and I would keep my eyes on the clock and even count the seconds. And if that time would be passed without any call, I would scream and demand for FBI and search dogs and the whole secret service to be there in my house and figure it all out to find my daughter fast and alive. Especially if I had the money, means and the power to do it all. And the Ramsay's did.

If the parents have the money, power and means to pay big amounts to find the monster who kidnapped their child and find justice, but choose to spend that money on lawyering up, defending themselves and needing to prove their innocence instead, it is a huge red flag. This is not the behavior of an innocent parent.
I wish you a good day! If you need to write an essay quickly and efficiently , then I recommend you this website - https://nоcramming.com/collegeessay-review , because here you can find the best essay writing services for you , which will really write your essay for you very efficiently and quickly.
I write this because that is the expected reaction of a parent who's child is missing. Of a parent, who's child has been kidnapped in the middle of the night in their own house. Of a parent, who is completely innocent and does not care about anything else in the world, than the safe and fast return of her beloved child. Period.

And I believe all the parents and grandparents here reading this would feel exactly the same way if they were in this situation.
No innocent parent will never feel the need to have to prove their innocence to the public.
If my child went missing, my only focus would be finding them, no matter what. I'd cooperate fully with police, search relentlessly, and never rest. Anything else—like prioritizing defense or avoiding questions—would feel unimaginable for an innocent parent. Actions like that raise serious doubts about innocence.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting an attorney; actually it's very wise. However, their actions afterward were suspicious.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting an attorney; actually it's very wise. However, their actions afterward were suspicious.
Their actions were suspicious form the start. They did not have attorneys yet when the call from the kidnappers was supposed to be made. Attorneys came later in the day.
The call is the key. It was their only lifeline with their daughter. As a parent of a kidnapped child you'd anxiously wait for that and nothing else would matter. Counting the minutes and seconds for that time to come and a call to be made. To hear that your baby is ok and hope that the police who is recording the call can trace the caller and everything will be resolved soon and fast. THIS is the most telling to me. Their action in this situation itself already proves that this situation is anything that they are telling. They did not react in any way when the call did not come, not even noticing that the time has been passed. John just looked at his mail. Nothing. An innocent parent would scream out loud if that connection would be missed. There would be nothing more certain to come that would help a parent to believe that their child is still ok. A hundred questions should be going through an innocent parents mind - why did not they call? What happened? Is it my fault and they saw that I had called the cops though I shouldn't? Could my child be dead? All those questions should be asked from the police that were already in the house. If they would have asked anything at all to that matter, it would have had been stated in the reports. But there was nothing. None.
And it is only because they knew. They knew that there will be no call. They had no reason to act like there was or ask anything about it. And this is the most telling part from all the things that they did or did not do that would look suspocious.
 
You are correct. I agree with you 100%. I don't think it was an intruder either and I would have done everything you stated too if I was a parent in their position. IE: leaving no stone unturned and cooperating fully with anybody and everybody.

In my post as a follow up, I am afraid I was too cryptic. It was me being cryptic, not you. - (as I don't want to get sued either, haha)

What I was trying to say is that there was a coverup of epic proportions, from multiple points. DA? Yep. Others, (cough Johns cell phone records?) Yep. Stonewalling the investigation from the start to this very day? Yep. (How do you stonewall PERFECTLY - every single time, no matter the questions to this very day WITHOUT extremely powerful outside help?) It simply doesn't happen in any murder case - except this one and JFK. The Ramseys were a lot of things but "master criminals" isn't one of those things. The "evidence" points in every which way under the sun - and what *I* was trying to say is that was absolutely by design, a massive coverup, and once anyone allows their mind to "go there" - things begin to make a little more sense, with the evidence that doesn't make any sense.

There is no "intruder." Someone from the outside was either invited in, and it was a SA thing, OR it had to be someone in the house. - Again, I agree with everything you said. "They wouldn't even let him speak" (Det. Thomas) on that CNN thing - exactly - a politicians "tactic" to silence and muddy the waters. That was coached, etc....
I agree that they had help and always though that silly note surely points to a novice but JRs ability to bs is pretty impressive . I wonder what else he BSed his way out of?
He's losing his grip but in my lifetime I have only ever known one personality type that can look you in the eye and lie to you, and they know that you know, and it doesn't phase them. They will always think they are the smartest person in the room and they are scary
 
I have a lot of reasons to disbelieve an IDI.
I think the RN is the single biggest mistake in this crime. There are enough reputable handwriting experts who believe it was PR who wrote it.

It is too coincidental that the handwriting of an intruder “happens to” closely resemble that of the victim’s mother. So either PR wrote it, or someone copied her style of writing. Which seems more likely?
And if we try to convince ourselves the intruder faked her handwriting, that narrows the suspect pool to someone in their world who had had time to practice her handwriting style (so not a FF) or someone not in their circle who could have learned her handwriting in a matter of hours. What is gained by saying you’re one thing (FF) but doing it in the handwriting of the mother?

There are IDIs who believe the perp could have copied PR’s handwriting style so convincingly, to “frame her” (to what end, in a note claiming to actually be from a FF) yet cannot believe PR might have disguised her own handwriting to a degree that could impact handwriting analysis. Which is more likely, someone copied her handwriting for no good reason, or she tried to disguise her own? Who needs to misdirect attention away from themselves? Does a shadowy member of a foreign faction care that the handwriting points to the mother and not himself? If I need to disguise my handwriting in the commission of a crime, I would do it to point away from me, not at someone else.

The purpose of the RN was misdirection from what really happened, unless you really think a FF who hated JR did it. An intruder does not need misdirection if they’re there to kidnap, or to murder, or to SA. If there to kidnap for ransom, you take the kidnappee with you, then call for ransom. If there for SA, you get in, do the deed, leave. If the perp is there for SA, again, what is gained with RN?
Some IDI believe it was a FF that hated JR. Or someone who hated JR. I find it ludicrous that this enraged enemy/FF would write the RN, or at least, write a RN that long.
Some IDI defend the length of the RN by citing iirc 2 other RNs in the history of kidnapping. If you’ve ever heard the expression “the exception that proves the rule”, I believe this would apply. “As a rule”, RNs are not 3 pages long.

Someone hated JR enough to invade his home, SA and kill his daughter, and say mean things in a fake RN. But then, left JR alone, left his wife alone, left his son alone. Why stop at one? Why go after the child and not the hated man?

How is it the Rs seemed to know this hateful FF/enemy was no longer a threat to them, or JR’s other children? Did JR hire security to protect anyone, himself, PR, BR, or adult children? He had the means to do it. If I believed someone hated me enough to kill one of my kids, I would feel extremely vulnerable and exposed, and I would not send my kid to school to get grabbed and killed too.

That’s enough for now. Would love to see more discussion.
IMHO
 
These are some things I have always felt to be true:

1) If someone in the family hit JB by accident or even on purpose, whether she was alive or dead, there's no way her parents wouldn't have made every effort to save her regardless of consequences. She was very loved, by every account. They'd call 911 and figure out the rest later.
2) Because of this, the violence of the rest of the murder makes no sense as a coverup. The hit in the head must have happened while everything else was occurring.
3) If that's the case, the violence including the SA was the point of the crime. This was deliberate.
4) Patsy wrote the ransom note for reasons unknown, but obviously to protect herself or someone else. She might have thought she was protecting someone who actually wasn't guilty.
5) The only people she would protect AS FAR AS WE KNOW are her husband or her child.
6) I don't think it was her child, and if it was her husband, why is he still calling attention to himself?
7) If all the above is true and if Patsy isn't solely guilty (which I've never believed), why isn't an intruder a possibility?

And now we're back to the beginning. This will never be solved, barring a deathbed confession or new technology.
 
These are some things I have always felt to be true:

1) If someone in the family hit JB by accident or even on purpose, whether she was alive or dead, there's no way her parents wouldn't have made every effort to save her regardless of consequences. She was very loved, by every account. They'd call 911 and figure out the rest later.
You do not know that. It has been posted here many times what they could/would have thought and why they possibly chose to act the way that they did. Here are some reasons, copied from another post of mine:

It was a mutual decision with your partner and you were persuaded to go with the cover up that needed a ransom letter?
It was for the purpose of protecting your son who was behind the accidental head blow and you are afraid that CPS would take him away (because you knew of things that could be incriminating)?
You knew that the records of your son who had caused the accident show that you were aware of his behavioral problems and decided not to address them?
You knew about the previous SA that could not be explained away?
You had a high social status and cared very much about your reputation, not wanting to become a parent of a child who murdered his sister?
You did not want your child grow up knowing and being a murderer of his sister?

Yes, you could think that of course not! Why risk all this and then be caught? Right? I would sure think that and I believe that many think exactly that and see it as a reason why just call 911 or confess. But the thing here is - you, me and those "many others" do not have the means needed - we do not have the money, the power, the reputation and connections with people in high places nor the chance to hire top lawyers for all our family members for years. And that is why we would be afraid to risk it all - not worth it.

But the Ramsey's were different. They had connections. There were phone calls made (presumably, not a fact) possibly before the 911 call. And even if there were no calls made before the 911 call to get help - the lawyers were there the next day to "protect" the innocent parents who did not even seem anxious or worried about the call from the kidnappers. They had all the money and power to know that they may pull it through. And they were willing to risk it all because if they didn't it would not have mattered anymore - they would lose anyway, all they had was a chance that maybe it will work and they went for it. Why not then go all out and see if it all could just be explained and paid away. And they were just lucky... IMO.

2) Because of this, the violence of the rest of the murder makes no sense as a coverup. The hit in the head must have happened while everything else was occurring.
If it was an inside job and they mutually chose to go with the cover up, everything makes sense, IMO. They needed for there to be believable signs of Foreign Faction in their home committing this crime and acted accordingly.
3) If that's the case, the violence including the SA was the point of the crime. This was deliberate.
If there was an intention to hurt John or the person was sexually motivated to commit this crime, the crime scene itself would point to that motive and I believe it would look a lot more gruesome, showing hatred. This crime scene rather showed signs of care for the victim (wiping, dressing, covering with blanket, not taking her out of her home), indicating that it was not an deliberate act motivated by violence. IMO
4) Patsy wrote the ransom note for reasons unknown, but obviously to protect herself or someone else. She might have thought she was protecting someone who actually wasn't guilty.
The whole purpose of the ransom note, IMO, is to point the blame outside the family and make police believe that it was an Foreign Faction behind it. If the purpose was to protect the writer or someone else, did it serve it purpose? Who do you think she was protecting and why?
5) The only people she would protect AS FAR AS WE KNOW are her husband or her child.
I agree.
6) I don't think it was her child, and if it was her husband, why is he still calling attention to himself?
To show that he is a good father who wants to get this case solved? A possibility.
7) If all the above is true and if Patsy isn't solely guilty (which I've never believed), why isn't an intruder a possibility?
It is a possibility, but there really is nothing that points to an intruder to hang on to that theory, is there?
And now we're back to the beginning. This will never be solved, barring a deathbed confession or new technology.
I agree. We can go round and around with many possibilities the same way, and we have done so for years.
I too think that a confession would be the only way we really know the answer one day. But even when a confession is made, no-one can never tell if that confession is true or not. IMO
 
As I understand it -- and from the earliest interview -- there was no talk about lawyering up until the next day, and that was instigated by a friend who was an attorney.

Listen here.

And then, the attorney wasn't actually retained until the 31st of December according to the timeline.

I think hindsight is always 20:20, but reality isn't.

I can't say with any certainty how I would have behaved that day. I like to think I would have called LE immediately because I've learned that's typically in the best interest of any kidnapped victim.

I'm not sure I would have read the entire note before calling them, but I think I would have run to my daughter's room to see if it was a hoax. I don't think I would have checked every nook and corner--because--the note.

I would have cooperated with the LE to try and find my kidnapped daughter, but if LE got a bee in their bonnet like the BPD did, I'm not so sure because I'd see what they were doing as an orchestrated attack on me rather than an honest attempt to find my daughter's killer.

Statistically, when a child is killed in their own home, the killer is a family member or friend. Knowing that -- and knowing the BPD was going down the wrong road -- I, too, would have lawyered up.

We know many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit. The best way to prevent that is to have an attorney.

I don't think I'd do everything the same way the Ramseys did -- but I can't really judge their behavior because no one honestly knows what they'd do in such a horrific situation.

Finally, JR has been pushing for decades to have the DNA tested with better technology. A guilty person is unlikely to do that.

The Ramsey's behavior after the murder is one of the reasons I think they're innocent. Guilty persons would shy away from the public eye--they wouldn't keep bothering LE to keep searching for their child's killer. But, the Ramseys never stopped. That says a lot to me.
 
These are some things I have always felt to be true:

1) If someone in the family hit JB by accident or even on purpose, whether she was alive or dead, there's no way her parents wouldn't have made every effort to save her regardless of consequences. She was very loved, by every account. They'd call 911 and figure out the rest later.
RSBM for focus...

I've always thought the same thing. Maybe there's a parent somewhere who would behave differently, but your scenario is the most common one for most parents--if they love their child.

When I volunteered on the ambulance years ago, I saw family members beg and plead for the doctors to save their loved ones--even if those loved ones were not going to make it. That's natural. Even if they're obviously dead, some have begged the doctors to try.
 
When we look at IDI theories, as I said earlier, it is the RN that is the clincher for me. If we conclude PR wrote it, this topples IDI theories. Of course then we are left wondering her motive for writing it, and what exactly happened in that home that night.
This is where I get angry at the privileges given the Rs that are not usually given to suspects. If they had been compelled to sit for interviews on the timeline of LE, and not on unreasonable terms set out be their legal team, the outcome would likely have been more different.
Imagine if PR and JR were placed in separate interview rooms and the facts were placed before them, including preliminary evidence the RN was written by PR.
They took months to hand over things like the clothes they were wearing. When do defendants get to do that?
Imagine if missing phone records had been saved and placed in evidence. What might they tell us?
Imagine if the enhanced recording of the tail end of the 911 call was still available. It happened, it was done, I don’t believe whoever performed the work on enhancing it made up the words they reported as being heard (“not talking to you!”, “what did you find?”) Why is this no longer considered part of the case?
Imagine if the GJ proceedings were made public. Something made the GJ opt for handing down true bills.
It’s weird how much potential evidence has disappeared. But the RN remains as the one piece of evidence that could not be suppressed. JR can cast as much doubt as he likes. According to JR, LE sources are suspect but JR’s experts are unbiased, and this includes handwriting analysis, DNA analysis and polygraph.
(Edited for clarity)

IMHO
 
Last edited:

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
1,344
Total visitors
1,444

Forum statistics

Threads
616,390
Messages
18,349,705
Members
237,045
Latest member
Chatgros2010
Back
Top