IDI and RDI, what do they agree upon?

[BOESP]

Perhaps I don't,yeah.
Even so ,PR finishing JB off by pulling that garrote not knowing she was still alive is pure SPECULATION.No proof or even suggestion whatsoever that this is what happened there.

I do agree that most of what is posted is pure speculation and sometimes wild speculation.

 

[madeleine]

I do agree that most of what is posted is pure speculation and sometimes wild speculation.

We are just posters on a forum,it probably doesn't matter much with respect to JB ever getting justice.We can change our minds,speculate,have wild theories.I guess what bothers me most is that the people who could have solved this behaved exactly like we do!It's not a big deal that we have ego's and stick to our theory and maybe don't wanna see both sides of the story sometimes and it's not our job to find the killer but it's frustrating to see that those who should have done this in a serious manner were only into playing games.

 

[madeleine]

The so-called evidence against the Ramsey's sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use when defending an intruder than evidence a prosecutor would/COULD use against a Ramsey.Does this make sense?

 

[joeskidbeck]

The so-called evidence against the Ramsey's sounds more like evidence a defence lawyer would use when defending an intruder than evidence a prosecutor would/COULD use against a Ramsey.Does this make sense?

Absolutely and vice versa.

 

[BOESP]

We are just posters on a forum,it probably doesn't matter much with respect to JB ever getting justice.We can change our minds,speculate,have wild theories.I guess what bothers me most is that the people who could have solved this behaved exactly like we do!It's not a big deal that we have ego's and stick to our theory and maybe don't wanna see both sides of the story sometimes and it's not our job to find the killer but it's frustrating to see that those who should have done this in a serious manner were only into playing games.

I don't agree with the above statement but I respect the right to express your opinion, differing or not.

In my opinion, those assigned to investigate this case are the best capable of forming an opinion that is accurate, however, it seems to have become a hobby to kill the messenger. Having an IDI opinion based on saying LE were incompetent scumbags who were playing games and didn't do their job is not going to sway my opinion.

Reading the autopsy, studying various photographs, reading the depositions (albeit derivative copies), ransom note and reading Steve Thomas's and the Ramsey books are the "sources" on which I base my opinion. We all have one.

 

[madeleine]

I don't agree with the above statement but I respect the right to express your opinion, differing or not.

In my opinion, those assigned to investigate this case are the best capable of forming an opinion that is accurate, however, it seems to have become a hobby to kill the messenger. Having an IDI opinion based on saying LE were incompetent scumbags who were playing games and didn't do their job is not going to sway my opinion.

Reading the autopsy, studying various photographs, reading the depositions (albeit derivative copies), ransom note and reading Steve Thomas's and the Ramsey books are the "sources" on which I base my opinion. We all have one.

I am not killing the messenger,he does a pretty good job at that himself.LE were incompetent scumbags and I can say the same thing you say about me making it a hobby about others whose hobby was and still is to call people killers without proof.
You say one thing you base your opinion on is ST's book .Well most of the things he says in his book prove to be lies.He admits it in his depo and he settled with the Ramsey's.
I am not having an IDI opinion based on saying they were incompetent,I am just not willing to believe RDI anymore,based on saying/believing and seeing they were incompetent.So if it's not RDI,it has to be IDI.

 

[BOESP]

I am not killing the messenger,he does a pretty good job at that himself.LE were incompetent scumbags and I can say the same thing you say about me making it a hobby about others whose hobby was and still is to call people killers without proof.
You say one thing you base your opinion on is ST's book .Well most of the things he says in his book prove to be lies.He admits it in his depo and he settled with the Ramsey's.
I am not having an IDI opinion based on saying they were incompetent,I am just not willing to believe RDI anymore,based on saying/believing and seeing they were incompetent.So if it's not RDI,it has to be IDI.

Bold #1: I didn't say any such thing about you. I made a general comment. Slamming people with differing opinions has become a hobby on this board. If that shoe fits and you want to wear it, that's your choice.

Bold #2: Not exactly. This has also been covered ad nauseum. Basically, the Ramsey's sued, the publisher settled out of court because it's cheaper to do it that way than disprove the allegations; the book was not recalled nor were reprints changed in any way. Nothing changed except the Ramseys took their money and ran all the way to the bank, in my opinion.

 

[DeeDee249]

Might this be the reference you were thinking of?

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Look at all those pictures,

16 242, 43 and 44 and 45 together.

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is the little bathroom in

18 the basement.

19 TOM HANEY: Anything out of place or unusual

20 in those photos?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, the bathroom we hadn't

22 utilized very much. These little Christmas decorations

23 were left over from -- I had put those there when we

24 had the home tour two years earlier, because the

25 volunteers used this area and I had a bathroom

0408

1 available.

2 TRIP DEMUTH: That photo 244 was shut, is

3 that how you left them?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that, yes. I would have

5 left that. I left it like that.

6 Now this, I don't know what that is -- why

7 that would be there.

8 TRIP DEMUTH: Pointing to like tissue.

9 PATSY RAMSEY: It is like tissue something,

10 because I remember I specifically asked Linda some time

11 in the not-so-distant future to go down and clean that

12 bathroom because I think one of the boys had used the

13 bathroom and not flushed it. It was kind of yucko, so

14 she had gone down there. So I don't know if that is

15 her cleaning rag she left there or what.

16 TOM HANEY: Do you know for a fact that she

17 did clean it, could she have been in there since?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I don't remember that too

19 much about that bathroom.

20 TOM HANEY: When you were present she wasn't

21 in there?

22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. The door was usually

23 closed because that -- that door opens right when you

24 came down those steps. (Inaudible). There are a bunch

25 of smears on here.

0409

or maybe this one?

"23 TOM HANEY: We left off, I think, with 376,

24 the bible. Now 377.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like the counter

0456

1 top of the basement bathroom (inaudible). Tissue or

2 something. I don't know what that would be.

3 (Inaudible).

4 TOM HANEY: That is which bathroom?

5 PATSY RAMSEY: I think this is the basement,

6 the little bathroom there in the basement. I mean, it

7 is the only one that had -- the other ones had

8 different counter tops.

9 TOM HANEY: Okay. So would that be normal or

10 be expected there?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I just -- I just told

12 you, you know, the boys usually -- it looks like Burke

13 has been in there or somebody was there with an

14 airplane in there. But I don't know what would be

15 blue. I just -- I didn't go down there much, if ever.

If so, I'm not sure it was a 'box of tissues' because I remember seeing a photo of the bathroom on ACR with something that looks like clothes or rags on the floor. I'm wondering if that's what was shown to PR. I believe that PR referred to toilet paper as "tissue". There are a couple of other references in that interview but I think they all refer to toilet paper.

No. I am talking about the one where they are showing her photos and discussing the bowl of pineapple, glass and things on the table.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you know whether or not Patsy dry-cleaned the garment in question or home-laundered it?

In one of her interviews posted at ACR, Patsy is questioned at length about that jacket/sweater and LE had originally thought it was wool, and is corrected and told it is acrylic. Patsy spoke of it being laundered, mentioning that although she didn't recall washing it in the basement laundry, perhaps LHP had.
We have all seen this type of fleece- Patagonia shirts and Old Navy Performance Fleece. I have a top made of that, too. It is easy to see how it can be confusing as to whether it is a jacket or sweater, as it is soft and unconstructed. I'd describe it as a soft jacket. It was meant to be worn over another top, and I believe Patsy wore it over a red sweater, with black velvet jeans. It was why she wanted JB to wear the red turtleneck that day, because JB was also wearing black velvet jean and matching vest. JB refused, wanting to wear the white top with the silver sequin star. The whole outfit came from the Gap Kids and JB wanted to wear the outfit together. Patsy relented and she wore the white top.
As usual, LW dances all around the questions, and tries to prevent Patsy from answering on the grounds that she had already been asked these questions. As the interview progresses, LE makes it clear that the reason they are asking about the jacket is because they have information that the fibers identical to that jacket were found in (their words) "three places related to the crime"- the paint tote, tape and garrote knot.
This interview too place in 2000, about 5 years after the death of JB.

 

[madeleine]

Bold #1: I didn't say any such thing about you. I made a general comment. Slamming people with differing opinions has become a hobby on this board. If that shoe fits and you want to wear it, that's your choice.

Look,I am not trying to sway your opinion.It would be like trying to convince HOTYH to take in consideration that a Ramsey did it.What happened to me is that I based my RDI theories on stuff that proves to be hear-say and gossip and leaks.Stuff like fibers and handwriting and when trying to get to the bottom of it I realized there were no reports who confirmed such things.ST admits that everything he put in his book he heard from X and Y,Beckner's answers are I dont' know,I have no idea.

Please show me an official report that states that those fibers are a match or that PR wrote the note.
JB was alive when strangled and sexually assaulted(it's confirmed by the autopsy report and ST),your only explanation is that PR thought she was dead when she did the staging.I am sorry,not good enough.

 

[BBB167893]

Re Patsy on CNN.Did she seem in a good shape to you?Capable of answering questions that require a clear head?I wouldn't have allowed her to answer LE questions in that shape either.Imagine what would have said the likes of ST THEN.

Judging from his reactions, I think JR was regretting letting her go on as well.

 

[BBB167893]

But I know how much ST loves statistics.

Not just him.

I guess I blame others for interpreting what Walker told them and using it as an excuse for what they did or didn't do. I don't think that he even knew who he's dealing with,I bet he would have explained them in a different manner what he meant.

That I can understand.

If you take what he said out of the big picture maybe his intentions were good and he wanted to help those newbies out. But look what came out of it and if you add Arndt and Thomas to the bowl you end up with the reason why this is still a cold case.

There are a lot of reasons why this is a cold case, madeleine. That ain't one of them.

 

[BBB167893]

I know they were,or better said they just pretended to do that...

I guess all I have to go on is what Henry Lee and Jeff Merrick have said.

I am sorry Dave,

I'm sorry, too. More than you know.

I just don't trust the way it was done anymore.

I don't either. Far as I go, this case is Patient Zero for how a murder investigation is not supposed to work. But I believe my own eyes and ears.

Take the house-keeper for example. They spent all the time with building a theory based on LHP's claims

First I've heard that she had any influence over what they did.

but they never bothered to talk to the other one who had nothing bad to say about the Ramsey's. (sorry forgot her name now).

Linda Wilcox? She didn't do them any favors either.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't either. Far as I go, this case is Patient Zero for how a murder investigation is not supposed to work. But I believe my own eyes and ears.

Far as you go, I'm sure it seems that way.

There is now enough evidence to indicate an intruder did it. This evidence was not available at the time (1997) as a result there was much erroneous speculation.

Now, here in 2010 its pretty clear that the parental links that were taken for granted back in 1997 were never actually known. LE now acknowledges this, as evidenced by their willingness to test new people outside the family, and their unwillingness to cling to the old RDI lines.

Its possible that its worse to convict an innocent person than it is to let a killer go free. This means the investigation has been working correctly.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you explain the sexual assault when even ST confirms that all the experts agreed she was ALIVE when it happened?

Quite easily. Just because she was alive doesn't mean that they knew it. A person is technically alive as long as their heart is beating, but that's far and away different from what the Rs are trying to suggest. Let me give you an example. My father--RIP--was a Marine in Vietnam. He saw things no man should ever see. One night his squad came upon a Montagnard man lying along a path. His head was blown half-off. The blood was congealed; bugs were crawling on him. He'd been lying there for some time. They all thought he was dead. He wasn't. He was still technically alive. He "lived" for another two hours.

Now, with that in mind, let's remember one important thing: the vaginal lips of a child this age have to be manually separated. That means that whomever inserted the brush handle (and I believe that was what it was) would have had to hold her open with the other hand. Now, how would they have been strangling her at the same time as that was going on? And do you really think she would have just lay there docile when the pain of the intrusion set in?

THAT's how!

She was ALIVE when she was strangled (the autopsy report says so). You can't say that these were parts of a staging anymore.

Oh, can't I? Where are the signs that she fought? The mark on her neck was a completely unbroken line. There was no sign of struggle against it at all. Her mouth was completely free of bite marks. So, unless you're trying to argue that she was used to playing choking games and this one just went too far, I don't see how a child who was in any shape to resist would not resist.

It's too bad Ames isn't here. She could tell you firsthand what it's like to be strangled!

What proof of staging is there, Dave?

What proof is there? Where would you like me to start? The fact that the person who assaulted her would have to use both hands in order to insert the paintbrush? The fact that her hair was tied into the garrote knot, which means that it had to be made on her body? That there were no defensive wounds on her hands or arms? That the mark on her neck was completely neat? No damage to her neck muscles, no damage to her tongue? That the cord tied around her wrists wouldn't restrain a baby?

Madeleine, I've told you all of this before. And you agreed with it then! Your newly discovered distrust of the police doesn't change ANY of these factors.

 

[BBB167893]

There are experts who say that PR wrote the note,experts who say that JMK wrote the note,experts who can't eliminate some other suspects,experts who state that pr definitely DIDN'T write the note.What is this mess?

It's a mess, all right. Problem is, I'm not aware of any expert who said that PR definitely did not write the note.

It was a civil case where a suspect blamed another suspect.

No argument, here. Civil cases aren't much in terms of pursuing truth.

And they didn't even analyze the originals. Please let me have my doubts re this.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about doubts, but what I will say is that it probably wouldn't make any difference in this particular instance whether they were originals or not, since the writings were done with such an imprecise writing implement.

 

[BBB167893]

Please remind everyone that to the layman JonBenet likely appeared to be dead or near death from the blunt trauma to the head. At that point, a ligature device as a staging instrument is in the realm of possibility.

It also seems obvious to me that whoever is responsible for that trauma suspected she was dead or so near death as to render survival as little more than being in a vegetative state. It is highly unlikely she would have survived such trauma and I suspect the offender could have thought so too.

Thank you!

 

[BBB167893]

"12 JOHN RAMSEY: We are comfortable with that.
13 We never objected to being looked at. We
14 understand that, logically, we were in the house.
15 Okay. We accept that in an objective
16 investigation. What became concerning to us is,
17 our investigators, you know, had a tip line;
18 they'd get calls, you know. I tried to call the
19 Boulder police for five days for a month. They
20 won't return my call. I have a lead, you know. I'm
21 anxious to tell someone.
22 I lost count of the number of times that happened.
23 It started to occur to us that they're just
24 blowing off the other inputs on this. You know,
25 they're so focused on the Ramseys that nothing
0025
1 else is getting looked at. We said early on,
2 (Look, you're spending too much time on us. Look
3 elsewhere as well and we'll be fine.̃ But we never
4 got comfortable that there was anything going on
5 but a 100 percent focus on the Ramseys."

You'll have to forgive me if I don't naively swallow that propaganda whole.

 

[BBB167893]

The R's were doing everything in their power to help find the killer.

Give me a break! JR admitted that he never even read the reports of his own investigators.

Tell me something: how does sabotaging potential witnesses help find the killer? Because I've got one hell of an example for you!

It's part of the RDI thing to assume that any 'leads' to anyone else are in fact simply attempts by the R's to deflect the investigation away from them.

It's NOT an assumption. JR stated himself that the private investigators were hired solely to build a defense in case he or PR were ever charged. "To keep us out of jail."

I was an IDI when I first read that, MurriFlower. What kind of effect do you think that had on me? There's a reason I'm like I am now.

 

[BBB167893]

"There's just one thing wrong with that. PR admitted she never painted with those clothes on or went into that room with them on. It's in the 2000 interviews."

There were a washer and dryer in the basement. Guess how far tiny particles of clothing fibers can float in the warm, light air from a dryer vent? Patsy's clothing fibers and hair fibers should be present in every crack and crevice of the structure of the house and the items within it.

I figured you'd say that. Problem is, there's no evidence I'm aware of that those items were laundered along with that blanket.