IDI'S answer me this.

[K. Taylor]

Why are you placing such strict parameters on how you want replies to this post? I don't have an entire scenario, because I don't know what happened that night, and neither do you. I wasn't there and neither were you. I don't have all the answers and neither do you.

If your parameter is that "no one can know for certain" then why are you even on this board speculating? Seems futile.

I tried to explain what I wanted because no IDIer has ever posted that, IMO. Including in your reply you again did not address how an intruder did those things, just how you think it can be explained away from the Ramseys. I think that if someone looked at the evidence and it pointed to an intruder, they would already have a scenario in their mind and anything explaining away from the Ramseys would be secondary. You wrote "we don't KNOW that for certain." Well, no, because I don't have a time machine or a hidden camera video of the night. I don't KNOW that my someone didn't take my car, drive it around all night, and return it back to my parking space in perfect condition. But I can be reasonably sure based on the facts (the car is locked, the alarm didn't go off, there was morning dew undisturbed on it, the odometer and gas were at the same levels I'd left it, etc.) For example:

We don't know for a fact that the perp is the person who removed the nightgown from the bedroom. We just don't KNOW that.

We KNOW it was removed from her room and placed next to her dead body. So if the perp didn't place it next to her dead body, who are you saying did? Do you think someone other than the perp saw her dead body then before it was "discovered" the next morning? That it was lying on the basement floor before then? When and who out it there? That's what I want, I want your theory or scenario. Instead of just saying, "We don't know for certain," I want to know what you think the other option is. This is not antagonastic, I'm honestly asking and am only frustrated because I don't see why it would be so difficult to state an intruder theory.

The fact that JonBenet was redressed does not implicate her parents as being the perps, from a logical and legal standpoint, it just doesn't prove their guilt.

Logically and stastically, victims who are redressed are done so because the victim was beloved by the killer. Stranger killers don't redress. So if you don't think the parents did, again, what is your theory? Do you think the intruder knew JonBenet or not? That's what I'm looking for. Forget the stuff about why it wouldn't be the parents, why would it be an intruder? What do YOU think would make an intruder do that?

You ask when the perp gathered these items & if it was when the Ramseys were at the party. Answer--probably.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. How long do you think the perp was in the house and when/where did he get in?

And yes, it was a complicated floor plan and large house.

So then how was the perp able to get around so easily? Do you think this intruder was intimately knowledgeable about the house?

You said these are obscure items, and I beg to differ with you.

Obscure was the wrong word, I meant random. They're random items some people might have, but again why do you think the intruder went searching for those items in the Ramsey house and didn't bring his own? I don't have rope or a paintbrush in my house, but I do have pens and duct tape. What if the Rams didn't have rope or he couldn't find a pen and paper? Are you suggesting he knew so much about the house that he was certain they had those things before he got there? Help me out here. If the intruder planned enough to get into the house wouldn't he plan the actual killing as well? Why not stop off at a hardware store and get all those items in five minutes?

What I'm looking for is a scenario. Such as, "The intruder knew the house and the Ramseys schedule intimately because he was a friend/teacher/employee. I think he entered through the door/window/time portal. I think he/she was a disgruntled Access employee/pagent mom/child molester. He wandered around while the Ramseys were at the party and collected the pen, paper, etc. He brough his own weapon but then decided to frame Patsy." It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but just an speculative scenario. You mentioned that the intruder may have brought his own weapon. So why do you think he didn't use it and instead used things from the house? That's the stuff I'd honestly like to hear from an IDIer. Forget the Ramseys and why they didn't do it, why and how did an intruder do it.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

The Ramseys' "privilege" certainly did have effects on the case.
Police were barred by the DA back then from examining the phone records of the Ramseys. If the Ramseys had been a blue collar family...the police would not have been barred from their records.
The Ramseys also made strict demands when it came to being interviewed...and what do you know, their demands were met.
Imagine being a police officer and trying to interview someone...especially someone who is a possible suspect...you ask them a question, and you get this reply: "Sure, I'll answer your question...but only if my lawyers and I can study your case files before I give an answer." And you have to show them your files.
What blue collar family could make such demands and actually get them?

And certainly, OJ Simpson was a celebrity and he was brought to trial...the big difference is that there was so much "obvious evidence" in that case that OJ had to be charged.
To make the Ramseys comparable to OJ, a bunch of Jonbenet's blood would have had to be found on their bedroom floor, and a piece of their clothing soaked in the same blood.
And OJ was rather lucky to not have been convicted...considering the only smart thing he did in the murder was get rid of the knife.

I sometimes feel why many might want to lean towards IDI is because there may be a real desire that it was a "bogeyman in the night" who did this...and not the rich parents.
Many may have really wanted someone like Karr to be the one...because he's a pedophile...he looks the part...he fits in with being the "bogeyman".
What makes many people lean away from RDI I think is the idea that the parents could have staged such a terrible thing...however, were the Ramseys some trailer park couple who looked like junkies...I think many would have no problems in thinking the parents responsible.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

SleuthingSleuth--agree--and the Skakel case is another classic example of the upper class intimidating the police--the police handled the Skakels with kid gloves,knowing they were Ethel Kennedy's relatives--how could an individual from such a fine family committ that horrible murder on young,beautiful Martha Moxley? its easy,but the police botched the case,instead looked for traveling bums,anyody else but the teenage son of a prominent family--a beautiful neighborhood in Greenwich,Conn(right next to New Canaan,where I grew up),a town where there was little crime,so the cops thought,"it can't be these people that did this,it must be intruders"--lol--thanks to Mark Fuhrman for finally seeing justice done there

 

[julianne]

The Ramseys' "privilege" certainly did have effects on the case.
Police were barred by the DA back then from examining the phone records of the Ramseys. If the Ramseys had been a blue collar family...the police would not have been barred from their records.
The Ramseys also made strict demands when it came to being interviewed...and what do you know, their demands were met.
Imagine being a police officer and trying to interview someone...especially someone who is a possible suspect...you ask them a question, and you get this reply: "Sure, I'll answer your question...but only if my lawyers and I can study your case files before I give an answer." And you have to show them your files.
What blue collar family could make such demands and actually get them?

And certainly, OJ Simpson was a celebrity and he was brought to trial...the big difference is that there was so much "obvious evidence" in that case that OJ had to be charged.
To make the Ramseys comparable to OJ, a bunch of Jonbenet's blood would have had to be found on their bedroom floor, and a piece of their clothing soaked in the same blood.
And OJ was rather lucky to not have been convicted...considering the only smart thing he did in the murder was get rid of the knife.

I sometimes feel why many might want to lean towards IDI is because there may be a real desire that it was a "bogeyman in the night" who did this...and not the rich parents.
Many may have really wanted someone like Karr to be the one...because he's a pedophile...he looks the part...he fits in with being the "bogeyman".
What makes many people lean away from RDI I think is the idea that the parents could have staged such a terrible thing...however, were the Ramseys some trailer park couple who looked like junkies...I think many would have no problems in thinking the parents responsible.

SleuthingSleuth,
Although I'm not an RDI, I do give you kudos for a well thought out, well worded post. Thank you--makes it so much easier to discuss and debate.

About the boogeyman part. I totally see what you're saying here, and I can see how that could apply. But, in my case, the fact that Ramseys had $$$ doesn't play into how I personally perceive this case. I know many people place a high value on money and it's the most important thing for alot of people--I don't view money in the same way. The fact that the Ramsey's had money really doesn't sway my opinion at all. I think I would feel the same way if everything in this case was the same and they lived in a trailer. People who are wealthy are no better than people who are not. Many (some) people who are wealthy got that way from ill-gotten gains. I much more admire the person with little money and alot of character versus the person with tons of money and no character. I do, however, think it's plausible that some IDI's DO, in fact, feel that way because it makes it so much easier to swallow. Not in my case, though.:innocent: :blowkiss:

 

[K. Taylor]

As I said, it's my opinion & I'm entitled to it. You don't have to like it. However, it is funny to me that your very first response is an attempt to attack, condescend, or question why I should post here.

Any hostility you sense is in your imagination and not intended by me, I can assure you. I noted it was a bizarre statement to make: when confronted with a fact such as that the nightgown was found next to JonBenet's dead body and the perp put it there (whether you believe in IDI or RDI makes no difference; I've never seen anyone dispute that the killer would've had to have put the nightgown next to her dead body whether the killer is the Ramseys or an intruder) your response was, "We don't KNOW for sure." If you want to "KNOW for sure" then yes, I don't understand why be on a Websleuths board devoted to an unsolved case because most of what we talk about can't be KNOWN for sure unless a magic hidden camera is found. You don't KNOW for sure that an intruder did it, so why believe in that theory? We can only discuss what is probable and what the facts are. If knowing 100% was the legal standard no one would be convicted of anything. If you want 100% then I'd think a forum theorizing about an unsolved murder would be the last place you'd want to be. If would be like being on a forum about poker but being against gambling.

We know for sure JonBenet was dead and the nightgown was put next to her, so unless the perp put it there who do you think did? Instead of simply poo-poohing every statement why not post your theory as to who or how the nightgown got there. Offer an alternative! That position honestly baffles me: if you believe an intruder did it then the intruder would be the only one to know where the body was and therefore the only person who could put the nightgown there. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you think an intruder did it but the Ramseys were in cahoots and put the nightgown there? Who other than the killer would've done anything to or near JonBenet's body in the basement? You're the first person I've heard contend that the killer did not put the nightgown there and so I want to know what led you to that conclusion and who you think did put it there.

You may have sensed my frustration, sure. Because I asked you several honest questions as to your opinion as to how and why an intruder would do something, what your theory is, how you think it went down. I don't understand why not share your theory if you think the evidence points to an intruder. If there's a persuasive argument for an intruder to be made, don't you want people to hear it? Instead of posting about who didn't do it I want to hear who you think DID do it. That's what frustrating about the IDI theory, it's not, "Here's what I think happened, take this and this and that, and it shows that an intruder did it," it's, "You can't prove the Ramseys did it!" That's why I'd like to hear someone's intruder theory, if not you then some IDIer's. But the responses so far lead me to believe that IDIers decide to go into the case thinking that the Ramseys didn't do it, and then explain- the evidence away rather than looking at it and saying, "Oh, here's how I think an intruder did it and let me tell you why." Like it's not an intruder theory, it's an RDDI: "Ramseys didn't do it theory." The most persuasive argument an IDIer could make it show us who else could've done it. I understand that you think John and Patsy didn't do it. That's clear. So who do you think DID do it?

 

[magnolia]

As to why they were brave enough to do things like write a ransom note themselves (besides being panicked) is that they had no idea the magnitude this case was going to take on. They didn't know handwriting experts from around the country were going to be examining it.

Do you honestly believe the Ramsey's were unaware the ransom note would be analyzed? :banghead:

 

[Jolynna]

Do you honestly believe the Ramsey's were unaware the ransom note would be analyzed?

Anyone who left THAT ransom note did so without forethought.

Otherwise, there would have been no need for practice drafts. Words would have been cut from magazines or typed on a generic typewriter to lessen the chance of later being connected to the writer.

Logically, would a kidnapper who had to have done some planning ahead in order to have scouted out his entry, to know there would be no dog, to know that a house that size in an obviously wealthy neighborhood would NOT have an alarm turned on and to know that the parents & older brother were not insomniacs who got up at night wanting late night snacks or that ever got up at night to watch tv or to write letters or to work or do last minute packing...would that intruder, who also knew enough to wear gloves and take his shoes off, be most likely to have taken handwriting experts into account? Or would a panicked parent who had no idea that a crime would be committed that night be most likely to have thought ahead?

 

[sandraladeda]

Actually, I did read the rest of your post. Out of 3 questions you posed, I answered the first one. The other 2, I simply chose not to respond to because they were speculative and your questions really added nothing to forward the thread, therefore neither would my answers to your questions.

Nice chicken, lol.....
Magnolia said it best---"The need to offend and insult people with an opposing opinion speaks for itself." It really does.

Although I appreciate your endeavor, I am not offended or insulted. Just humored.:crazy: :crazy:

Ooops, my mistake! After reading your tagline under your hat, I see that all you do is done in love. So, for that, thank you.

Okay. let's review.


You said: “I think that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from the fact that in the last 10 years, they have never been charged with the crime!”



I addressed that, with reasons the Rs have not been charged with the crime, those reasons being the Boulder DA’s office and their bias in favor of the Rs, and reminded you of the various ways in which the BPD was hampered and frustrated in their investigation by the very people who should have been on their side.



You said: “FWIW, I have never heard anyone stating that the Ramsey's couldn't be guilty because they are white and wealthy. Never.”



And



“I would still believe in the Ramsey’s innocence if the circumstances were the same except that they were black & poor, or black & wealthy, or white & poor. Their race and checking account balance doesn't play into this case at all--for me, anyway.”



And I responded with reasons the Ramsey’s social class did benefit them and questioned your belief that a lower class family would have had the same courtesies extended to them by the DA’s office.



I assumed you were interested in healthy debate when you said:



“I respect your opinion and your right to post it---that's what healthy debate is all about.”



When I think I am participating in “healthy debate”, I find it frustrating to post a well thought out comment, then receive a sentence fragment in response….once again, moo… it was not intended to be a hostile response, though, just a subtle expression of frustration.



If you ever feel open to offering a differing view on the actions of the DA’s office, or the frustration the BPD experienced as the DA’s office bent over backwards for the Rs, I would sure be interested in participating in that healthy debate….

But if not, that is fine and I wish you a lovely day....


imho

 

[sandraladeda]

Do you honestly believe the Ramsey's were unaware the ransom note would be analyzed? :banghead:

I personally believe that in the adrenaline rush, fear, excitement, urgency to act, the RN writer did not have the benefit of time and rational thought to fully consider all the consequences of writing the note, so RN analysis may not have crossed his/her mind...

 

[simplesimon]

Riddle me this...
I believe I read the flashlight had no prints on it (if not,I KNOW someone will correct me),even the batteries were wiped off.
WHY?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I personally believe that in the adrenaline rush, fear, excitement, urgency to act, the RN writer did not have the benefit of time and rational thought to fully consider all the consequences of writing the note, so RN analysis may not have crossed his/her mind...

But you do think they had the aforethought and wherewithal to sit down and compile this note even redoing it but they weren't "thinking" that it would be analyzed? There certainly is nothing that shows an urgency to act, quite the contrary. LOL That sort of seems opposing positions to me.

I think they thought very clearly all about this murder way before it happened. They had it fine tuned and it worked like a charm and the crime became the biggest unsolved mystery and they know it will never be solved. It was a murder and a mind game..... one he knew it would be a riddle they never would figure out. Imo this person is highly intelligent maybe crazy but crazy like a fox.

Imo

Ocean

 

[Jolynna]

It was a murder and a mind game one he knew they could never figure out. Imo this person to be highly intelligent maybe crazy but crazy like a fox.

Or, maybe, able to buy and hide behind a high priced lawyer and P.R. Team.

If you can get past the thought of a *seemingly loving* parent doing harm to his or her child, then the perp needn't be highly intelligent.

You don't have to try to figure out how the murderer knew that JonBenet's older half-brother & sister were not home THEN and would not be there THAT night.

You don't have to wonder how the killer knew the Ramseys would be gone that night long enough to write a three page ransom note.

A middle-class person that has read old mystery fiction would write that kind of ransom note.

A guilty parent would not be able to refer to their child by name and would keep mention of that child to a minimum in the note. Cringing in shame at the mention of their child.

This sex-crazed molester that evidently despite being too carried away to wait until he got the child out of the house before he started molesting, was cherishing in the way he treated her body. She has her favorite nightie and is wrapped in her blanket. Yet, the ransom note is cold and refers to JonBenet as little as possible, despite being three pages long.

Three pages long, barely a mention of the little girl and not one pervy word.

 

[julianne]

Any hostility you sense is in your imagination and not intended by me, I can assure you. I noted it was a bizarre statement to make: when confronted with a fact such as that the nightgown was found next to JonBenet's dead body and the perp put it there (whether you believe in IDI or RDI makes no difference; I've never seen anyone dispute that the killer would've had to have put the nightgown next to her dead body whether the killer is the Ramseys or an intruder) your response was, "We don't KNOW for sure." If you want to "KNOW for sure" then yes, I don't understand why be on a Websleuths board devoted to an unsolved case because most of what we talk about can't be KNOWN for sure unless a magic hidden camera is found. You don't KNOW for sure that an intruder did it, so why believe in that theory? We can only discuss what is probable and what the facts are. If knowing 100% was the legal standard no one would be convicted of anything. If you want 100% then I'd think a forum theorizing about an unsolved murder would be the last place you'd want to be. If would be like being on a forum about poker but being against gambling.

We know for sure JonBenet was dead and the nightgown was put next to her, so unless the perp put it there who do you think did? Instead of simply poo-poohing every statement why not post your theory as to who or how the nightgown got there. Offer an alternative! That position honestly baffles me: if you believe an intruder did it then the intruder would be the only one to know where the body was and therefore the only person who could put the nightgown there. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you think an intruder did it but the Ramseys were in cahoots and put the nightgown there? Who other than the killer would've done anything to or near JonBenet's body in the basement? You're the first person I've heard contend that the killer did not put the nightgown there and so I want to know what led you to that conclusion and who you think did put it there.

You may have sensed my frustration, sure. Because I asked you several honest questions as to your opinion as to how and why an intruder would do something, what your theory is, how you think it went down. I don't understand why not share your theory if you think the evidence points to an intruder. If there's a persuasive argument for an intruder to be made, don't you want people to hear it? Instead of posting about who didn't do it I want to hear who you think DID do it. That's what frustrating about the IDI theory, it's not, "Here's what I think happened, take this and this and that, and it shows that an intruder did it," it's, "You can't prove the Ramseys did it!" That's why I'd like to hear someone's intruder theory, if not you then some IDIer's. But the responses so far lead me to believe that IDIers decide to go into the case thinking that the Ramseys didn't do it, and then explain- the evidence away rather than looking at it and saying, "Oh, here's how I think an intruder did it and let me tell you why." Like it's not an intruder theory, it's an RDDI: "Ramseys didn't do it theory." The most persuasive argument an IDIer could make it show us who else could've done it. I understand that you think John and Patsy didn't do it. That's clear. So who do you think DID do it?

Actually, if you re-read my post, you will clearly see where I said that we do not know if it was the perp who REMOVED the nightgown from the bedroom. I made no mention of who placed it next to her--no mention at all.

You posted questions that you believed were facts, and I refuted them with what I believe are facts. I understand you are very frustrated that my post didn't match your controlled template request. I would argue that you shouldn't let the fact that you cannot control the fashion of how posters respond to you frustrate you so much. Once again, it's a message board.

Again, you question why I should be even on this board. Why is it that, when you do not get replies to you in your controlled requirements, you resort to questioning whether people should be on this board? I mean, twice in a row now, lol---geez. As I said, it really is elementary, and quite telling.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Or, maybe, able to buy and hide behind a high priced lawyer and P.R. Team.

If you can get past the thought of a *seemingly loving* parent doing harm to his or her child, then the perp needn't be highly intelligent.

You don't have to try to figure out how the murderer knew that JonBenet's older half-brother & sister were not home THEN and would not be there THAT night.

You don't have to wonder how the killer knew the Ramseys would be gone that night long enough to write a three page ransom note.

It is just plain easier to see a guilty, desperate and scared parent that has read old mystery fiction writing EXACTLY that ransom note, than a kidnapper pedophile.

Believe me I have researched many parents who kill their children.....I don't have to get past thinking they wouldn't do such a thing. That is preposterous. John and Patsy both could have killed JB ...I guess we can throw the entire USA in the mix since we have no clue who did. But to say that they did kill their own child there must be proof of evidence to such allegations. Not by theorists with their opposing POVs on the same known facts.

If that is not done then we have the same witch hunt that we had when Jessica Lunsford and Shasta, Slade and Dylan Greone's parents were also labeled as such without one bit of evidence to support it......only wild speculation and a whole heck of "I just know because, I just do". I will continue to want evidence no matter who the person is whether it be parents or otherwise matters not to me one iota.

J&P being parents has no weight to me any longer. I looked for years to see if there was anything showing me that they may have done this, period, end of story...........in 10 years there still is nothing.

IMO

Ocean

 

[julianne]

Believe me I have researched many parents who kill their children.....I don't have to get past thinking they wouldn't do such a thing. That is preposterous. John and Patsy both could have killed JB ...I guess we can throw the entire USA in the mix since we have no clue who did. But to say that they did kill their own child there must be proof of evidence to such allegations. Not by theorists with their opposing POVs on the same known facts.

If that is not done then we have the same witch hunt that we had when Jessica Lunsford and Shasta, Slade and Dylan Greone's parents were also labeled as such without one bit of evidence to support it......only wild speculation and a whole heck of "I just know because, I just do". I will continue to want evidence no matter who the person is whether it be parents or otherwise matters not to me one iota.

J&P being parents has no weight to me any longer. I looked for years to see if there was anything showing me that they may have done this, period, end of story...........in 10 years there still is nothing.

IMO

Ocean

Exactly, exactly, exactly!!!! I couldn't have said it better, Ocean!

 

[K. Taylor]

Actually, if you re-read my post, you will clearly see where I said that we do not know if it was the perp who REMOVED the nightgown from the bedroom. I made no mention of who placed it next to her--no mention at all.

So you don't think the same person who removed the nightgown put it next to her body? Then who did remove it and where did they put it? Some place else in the house? How did it get next to JonBenet's body then?

Again, what is YOUR theory? You could avoid any confusion from your statement if you just explained your theory outright about the nightgown or anything else. You don't think the perp removed the nightgown from the bedroom, but you do think the perp put it next to her body? Is that right? I'm trying to piece together your comments but it's hard, it's like playing twenty questions and I'm not sure why I have to piece it together myself when you could just tell us. I honestly want to know the theory because it might be interesting. You think Patsy or someone put it in a laundry basket or something and the perp removed it from there? That's my best guess.

I understand you are very frustrated that my post didn't match your controlled template request.

No, I didn't ask for a template, I just asked for you intruder theory and specified that it could be written in any way you want. I'm frustrated because you don't want to seem to give your intruder theory, and the thread is about IDIers answering questions. That's fine if you don't but why not just say that? It's like this :banghead: because I asked you several questions that I honestly want your theory about because I'm generally interested in how an IDIer would address those questions. Instead of that, the response was simply that the Ramseys didn't do it. I get that, but I want to hear what the IDI theory involves aside from, "The Ramseys didn't do it." If you asked me why I think an intruder didn't do it, I could tell you, but I could also give you my theory and scenario as to how the Ramseys did it. You did mention something about the house being a complicated floor plan, but you didn't elaborate on how an intruder would deal with that. So did he?

If I were to argue an intruder did it, my IDI theory would be that it wasn't a stranger but someone who knew the Ramseys well to know the floor plan of their house well, know where things were kept, knew what Patsy's handwriting looked like, what John's bonus was, and knew the Ramseys' schedule that day. Also the intruder would've had to have known JonBenet well for him (or her, I guess I'm being sexist) to get JonBenet to not cry out and come quietly down to the kitchen with him to eat the pineapple. Because if I'm pretending in the IDI theory I also have to believe the Ramseys were being truthful, and they were adamant that they never gave JonBenet pineapple and it would've had to have been the intruder. That's my best guess as to what the IDI theory would be. I guess I have to guess since no one wants to reveal their IDI theory.

Again, you question why I should be even on this board. Why is it that, when you do not get replies to you in your controlled requirements, you resort to questioning whether people should be on this board? I mean, twice in a row now, lol---geez. As I said, it really is elementary, and quite telling.

You have every right to be on this board. I was just honestly wondering from your own comments in reply to me that no one can "KNOW for sure" that you seem to be uncomfortable with any speculation. And not wanting to give your own intruder theory may also be because you're uncomfortable with any speculation. That's fine! I'm not saying that's wrong and no offense was intended. It just struck me as odd because Websleuths is devoted to speculation and criminal theory, and I couldn't see myself belonging to a forum where I was uninterested in or uncomfortable with the topic. But hey, whatever floats your boat and maybe you're here for some other reason.

Good luck to you, and no offense, but since you don't want to give your IDI theory I'm hoping someone else will. I'm in this IDI Q&A thread because I'd like to hear some IDIers response to these questions. If you're uncomfortable with giving your answers then that's fine, but I'm hoping someone else will take a stab at it.

 

[BBB167893]

"No evidence in their lives before or after showing that kind of deceit, violence, evil and hatred, or that type of knowledge of depravity."

John being an adulterer doesn't suggest deceit?

"7. The MO of the crime fits a sexual predator and a sophisticated sexual deviant."

Actually, the FBI said that since there were so many conflicting MOs at work at the same crime, it was most likely staging to LOOK like a sexual predator. They've also never heard of a sexual predator who writes ransom notes.

"8. A mother would not put size 12 panties on her child. Or write a ransom note in her own hand. Or stab her daughter's vagina with a broken paintbrush."

She would if she didn't want to be known as "the killing mother" her whole life.

"I agree with you that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from an unwillingness to believe that this kind of crime could occur among the white and the wealthy."

Damn skippy.

"What profile do you suggest fits the Grand Jury?"

That's easy: the naive type. I think I proved that.

"Au contraire....I think that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from the fact that in the last 10 years, they have never been charged with the crime! Don't you think THAT could quite possibly be a reason for reluctance????"

Julianne, do I HAVE to go through that again with you?

"If you are talking about the DA's office, there was an unmistakeable bias in favor of protecting the Ramsey's by the DA's office in the early days of the the investigation which exists to this day. Instead of first considering the facts for or against the Rs, the DA's office bent over backwards to hand over information, extend unbelievable and unprecedented courtesies to the R's and their legal team, and therefore, how could they be prosecuted? If it were up to the BPD at the time, they WOULD have prosecuted the Rs. These are the same guys who followed up 5,300 phone tips (all about the Ramseys?), 4,800 letters (all about the Ramseys?), conducted 6,300 interviews (sure was a lot of Ramseys and Paughs!), and looked at 140 possible suspects (that's a lot of Ramseys and Paughs too)....they were frustrated by the DA's office at every turn. How many more phone tips, letters, interviews and suspects did the DA's office look at to come to a more accurate conclusion than the BPD? Their bias towards a connected rich white member of their community prevented them from doing their jobs.The reason they were not charged in 10 years is that there was no one in the DA's office with the objectivity and backbone to stand up to the Rs."

I can repost the evidence backing that up if anyone wants.

"Sorry, but they focused on the Ramseys and let JonBenet's killer alone, to enjoy his life uninterrupted by any pesky cops poking around."

That's a bunch of BS, and everyone knows it.


"Logically and stastically, victims who are redressed are done so because the victim was beloved by the killer. Stranger killers don't redress."

That's what the FBI said.

"Anyone who left THAT ransom note did so without forethought."

Yeah, they were just flying on adrenaline.

"You said: I think that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from the fact that in the last 10 years, they have never been charged with the crime!'
I addressed that, with reasons the Rs have not been charged with the crime, those reasons being the Boulder DA's office and their bias in favor of the Rs, and reminded you of the various ways in which the BPD was hampered and frustrated in their investigation by the very people who should have been on their side."

Sad to admit, but true.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

Believe me I have researched many parents who kill their children.....I don't have to get past thinking they wouldn't do such a thing. That is preposterous. John and Patsy both could have killed JB ...I guess we can throw the entire USA in the mix since we have no clue who did. But to say that they did kill their own child there must be proof of evidence to such allegations. Not by theorists with their opposing POVs on the same known facts.

If that is not done then we have the same witch hunt that we had when Jessica Lunsford and Shasta, Slade and Dylan Greone's parents were also labeled as such without one bit of evidence to support it......only wild speculation and a whole heck of "I just know because, I just do". I will continue to want evidence no matter who the person is whether it be parents or otherwise matters not to me one iota.

J&P being parents has no weight to me any longer. I looked for years to see if there was anything showing me that they may have done this, period, end of story...........in 10 years there still is nothing.

IMO

Ocean

There is evidence against the Ramseys...both physical evidence, and their actions on the 26th...along with their lack of desire to really help the police.

What's missing is a "bloody knife with fingerprints on it" sort of evidence. Because the Ramseys lived in that house with Jonbenet, the need for certain evidence is different than in the case of an intruder.

In the OJ Simpson case...there was no murder weapon...but a lot of evidence that was wholly suggesting that OJ did it.
With the Ramseys...one gets close to having as much damning evidence as there was in the OJ case. It would help even more if it was definitely known what caused the head wound (in OJ's case, there was no such confusion as to the weapon used).

I myself have yet to see any evidence that an intruder broke into the house and committed the crime.
Instead...we have evidence against the parents and a whole lot of odd things, including the actions of the parents afterwards.

The Ramseys had the means and the opportunity...the motive is the trickier part.
One can assign a motive of some kind to an intruder...but this intruder has to have the means and the opportunity as well...and those two are the trickier parts of IDI. Why? Lack of evidence.

 

[julianne]

K. Taylor--

This whole board is about speculation, because that is all anybody here has as far as who the perp(s) are. All you have is speculation. All I have is speculation. All any RDI here has is speculation. All any IDI here has is speculation.

I truly hope that you get what you are looking for, but if you don't, it's not worth getting frustrated or having a bad day. I hope you have a great day!!

 

[BBB167893]

Well put, julianne. It's true: no need to get angry over it.