IDI'S answer me this.

[LinasK]

Olive, I agree. There is a lot of RDI speculation. I have yet to read any evidence that links the Ramsey's to the crime.

For some people, running is a normal human response to an ordeal they simply are not capable of handling. They have a desire to get as far away from the situation as possible.

fight or flight response, yes, but not when your daughter's body has just been discovered. :hand: Would you really leave her there for hours for the coroner to take her to the morgue all by herself and have flown out of state- NOT ME!!!

 

[Bronte Nut]

I disagree. They had evidence on the Ramseys. And I truly believe if they were ordinary common people without so much clout, they would be in jail and thats where Patsy would have died.

F...... A, they would...

Poor folks would have been eaten alive by the cops.

Hey Brutal, have you noticed how little the IDI community have responded so far?

Interesting...

 

[K. Taylor]

The only thing that bothers me is a lot of RDI speculation. Why would they not cooperate? Don't know. Why would they hire attorneys? Don't know. Certainly, I would not react that way. However, none of that PROVES guilt. It is all speculation.

To me, it's the opposite. That us RDIers look at the evidence and see where it points, whereas IDIers only look at the evidence as to how it can be explained away to point to anyone other than the Ramseys first, then an intruder second. "Yes, but..."

There is far more IDI speculation, IMO. For example in the current Ramseys did it thread, there's a bunch of speculation from IDIers as to how people with cancer act so Patsy couldn't have done something, how parents who kill act a certain way every time and Patsy didn't act that way, etc. There is far more speculation that people act a certain way at all times, and parents like the Rams don't seem the type to have killed their kid.

Not to mention the wild speculation about what type of intruder it could've been, a pedophile, a grudge-holder, a college student, a pageant groupie, etc. I'm and RDIer because it's just common sense. No intruder theory has ever come close to being plausible, IMO, because the weight of the evidence is so strong against it. Aside from the issue of no DNA, fibers, the notion that someone would decide to kill JonBenet and break into the house on Christmas on Christmas and not only not leave any entry or exit point, any disturbance, any footprint on a carpet or a floor seems to me science fiction. But what really seals the deal is that that intruder would not bring anything himself: his own weapon, his own ransom note, his own rope or duct tape. This intruder that carefully planned a break-in so perfectly that he was able to enter and exit undetected also decided to just take a chance and say, "Oh, I'll just improvise with whatever is around - hey, that Maglite looks good! I'll just stick around a few hours on Christmas when I know the Ramseys are still in town and bound to show up any moment and wander around the house and I'm sure I'll find something." And then, despite being a master at entering and leaving the house undetected, once he grabs JonBenet he doesn't leave with her, he instead kills her violently in the same house where three other people are sleeping? When all it would take is one unforeseen noise from JonBenet and his jig would be up? Don't forget the intruder would've not only had to have snatched JB but also would've had to returned to her room to get her favorite nightgown. So even if she left her room on her own, followed the intruder to the cellar, the intruder would've still had to have returned upstairs and gone rummaging in her bedroom. Not to mention running water at one point to wipe her down, etc. So the guy was basically wandering around the house at night while three other people were there and no one saw or her anything and no traces were found?

 

[Zelda]

I never thought of an intruder staging the intruder scene.

Why would anyone do that unless the killers were staging an intruder scene
to draw attention away from what really happened. Very good point!

I'm still undecided about IDI or RDI, I usually straddle the fence, and drop down to either side depending on posts in this forum and what I've been reading on the case.

The fact that Wendy Murphy doesn't believe the IDI theory, is a big influence on the RDI side. I still don't know, and unless someone else confesses we'll probably never know.

 

[K. Taylor]

In both scenarios, the intruder would've been in her bedroom. There are only two options in that IDI theory:

1. Intruder snatches JB from her room.

2. JB goes downstairs and meets intruder.

So in the case of #1, you'd also have to believe he not only grabbed JB but also her favorite nightgown, possibly underwear from her drawer, etc. So he stopped in the midst of his kidnapping to rummage around in her closets and drawers. What was JB doing? Sleeping? Sitting there, watching?

In scenario 2, what happened? JB wandered downstairs for a snack of pineapple? So the intruder just sat in the kitchen on the off-chance that JB would wander downstairs in the middle of the night? Was JB suprised? If it was a stranger, are we to believe she never cried out? If it was someone she knew she didn't squeal upon seeing her friend, Santa Claus, whoever? Did JonBenet happen to carry her nightgown downstairs with her while she grabbed a snack? If not, then the intruder would've had to have gone back upstairs to grab the nightgown.

 

[Bronte Nut]

In both scenarios, the intruder would've been in her bedroom. There are only two options in that IDI theory:

1. Intruder snatches JB from her room.

2. JB goes downstairs and meets intruder.

So in the case of #1, you'd also have to believe he not only grabbed JB but also her favorite nightgown, possibly underwear from her drawer, etc. So he stopped in the midst of his kidnapping to rummage around in her closets and drawers. What was JB doing? Sleeping? Sitting there, watching?

In scenario 2, what happened? JB wandered downstairs for a snack of pineapple? So the intruder just sat in the kitchen on the off-chance that JB would wander downstairs in the middle of the night? Was JB suprised? If it was a stranger, are we to believe she never cried out? If it was someone she knew she didn't squeal upon seeing her friend, Santa Claus, whoever? Did JonBenet happen to carry her nightgown downstairs with her while she grabbed a snack? If not, then the intruder would've had to have gone back upstairs to grab the nightgown.

Nope, doesn't work, does it?

Also, even if all of those ludicrous pirouettes actually happened, how did the intruder manage to avoid leaving any clear DNA samples whatsoever, after repeatedly physically man-handling JBR over a significant period of time?

So the mythical intruder (a presumed pedophile) had a cute 6-year-old beauty queen right there in his hands and the best he could do was bash her head in? There was no clear evidence of sexual assault, despite the smoke and mirrors. That doesn't work.

Nothing about the case adds up, unless you accept that she was killed by a family member, probably by accident, and the rest, however messed up and illogical, such as the laughable kidnap note, was the result of a panic-stricken and quite frankly insane John and Patsy attempting to retrofit a kidnap/murder scenario.

 

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by K. Taylor
To me, it's the opposite. That us RDIers look at the evidence and see where it points, whereas IDIers only look at the evidence as to how it can be explained away to point to anyone other than the Ramseys first, then an intruder second. "Yes, but..."

That's exactly what I've seen with IDI'ers... take each single piece of evidence and try to explain it as something else it could be even when that something else isn't probable (and has even been debunked). I also see a serious lack of knowledge about what the evidence IS and IS NOT from IDI'ers... it always seems to be the IDI'ers that still don't know about the stun gun being debunked, the body hair being identified, the shoeprints, the palm prints, etc. Much of this stuff was debunked YEARS ago.

There is no single one thing that can be pointed to as evidence of Ramsey guilt... it's the TOTALITY of the evidence. For example:

Say we aren't talking about a murdered child but whether or not JBR got into the cookie jar and ate some. Here's the scenerio:

The Ramsey's put JBR to bed in a pink nightgown. They go tuck in Burke, and then go off to bed themselves. In the morning, Patsy wakes up and finds the cookie jar on the table with the lid off with cookie crumbs on the table and wonders who got into the cookie jar. She calls the Cookie Police. Here's what the Cookie Police find:

1. The cookie jar is kept on a counter that JBR can reach.

2. The cookie jar is found on the kitchen table and there are cookie crumbs on the table.

3. The cookie jar has fibers on it came from the pink nightgown JBR wore to bed.

4. JBR's fingerprints are on the cookie jar and on the lid.

5. JBR is discovered in her bed surrounded by cookie crumbs.

6. JBR has cookie crumbs around her mouth.

7. JBR has cookie crumbs on her fingers.

The TOTALITY of the evidence clearly points to JBR having gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, and while everyone else slept helped herself to cookies.

BUT, you can take every item of evidence SEPARATELY and explain it away even if that explanation isn't probable and/or has been previously debunked...

1. The cookie jar is kept on a counter that JBR can reach.
Well... ANYBODY in the house could have gotten that cookie jar off the counter - just because JBR could reach it doesn't mean it was her that took it off the counter.

2. The cookie jar is found on the kitchen table and there are cookie crumbs on the table.
Well... ANYBODY in the house could have gotten that cookie jar off the counter and put it on the table - just because JBR could reach it doesn't mean it was her that took it off the counter and put it on the table. ANYBODY in the house could have taken cookies out of the jar and gotten crumbs on the table.

3. The cookie jar has fibers on it came from the pink nightgown JBR wore to bed.
Well... those fibers could have gotten there at any other time when she wore that nightgown (even though Fleet White later testified that he saw the housekeeper wash that cookie jar that very afternoon).

4. JBR's fingerprints are on the cookie jar AND on the lid.
Well... the fingerprints could have been left there at some other time before the cookie jar was washed.

5. JBR is discovered in her bed surrounded by cookie crumbs.
Well... we don't know the last time the sheets were changed, so those cookie crumbs could have been from some other time that she ate cookies. She could have brushed her nightgown against the counter and picked up cookie crumbs and transferred them to her bed.

6. JBR has cookie crumbs around her mouth.
Well... Burke could have been playing a joke, snuck into her room and sprinkled cookie crumbs around her mouth (nevermind that there's no evidence that Burke got out of bed, went to kitchen, got cookies out of the jar, etc.)

7. JBR has cookie crumbs on her fingers.
Well... those cookie crumbs that she may have brushed her nightgown against and gotten in her bed could also have been transferred to her fingers.

See what I mean? Any intelligent Cookie Policeman will look at the TOTALITY of the evidence and decide that JBR got out of bed, went to the kitchen and helped herself to cookies, and any intelligent unbiased person would agree. But anyone trying to keep JBR from getting into trouble for doing that might be tempted to try to explain away each SEPARATE piece of evidence to try to make it add up to JBR being innocent of any nocternal cookie marauding even though when some of those explanations are silly and/or really stretching it, and/or already debunked... and when added together it just doesn't add up.

 

[tumble]

There is no single one thing that can be pointed to as evidence of Ramsey guilt... it's the TOTALITY of the evidence.

Good post doc, I think you nailed it with this one.

There are two kinds of IDI'ers.

One kind who don't want to reason but just want to accept.
LS said this and that. Judge Carnes said this and that.
They really don't want to delve into the case themselves.
Those people usually comes up with new suspects out of the blue, it's a long list by now, being a menber of 'Santa Barbara Tennis Center' is enought.
For those JMK fit the bill initially.
I really don't understand why those people come to a forum at all, it's all about accepting what some experts are saying as a package.

Another kind have elaborate schemes of what happened and a clear idea about how their suspect might look like. Those people are eager to understand the clues. They see the case much the same as RDI'ers and just read the clues in another way.
Those people seldom refers to LS and judge Carnes but come up with their own ideas.

 

[Bronte Nut]

Good post doc, I think you nailed it with this one.

There are two kinds of IDI'ers.

One kind who don't want to reason but just want to accept.
LS said this and that. Judge Carnes said this and that.
They really don't want to delve into the case themselves.
Those people usually comes up with new suspects out of the blue, it's a long list by now, being a menber of 'Santa Barbara Tennis Center' is enought.
For those JMK fit the bill initially.
I really don't understand why those people come to a forum at all, it's all about accepting what some experts are saying as a package.

Another kind have elaborate schemes of what happened and a clear idea about how their suspect might look like. Those people are eager to understand the clues. They see the case much the same as RDI'ers and just read the clues in another way.
Those people seldom refers to LS and judge Carnes but come up with their own ideas.

Outstanding job, from both of you.

Yes, the IDI crew keep rehashing the same complete bleeping nonsense, and even dredging up long-debunked chestnuts like the stun gun.

At the end of the day, it is provably virtually impossible for an intruder to have carried out a lengthy and complex operation of this kind and not leave any clear signs of entry/exit or any DNA. Even if he teleported in and out of the house, the idea of him not depositing ANY certain intruder DNA on JBR is just too far-fetched to be worthy of attention.

Even if he had miraculously managed to do all of that, why would he HAND WRITE a kidnap note that sounds like something off The Flintstones?

The IDI case relies on a staggeringly complex vast pyramid of unresolvable nonsense.

The difference between that and the simple, unbreakable logic of the RDI case is like night and day.

Hey Doc, do we even know what TYPE of cookies that JBR allegedly took anyway? You see? Not enough info to convince an IDI buff.

 

[Chrishope]

Right, but this girl was wiped clean. How did her fibers get under the sticky side of the duct tape, when she was never in the basement? And the fibers werent just laying on the knot. They were actually intertwined in the knot. That does not come from a hug.

And, the R's supposedly didn't have any duct tape like that. Yet, there's Patsy's fibers, on the sticky side of the tape they didn't have. But no fibers from an intruder.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

great posts here by K,Bronte,DrDetect---thoughtful and elaborate--so many good points made----but so many years have passed now,and no one brought to justice,I sometimes feel poor Jon-Benet will never be able to rest in peace

 

[rashomon]

And, the R's supposedly didn't have any duct tape like that. Yet, there's Patsy's fibers, on the sticky side of the tape they didn't have. But no fibers from an intruder.

And fibers from John Ramsey's shirt were found in JBs genital area. This is very incriminating evidence too.

 

[Brutal Truth]

Olive, I agree. There is a lot of RDI speculation. I have yet to read any evidence that links the Ramsey's to the crime.

For some people, running is a normal human response to an ordeal they simply are not capable of handling. They have a desire to get as far away from the situation as possible.
Also, put yourself in the place of the Ramsey's that morning. They were in shock and terrified. I certainly would have been.
The fact that they hired an Attorney means nothing. From what I have heard, a friend of John's advised him to retain an Attorney and he followed his advise.

You must not be looking in the right direction if you think there isnt any real evidence that links the ramseys.

Do you really believe running is a normal response, when your daughter is found dead in your home? No parent in the world that didnt have something to hide would run. They would want to help out as much as they could to find the killer.

I have put myself in the ramseys shoes. And guess what? And none of what they did was either logical or loving in any way shape or form. Sorry, try again.

Your right hiring an attorney means nothing. However, the girl was still dead in the house and your already on the defensive? Why would that be? And from then on hide behind your attorney like cowards.

 

[Brutal Truth]

F...... A, they would...

Poor folks would have been eaten alive by the cops.

Hey Brutal, have you noticed how little the IDI community have responded so far?

Interesting...

Yup, and we probably wont hear much out of them. They tend to reside in a place where hard facts are not.

 

[southcitymom]

Right, but this girl was wiped clean. How did her fibers get under the sticky side of the duct tape, when she was never in the basement? And the fibers werent just laying on the knot. They were actually intertwined in the knot. That does not come from a hug.

Agreed. The Patsy fibers entwined in the knot around JBR's neck is one of the most damning pieces of evidence in this case, IMHO.

 

[leighl]

In response to reply #8 and other posters regarding fibers from John's shirt being on JonBenet's genital area and for anyone else that may find this odd, I wonder if you have children, have ever helped young children get out of the bath, or at least seen bath time commercials on TV. Often when helping children out of the bath, parents/caregivers will snuggle their child in a towel drapped across their back, held together by the child's hands, and then carry the child balanced on one hip or in a piggy back position to the dressing/drying area. When my child was younger, I used to carry her that way everytime she got out of the bath. With a child in that position, it is quite easy for fibers to be transfered to the genital area. Its something parents don't generally think about, it doesn't seem odd or wrong, its just something that happens.

I am not saying that the Ramsey's were not involved, just that this single bit of evidence is not indicative of sexual abuse or murder as so many people have theorized. It is very easy to view evidence separate from the larger picture, but we need to remember that of course fibers from the parents will have been on JonBenet. Besides the explanation offered above, they lived together, used the same washer/dryer, etc., so of course there will be a transfer of fibers.

 

[olive]

I can definitely see how the RDI is the most plausible, the most explainable. However, I still don't have enough evidence to be 100% convinced of this theory. Nor am I 100% IDI. But from a law perspective...

There is a reason the Ramsey's were not brought to trial. Legally, they will never be convicted.

This case is so bothersome due to the infinite injustice done to JBR.

 

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by leighl
In response to reply #8 and other posters regarding fibers from John's shirt being on JonBenet's genital area and for anyone else that may find this odd, I wonder if you have children, have ever helped young children get out of the bath, or at least seen bath time commercials on TV. Often when helping children out of the bath, parents/caregivers will snuggle their child in a towel drapped across their back, held together by the child's hands, and then carry the child balanced on one hip or in a piggy back position to the dressing/drying area. When my child was younger, I used to carry her that way everytime she got out of the bath. With a child in that position, it is quite easy for fibers to be transfered to the genital area. Its something parents don't generally think about, it doesn't seem odd or wrong, its just something that happens.

I am not saying that the Ramsey's were not involved, just that this single bit of evidence is not indicative of sexual abuse or murder as so many people have theorized. It is very easy to view evidence separate from the larger picture, but we need to remember that of course fibers from the parents will have been on JonBenet. Besides the explanation offered above, they lived together, used the same washer/dryer, etc., so of course there will be a transfer of fibers.

The problem with that explanation is that the Ramseys have repeatedly claimed that she was taken from the car directly to her bed where Patsy removed her pants and put on longjohns over her underwear, left her in the shirt she wore to the White's and that's that. The fibers from her genitals and inside the crotch of the panties came from JR's shirt that he wore that night. The Ramsey's claim she had no bath prior to going to the White's and dressed herself for the party. Therefore, how does your bath or carrying scenerio get the fibers from the shirt JR wore that night into JBR's panties and on her genitals? How does some innocent fiber transfer occur from the shirt JR wore that night into the crotch of panties that the Ramsey's claim JBR took out of a sealed plastic package herself and put on herself? Those panties never had any opportunity to mix with "house fibers" since they were pristine... and I think that's exactly why they chose them - no Ramsey DNA.

The prior sexual abuse was noted by many experts.

 

[magnolia]

To me, it's the opposite. That us RDIers look at the evidence and see where it points, whereas IDIers only look at the evidence as to how it can be explained away to point to anyone other than the Ramseys first, then an intruder second. "Yes, but..."

There is far more IDI speculation, IMO. For example in the current Ramseys did it thread, there's a bunch of speculation from IDIers as to how people with cancer act so Patsy couldn't have done something, how parents who kill act a certain way every time and Patsy didn't act that way, etc. There is far more speculation that people act a certain way at all times, and parents like the Rams don't seem the type to have killed their kid.

Not to mention the wild speculation about what type of intruder it could've been, a pedophile, a grudge-holder, a college student, a pageant groupie, etc. I'm and RDIer because it's just common sense. No intruder theory has ever come close to being plausible, IMO, because the weight of the evidence is so strong against it. Aside from the issue of no DNA, fibers, the notion that someone would decide to kill JonBenet and break into the house on Christmas on Christmas and not only not leave any entry or exit point, any disturbance, any footprint on a carpet or a floor seems to me science fiction. But what really seals the deal is that that intruder would not bring anything himself: his own weapon, his own ransom note, his own rope or duct tape. This intruder that carefully planned a break-in so perfectly that he was able to enter and exit undetected also decided to just take a chance and say, "Oh, I'll just improvise with whatever is around - hey, that Maglite looks good! I'll just stick around a few hours on Christmas when I know the Ramseys are still in town and bound to show up any moment and wander around the house and I'm sure I'll find something." And then, despite being a master at entering and leaving the house undetected, once he grabs JonBenet he doesn't leave with her, he instead kills her violently in the same house where three other people are sleeping? When all it would take is one unforeseen noise from JonBenet and his jig would be up? Don't forget the intruder would've not only had to have snatched JB but also would've had to returned to her room to get her favorite nightgown. So even if she left her room on her own, followed the intruder to the cellar, the intruder would've still had to have returned upstairs and gone rummaging in her bedroom. Not to mention running water at one point to wipe her down, etc. So the guy was basically wandering around the house at night while three other people were there and no one saw or her anything and no traces were found?

So you think the Ramsey's were so stupid to stage a crime scene which involved Patsy writing her own ransom note?

You think Patsy wrote a ransom note in her own hand-writing indicating a kidnapping had taken place, but then left the dead child in the basement?
What a brilliant idea for them to come up with when there are so many other scenarios of staging they could have chosen.
If you believe the head injury came first, why not make it easy on yourself and throw the child down the stair-case. Why set up such an elaborate crime scene? We might say that the Ramsey's knew beforehand a fall down a staircase wouldn't cause such a severe head injury. Let's not forget that some here have stated the Ramsey's were not experienced killers.

There are some here that think at some point in between attending a Christmas party and making preparations to go out of town, they made what had to be a quick decision to indulge in a little hanky-panky with their daughter. All this speculation with absolutely nothing to indicate any past sexual wrong-doing with their child.
Patsy chose this particular night,when she must have been exhausted,as many of us are during the Christmas Holidays,to inflict punishment on her daughter for wetting the bed or soiling her panties. A ritual,may I add,that Patsy was very used to.

You think the Ramsey's have been able to push some dark dirty secret under the rug for the past 10 YEARS? It took only a matter of days for the Media to make available extensive information on a guy that has lived from town to town as well as out of the Country.
I would venture to say a dark dirty secret would be difficult, if not impossible to conceal. The Ramsey's have a son that was only nine years old at the time JB was killed. At some point during the past 10 years, Burke would have slipped and revealed some information about this dark secret that no one else is privy to. How do you think the Ramsey's have handled the possibility Burke could innocently reveal to a family member or acquaintance some pertinent information about that night or the dark dirty secret about his parents?


How can we have expectations there should have been footprints in the snow when we don't know who the perp was or when and how he entered the Ramsey home?
Did you hear Karr's rendition of how he took off his shoes while walking around in the house? It was a false rendition, but a very reasonable explanation of why there were no prints in the carpet or on the floor. I don't think it is reasonable to assume the perp while trying to conceal his presence in the house walked around in big chunky shoes or boots?

How many crimes occur from perps using a weapon in the house? Why take materials and a weapon that could link one to the crime scene? Do we know it was in the perp's plans to kill JonBenet? I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude because there was a ransom note, the initial intent of the perp was to kipnap JB. Perhaps the intent was to kidnap, things got out of hand, and the perp took his anger out on JonBenet.

How do you know the perp returned to JB's bedroom to retrieve her favorite gown? Is it not possible, it was mere happenstance the gown was JB's favorite?

How many children have been abducted from their bedroom in much smaller homes while the parents were asleep in another room.
How about the Lunsford girl that was removed from the room of a small trailer while the grandparents were asleep.

Why is it so difficult for some people to comprehend a person abducting a child from her bedroom and killing the child in the distant basement of a 7,000 square foot home?

Someone posted an excellent article on the crime taking place in Boulder. I can't recall who.
After reading this article, it is beyond me how anyone has difficulty accepting the fact, there may have been an intruder.
It was Christmas after all folks. This is a time when many people resent the wealth and well-being of prosperous people.

 

[rashomon]

So you think the Ramsey's were so stupid to stage a crime scene which involved Patsy writing her own ransom note?

Someone of them had to write the note. Or do you think Patsy should have used the Ramsey home computer?

You think Patsy wrote a ransom note in her own hand-writing indicating a kidnapping had taken place, but then left the dead child in the basement?
What a brilliant idea for them to come up with when there are so many other scenarios of staging they could have chosen.

Their choice was very limited. They were in a point of no return situation when they realized their child was so badly injured from the head bash that she was going to die.

If you believe the head injury came first, why not make it easy on yourself and throw the child down the stair-case. Why set up such an elaborate crime scene? We might say that the Ramsey's knew beforehand a fall down a staircase wouldn't cause such a severe head injury. Let's not forget that some here have stated the Ramsey's were not experienced killers.

Imo this was not a premeditated crime where the parents could reflect if throwing their child down the staircase was going to do the job. The blow was struck out in a rage, so what should they do? Tell the hospital staff the child fell down the stairs could have been an option, but even the Ramseys probably knew that hospital staff is very trained to look these alleged 'injuries' very closely.

Patsy chose this particular night,when she must have been exhausted,as many of us are during the Christmas Holidays,to inflict punishment on her daughter for wetting the bed or soiling her panties. A ritual,may I add,that Patsy was very used to.

I'm afraid Patsy didn't 'choose' anything, but by her own impulse of rage, found herself in a point of no return situation

All this speculation with absolutely nothing to indicate any past sexual wrong-doing with their child.

Not true. A panel of top-flight medical experts consulted on the case came to the conclusion that JB suffered from chronic sexual abuse.