If your child was murdered

[ScarlettScarpetta]

this is the problem with RDI's and IDI's and why all the fighting starts...IDI's are cool and calm because they have an agenda...this is the perfect place to practice for someone who wants to become a defence lawyer....RDI's are driven by passion,by the frustration and INJUSTICE....this is what makes the blood boil...so I better give up cause nothing good will ever come out of this BS...whoever wants to believe IDI be my guest I am not trying to convince anyone...but stop asking me for evidence if you're not interested in it

I hate to tell you by RDI's is just a different opinion. It is just a theory. AS is the Intruder did it theory. Neither side can claim more than to support their version of events with their "facts".
The problem is that I don't see any of the facts lining up for RDI, which is why I am not really on a side but not willing to point fingers at the Ramsey's without proof. Real hard proof. I see things people call evidence but when I go digging on my own, Things that I see brought up as fact seem to fall apart.

If I mention something and can back it up, As I just did, That is spin.

I realize that I am most likely in my feelings about this case. But I am looking at the source of things, looking for back up. If I can not find it, I discount it. I don't take it and run with more speculation.

 

[madeleine]

I hate to tell you by RDI's is just a different opinion. It is just a theory. AS is the Intruder did it theory. Neither side can claim more than to support their version of events with their "facts".
The problem is that I don't see any of the facts lining up for RDI, which is why I am not really on a side but not willing to point fingers at the Ramsey's without proof. Real hard proof. I see things people call evidence but when I go digging on my own, Things that I see brought up as fact seem to fall apart.

If I mention something and can back it up, As I just did, That is spin.

I realize that I am most likely in my feelings about this case. But I am looking at the source of things, looking for back up. If I can not find it, I discount it. I don't take it and run with more speculation.

what do you mean by real hard proof?you can't have confessions from all child killers!would be wonderful but it's not real!
what would do it for you,JR having a press conference explaining how he molested and strangled his daughter?(chill,it's just an EXAMPLE)
if nothing makes sense to you about RDI why don't you explain how IDI really makes sense?if you don't see any facts that back up RDI maybe everything we say is waste of time anyway cause it's clear now that NOTHING will make you think twice,not change your mind but at least make you think twice

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

what do you mean by real hard proof?you can't have confessions from all child killers!would be wonderful but it's not real!
what would do it for you,JR having a press conference explaining how he molested and strangled his daughter?(chill,it's just an EXAMPLE)
if nothing makes sense to you about RDI why don't you explain how IDI really makes sense?if you don't see any facts that back up RDI maybe everything we say is waste of time anyway cause it's clear now that NOTHING will make you think twice,not change your mind but at least make you think twice

Again, This makes no sense to me.. Sorry.

There are a lot of cases that there is hard evidence without confessions.


There is no proof that JR ever molested his dd or killed her. There is no evidence that anyone in the family did this. There are fibers that belong in the house, fingerprints that belong in the house, Touch DNA that belongs in the house. None of that is proof of a crime.
That just means they lived together.

For me, I start with the most practical explanation. I try to take it apart. If I can, Then I work on another theory.

But in the end all we have here is theories. There are no charges, No trials and no convictions.

 

[madeleine]

But in the end all we have here is theories. There are no charges, No trials and no convictions.

what IS your theory?
that the Ramseys didn't do it?that's all?
who did it?why?what's the evidence that backs your IDI theory up?do you have ONE or is it all only about who DIDN'T do it?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I can not see proof that the Ramsey's did this, So I need to look outside for a killer. I started from the inside out, But what people hold up as "evidence" of RDi for me has too many holes to accept as truth.

 

[Chrishope]

Again, This makes no sense to me.. Sorry.

There are a lot of cases that there is hard evidence without confessions.


There is no proof that JR ever molested his dd or killed her. There is no evidence that anyone in the family did this. There are fibers that belong in the house, fingerprints that belong in the house, Touch DNA that belongs in the house. None of that is proof of a crime.
That just means they lived together.

For me, I start with the most practical explanation. I try to take it apart. If I can, Then I work on another theory.

But in the end all we have here is theories. There are no charges, No trials and no convictions.

I'm RDI and always have been. However, you are right about the evidence. The fiber evidence is meaningless, if the tdna could be from anyone (as RDI always claim, correctly) then it could also be from the killer. Additionally there are unsourced brown (or tan) fibers which are routinely ignored while making much of the meaningless red and black fibers.

One thing though, the autopsy findings indicate prior molestation. Doesn't mean a Ramsey did it, but someone did it. The family does have more access to the victim than anyone else.

Rejection of IDI can be summed up by "Why would an intruder do that ?"

Why would an intruder write a RN then leave the body so he can't collect ransom ?

Why, if ransom wasn't the motive, would there be a RN, in the past tense, indicating that by the time the RN is being read, kidnapping is an accomplished fact?

Why would an intruder ask for $118k if he knows JR is a millionaire ?

I find these pretty convincing reasons to doubt IDI, as the answer to all of them is - an intruder wouldn't.

 

[madeleine]

I just realized something...it's interesting how IDI's always IGNORE all the Behavioral Evidence in this case...it's like it doesn't even exist and I so wonder WHY

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

See and I don't think that Why someone would do it leads to thinking it would not be done. There are a lot of crazy killers out there. And who knows why they do anything?

If someone was molesting JBR prior to that night, It does not mean that night it was not someone else entirely who broke in and then molested and killed her.

It could have been someone else entirely.

I believe that it may have been someone close enough to them to know things and far enough out to allude detection.

I believe that the crime scene shows someone who did not know what they were doing and had a grand plan that went awry.

That is what sticks with me so far anyway.. Time may change that. But I am always open to where the evidence leads me. I don't have my feet in cement holding onto theory. I am looking for truth wherever that leads.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I just realized something...it's interesting how IDI's always IGNORE all the Behavioral Evidence in this case...it's like it doesn't even exist and I so wonder WHY

First I think that lumping people together is not helpful. I am sure even if there are many RDI's many may have different theories on who did what and why.

I am not ignoring anything. I just don't put much stock in it without real proof to back it up. How people behave is only important if you have other things to back that behavior up.

I don't care much about tears, no tears, outfits and hair, I care about what happened that night.

 

[Chrishope]

See and I don't think that Why someone would do it leads to thinking it would not be done. There are a lot of crazy killers out there. And who knows why they do anything?

That's true. We may be dealing with insanity. The killer may have done the things he did because his dog told him to. But what are the odds?

If someone was molesting JBR prior to that night, It does not mean that night it was not someone else entirely who broke in and then molested and killed her.

It could have been someone else entirely.

Yes it could.

I believe that it may have been someone close enough to them to know things and far enough out to allude detection.

Could be. Or it could be one of the family.

I believe that the crime scene shows someone who did not know what they were doing and had a grand plan that went awry.

I think it definitely shows a plan gone awry.

That is what sticks with me so far anyway.. Time may change that. But I am always open to where the evidence leads me. I don't have my feet in cement holding onto theory. I am looking for truth wherever that leads.

As KK recently commented (paraphrasing) the jury is the trier of fact. All we have is guesswork based on "what makes sense".

It's not about pure abstract possibilities, it's about probability. Most of us see RDI as much more probable.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I understand that and I appreciate that.

I see it much more probable that on Christmas night someone broke into that house and murdered JBR.

 

[madeleine]

How people behave is only important if you have other things to back that behavior up.
.

bingo&thank you. that's exactly why there are so many RDI's out there.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

bingo&thank you. that's exactly why there are so many RDI's out there.

Because you base things on bias of how you think people should behave? Because that is not evidence. That is not fact finding. That is just judging people based on how they cry, When they cry, How they look, If they get dressed well, If they don't.

It means nothing.

NO Prosecutor goes into court and says " Jury we have brought this woman here because on the day after her DD's death, She put on make up, Did her hair and never cried that day... "

I'll just keep to the facts and evidence thank you.

 

[madeleine]

Because you base things on bias of how you think people should behave? Because that is not evidence. That is not fact finding. That is just judging people based on how they cry, When they cry, How they look, If they get dressed well, If they don't.

It means nothing.

NO Prosecutor goes into court and says " Jury we have brought this woman here because on the day after her DD's death, She put on make up, Did her hair and never cried that day... "

I'll just keep to the facts and evidence thank you.

a bit insulting that this is what you think about me or us...we don't think like that ,like it or not.you just don't wanna look at the big picture,you take bits of what we say and misinterpret them

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What I am doing is looking at facts. The behavior stuff does not matter to me. You said that is why you believe they are guilty. I need more than that.

 

[madeleine]

and by behavioral evidence I personally never ever in my life meant hair,make-up,clothes and the rest,I meant something totally different but you don't wanna go there because you don't think it's important.guess you know more about crimes than the FBI,profilers like G.McCrary and so on...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

and by behavioral evidence I personally never ever in my life meant hair,make-up,clothes and the rest,I meant something totally different but you don't wanna go there because you don't think it's important.guess you know more about crimes than the FBI,profilers like G.McCrary and so on...

Profilers are awesome. But their profiles need to be backed up with evidence. So still without the evidence of a crime the facts needed to prosecute it means little on its own

 

[BOESP]

I hate to tell you by RDI's is just a different opinion. It is just a theory. AS is the Intruder did it theory. Neither side can claim more than to support their version of events with their "facts".
The problem is that I don't see any of the facts lining up for RDI, which is why I am not really on a side but not willing to point fingers at the Ramsey's without proof. Real hard proof. I see things people call evidence but when I go digging on my own, Things that I see brought up as fact seem to fall apart.

If I mention something and can back it up, As I just did, That is spin.

I realize that I am most likely in my feelings about this case. But I am looking at the source of things, looking for back up. If I can not find it, I discount it. I don't take it and run with more speculation.

As I originally said, I find fault with the Ramseys failure to cooperate. That is what started this asinine conversation. In my book, a parent who refuses to cooperate is hiding something.

If anyone wants to make excuses for that failure to cooperate then who am I to say otherwise. It doesn't change the fact they did not cooperate.

 

[KoldKase]

Most of us have already read this years ago. None of the posters here have denied the article but it doesn't excuse the Ramseys failure to cooperate. Since her body was released and they still didn't cooperate it makes the Ramseys look guilty and self-serving in my book.

Why wouldn't the BPD want to hold the body until they interviewed the parents? What if the parents gave them information--say, as to HOW the child had gotten chronic vaginal injuries that were days or weeks old?--and they needed to follow up with more tests?

I'm not a M.E. so that's just a "for example" idea. In fact, some bodies are exhumed later to test for new evidence. Bruises show up days after death in some cases and if the body is already in the ground, too late.

Team Ramsey, most importantly from D.A. Hunter's Office, floated the "ransoming the body for interviews" nonsense to the media. This is documented in several books. Leaks were common and they didn't all come from the BPD. John Ramsey wrote in his own book "someone" inside the LE investigation called the Ramsey's lawyer and told him the Ramseys were suspects already. That mole was likely an attorney, as well: why would a cop be calling the Ramsey's lawyer? Hunter released a copy of the "ransom note" to the Ramsey's lawyers in the first month. What DA gives evidence to the prime suspects before they've even had a formal interview with LE after their dead child was found in their basement?

And what parents are so hell bent on questioning the investigation from Day One they decide to obstruct it instead of helping? Your daughter is murdered in your home by "a small foreign faction" right under your nose and the best you can come up with is TALK TO OUR LAWYERS?

People believe what they want because they want to believe it. There is plenty of evidence in spite of the Ramseys and Hunter and it ALL leads back to the Ramseys--AND NO ONE ELSE.

If Hunter hadn't been protecting the Ramseys all along, none of us probably would even be here today. We might never have heard of this case because it's possible it could have been solved in a week with subpoenas for phone records and the family's clothing worn on the 25th/26th.

But not the Ramseys...poor, put upon, mistreated by LE, Patsy and John to this day have NEVER graced the BPD with their presence...except when their buddy Pasta Jay was arrested a few months later for chasing men he suspected were media with a bat. Patsy got herself down to that police station faster than you can say La de dah.

Patsy and John were exclusively handled by the DA: handwriting samples were taken at personal offices and residences. Interviews were given at a "neutral" location after much stonewalling, conditions, and demands were met, "negotiated" by none other than the DA.

As their own attorney Lin Wood said himself, the Ramsey's attorneys protected them from being arrested and tried in this murder, but in so doing, made them look guilty as can be to the public.

And THAT is not our fault.

 

[BOESP]

Koldkase, I'm totally with you on your above post. It still makes me want to eat a biscuit every time I am reminded that JonBenet's body was released 72 hours or less after her death. That is just unheard of, especially when the parents have not yet been interviewed.