Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[Mama2JML]

At the risk of asking a dumb question as I'm relatively new to reading the threads here on this case, is it even possible for the neighbor to see lights on in the kitchen? I'm just looking at pictures of a layout of the Ramsey's home and the neighbor, if I'm correct, lives to the north. From his house, the Ramsey's kitchen appears to be on the other side of the house with multiple walls in between, not to mention any trees in between. Unless the layout I'm looking at is wrong, I'm wrong about which direction this neighbor lives in or there is another area of the house referred to as the "butler kitchen" that is different than the "kitchen".

This is the view, from the neighbor's yard, of the butler's kitchen:



AKA, the "lower hall" as depicted in this floor plan:

 

[Mama2JML]

So, as a long time RDI, I have decided to review this case as much as possible from a new viewpoint.

Two thing happened recently. I caught PMPT on Lifetime a couple of weeks ago about the same time I finished a book on the Boston Strangler. Unrelated, you might think, but here is my wierd thought process that brought me to this decision.

I have always believed that Albert DeSalvo was not the strangler. That, in fact, he had never murdered anyone.
However, based on recent DNA evidence discovered on the body of the Stranglers last victim, I had to rethink that conviction. I read a book on the subject which was totally based on the theory that he was not the Strangler. In other words supporting my long time theory.

I came away from the book convinced that I was wrong all those years. I now am 100% convinced that he was the Strangler. I was wrong. It's not the first time. I also was once compeltely convinced, like most Americans, that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy and read everything on the subject for, literally, decades. Yet several years ago, I became 100% convinced that LHO acted alone, just as the Warren Commission stated, all those years ago.

So, since I am not feeling 100% on my judgement, I decided to review this case again and try to look at it completely objectively for the possibility that I could have been wrong all these years.

Awesome. I'm definitely not 100% confident with my opinions regarding most aspects of this case. I only became interested in all things JBR a couple of years ago, after stumbling upon Shapiro's 15th anniversary article. Until that point, I knew very little about the case, but assumed RDI per the early, EARLY media frenzy that invaded my living room as an uninterested teen. My mom had been slightly *obsessed* with the OJ trial, and her interest almost evolved into a similar pre-occupation with the JBR mystery. My opinions have evolved, and I'm continually constructing & reconstructing my theory/conjectures.

I am re-reading PMPT. There are a couple of things already that I realize I had in my head as being quite different from what they actually were.

One is the extent of grief shown my John Ramsey. There are several reports in the book about his devastation. The other item that really stands out to me is that the Ramsey's were, in fact, very concerned about Burke's security when they sent him back to school. I did not recall that they hired security and that Patsy stated, more than once, that she had already lost one child and was not going to lose another. Which is a very normal reaction under the circumstances, and would tend to ruin the theory that they were never worried as they should have been.

I have avoided this thread out of respect for IDI's and I am still not here to argue. I am curious as to IDI's (especially Anti-K) opinions of PMPT in terms of fairness? I purposely skipped over the Steve Thomas book because I am well aware of the theory there. So far PMPT seems to be a more neutral reporting of the facts.

However, on the other side, there is one other thing I had forgotten about that, IMO, strongly points to my long time theory that PDI. That is the phone call from John to the hardware store asking about what items Patsy charged on those two dates in December. I don't recall the dates exactly, and don't have the book with me, but it was early December.

Any IDI theories on why a man that clearly did not track his wife's spending was suddenly interested in small charges at a hardware store?

(Earlier, I posted a link to FFJ regarding the Rapps.)

Anyway, I'm excited to have your participation in this thread and eager to bounce ideas around with you. Thanks for sharing!

 

[reedus23]

Thanks so much. Knew there had to be an easy explanation. Did see the "lower hall". Did not know that was what was being referenced. Thanks again.

 

[THE BUNK]

I only became interested in all things JBR a couple of years ago, after stumbling upon Shapiro's 15th anniversary article. Until that point, I knew very little about the case, but assumed RDI per the early, EARLY media frenzy that invaded my living room as an uninterested teen. My mom had been slightly *obsessed* with the OJ trial, a

Really? What was it about the case that made you think RDI, initially? Which one of the Ramseys did you suspect?

Interesting you also bring up the OJ simpson trial? Both cases are very similar in how they are viewed in the media? What is your opinion on the OJ simpson case?

 

[reedus23]

Really? What was it about the case that made you think RDI, initially? Which one of the Ramseys did you suspect?

Interesting you also bring up the OJ simpson trial? Both cases are very similar in how they are viewed in the media? What is your opinion on the OJ simpson case?

Very new to what I call educating myself about this case as well. Obviously, I was aware of it, was aware it was on TV constantly, but never watched a single full segment about it. I am guessing because of the nature of what I had heard, plus the blind statistics of parent involvement, I had always just assumed the Ramsey's were involved. Never a thought out opinion because I never gave it that much thought quite honestly. Have been posting here for a number of years and only recently started trying to read up and "educate" myself as far as JonBenet's case goes. Now I'm wishing I would have paid more attention over the years.

My initial reaction, as I start to reflect on this case, is that I am doubtful the Ramsey's were involved. Something as simple as continuing to do interviews or writing books all those years later makes no sense for a guilty person, who would prefer to just let things slip into the darkness. I also find that many of the accusatory things thrown at the Ramsey's frankly are unfair. For instance, the fact that people used and still use the fact that the Ramsey's retained counsel as pointing towards guilt is unfair and wrong. From personal experience (and not on the bad side of things), I know that retaining counsel is not uncommon and is completely unwise to NOT retain counsel immediately. Heck, simple witnesses retain counsel just to attend depositions in civil cases, much less witnesses who could be potential suspects in a criminal case. Makes no sense at all to me that that is held against them, particularly when they were people of means who were used to dealing with and through attorneys.

The other thing that I have found that makes "educating" myself on the FACTS are that it is almost impossible at this point in time. I have never seen a case where so many outsiders have inserted themselves into an investigation itself. It's gotten to the point where, in reading on some sites to learn the facts, their source is actually internet posters. It's crazy. Then you have individuals like Darnay whatever his name is injecting himself and apparently solving the Lindbergh case too before finding anyone and everyone that will listen to him and if lucky, file a lawsuit on their behalf so he can interject himself even further. It's crazy.

Anyways, just some observations from another newbie to the case who came in just assuming one thing but being led in another direction as I read. Oh, and if you know a good source of the facts, please let me know. Heck, even the "Facts" thread here isn't so much an objective recitation of the facts.

 

[gramcracker]

what I would ask: is there not a difference between retaining counsel to attend/advise while you answer questions from LE, and retaining counsel and refusing to meet with LE until/unless they let you set the ground rules? ie: location, duration, frequency, complete access to all police reports and previous statements made by you?

 

[Mama2JML]

Really? What was it about the case that made you think RDI, initially? Which one of the Ramseys did you suspect?

I didn't really "think" about the case, but I suspected a RDI because I was confident that the talking heads (I.e. Geraldo) had access to and only reported the facts. Early on, the media was overwhelmingly of the RDI mindset, and I was incredibly idealistic, naive, and not-so-aware of bias. (I was 16 when JonBenét was murdered.)

Interesting you also bring up the OJ simpson trial? Both cases are very similar in how they are viewed in the media? What is your opinion on the OJ simpson case?

GUILTY AS SIN.

 

[tovarisch]

Why not right this in the three page ransom note. Why resort to such cryptic symbolism that nobody will get. Or better yet, write it in another ransom note and leave it on the lawn or wherever.

JonBenet would have been chosen as a target for one or maybe all of these three reasons:

1.She was John & Patsy's daughter and the killer knew the Ramsey's would be most willing to fit into a ransom demand scenario.
2. The killer had a unique tactical advantage that made the Ramsey's the best available target over other families in the area.
3. She was a target of pedophilic advances that became unavailable to him. Hence required an immediate break in to reach her.

The Bunk, I always like your questions. Because they are not narrow minded and not categorical and they leave the door opened.
Your reason #2, I sign under it with my right and left hands.

The other your question was Why so much of symbolism? I don`t know, but it` was definitely and consistently all over the ransom and the crime scene. I would think it`s individual predisposition to symbolism, instrument of thinking this way. There is ab anaswer in your question- that nobody will get. Exactly, perp(s) wanted a confusion, if we only can correctly read into those symbols. I consider as symbols:
$118,000 – was not this a good one? It`s the MAIN one. But what does it mean? We know it was the size of John bonus. How I read it- We know all your inside matters, fat cat.

Beheaded- in the end of 20-th century in the most democratic county in the world? Perp(s) knew JB had been strangled, not beheaded. How I read this symbol- we are from OTHER historical roots and traditions.

Victory!-symbol of victory of IDEALS, not money, because murder of a child for NOTHING is not a victory, and money was not in their hands, how I read it – we killed the enemy and we booked the spot in the heaven

Foreign faction, S.T.B.C—symbol of existence as a political entity, how I read it- false pretense, wanted to sound significant

Manner the garrote constructed—symbolically ruthless, and useless experts said, how I read it- it`s a war!

Insert of the object into the tiny dead body—symbol of the humiliation, denying JB her innocence, symbol of JB not had been a little girl, but rather a broken doll, object.

Barbie gown and doll- the same, symbol of JB had not been a little girl in their eyes, but rather evil Barbie doll, object.

The other your question made me laugh, but not offensively. You said-Why they had not left additional note on the lawn? It forced me to ask you- Why they had not left their phone number? No offenses, I appreciate you.

**** Today I have discovered Thank you option for other posters’ posts. I start using it from now on. I missed it, but I liked so many posts, I just overlooked this option.

 

[gramcracker]

^^^ altho we disagree as to who did the staging and why, I like your interpretations of each symbol

 

[reedus23]

In my experience, it's not about one side or the other "setting the ground rules". It is about both sides coming to a mutual agreement as to the location, duration, frequency and access to reports/statements. Very typically, that all takes time. The several months (if I remember correctly, it was the end of April or May) is bordering on being lengthy but not so long that it threw up red flags for me. I've seen it take longer to get all of the "ground rules" agreed to with LE. Typically, a lawyer is going to want a comfortable surrounding (their conference room), is going to give LE an hour or 2 but that's it in any one session, is not going to allow endless sessions and absolutely wants to have a copy of prior statements. Typically, LE doesn't want any of those things. If things get contentious between the lawyer and LE in hammering out those agreements, it will drag things out. But no, all of those things you list are absolutely exactly what the lawyer is supposed to be working out with LE.

 

[Anti-K]

So, as a long time RDI, I have decided to review this case as much as possible from a new viewpoint.

Two thing happened recently. I caught PMPT on Lifetime a couple of weeks ago about the same time I finished a book on the Boston Strangler. Unrelated, you might think, but here is my wierd thought process that brought me to this decision.

I have always believed that Albert DeSalvo was not the strangler. That, in fact, he had never murdered anyone.
However, based on recent DNA evidence discovered on the body of the Stranglers last victim, I had to rethink that conviction. I read a book on the subject which was totally based on the theory that he was not the Strangler. In other words supporting my long time theory.

I came away from the book convinced that I was wrong all those years. I now am 100% convinced that he was the Strangler. I was wrong. It's not the first time. I also was once compeltely convinced, like most Americans, that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy and read everything on the subject for, literally, decades. Yet several years ago, I became 100% convinced that LHO acted alone, just as the Warren Commission stated, all those years ago.

So, since I am not feeling 100% on my judgement, I decided to review this case again and try to look at it completely objectively for the possibility that I could have been wrong all these years.

I am re-reading PMPT. There are a couple of things already that I realize I had in my head as being quite different from what they actually were.

One is the extent of grief shown my John Ramsey. There are several reports in the book about his devastation. The other item that really stands out to me is that the Ramsey's were, in fact, very concerned about Burke's security when they sent him back to school. I did not recall that they hired security and that Patsy stated, more than once, that she had already lost one child and was not going to lose another. Which is a very normal reaction under the circumstances, and would tend to ruin the theory that they were never worried as they should have been.

I have avoided this thread out of respect for IDI's and I am still not here to argue. I am curious as to IDI's (especially Anti-K) opinions of PMPT in terms of fairness? I purposely skipped over the Steve Thomas book because I am well aware of the theory there. So far PMPT seems to be a more neutral reporting of the facts.

However, on the other side, there is one other thing I had forgotten about that, IMO, strongly points to my long time theory that PDI. That is the phone call from John to the hardware store asking about what items Patsy charged on those two dates in December. I don't recall the dates exactly, and don't have the book with me, but it was early December.

Any IDI theories on why a man that clearly did not track his wife's spending was suddenly interested in small charges at a hardware store?

I think I went back and forth on DeSalvo for some time, but now, like you, am convinced that he was the Boston Strangler. I haven’t thought about this case in some time, and forget most of the details, but I seem to remember thinking that he may not have committed every crime attributed to the Strangler, but nonetheless he was the Strangler. And, I remember long, long ago thinking that there was some conspiracy that Oswald may have been a part or a pawn of, but no – he did it, and he did it alone.

PMPT? It’s sort of dated now, and of course it has some errors, but it is almost without bias. This is something that I find commendable because I know that many of Schiller’s sources were biased. I think everyone should start with PMPT (actually, I think everyone should start with Douglas’ Anatomy of Motive, and, Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things).

Although I wavered between RDI and IDI for a cpl years, and have spent some time on the fence, I have been convinced of IDI for the last 12+ years. But, I’ve been wrong about all sorts of things in my life, and I could be wrong about this. As a Skeptic I’ve learned to recognize this and to accept it. It’s all about a critical assessment of the evidence and your willingness to revisit that evidence is laudable.
...

AK

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So, as a long time RDI, I have decided to review this case as much as possible from a new viewpoint.

Two thing happened recently. I caught PMPT on Lifetime a couple of weeks ago about the same time I finished a book on the Boston Strangler. Unrelated, you might think, but here is my wierd thought process that brought me to this decision.

I have always believed that Albert DeSalvo was not the strangler. That, in fact, he had never murdered anyone.
However, based on recent DNA evidence discovered on the body of the Stranglers last victim, I had to rethink that conviction. I read a book on the subject which was totally based on the theory that he was not the Strangler. In other words supporting my long time theory.

I came away from the book convinced that I was wrong all those years. I now am 100% convinced that he was the Strangler. I was wrong. It's not the first time. I also was once compeltely convinced, like most Americans, that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy and read everything on the subject for, literally, decades. Yet several years ago, I became 100% convinced that LHO acted alone, just as the Warren Commission stated, all those years ago.

So, since I am not feeling 100% on my judgement, I decided to review this case again and try to look at it completely objectively for the possibility that I could have been wrong all these years.

I am re-reading PMPT. There are a couple of things already that I realize I had in my head as being quite different from what they actually were.

One is the extent of grief shown my John Ramsey. There are several reports in the book about his devastation. The other item that really stands out to me is that the Ramsey's were, in fact, very concerned about Burke's security when they sent him back to school. I did not recall that they hired security and that Patsy stated, more than once, that she had already lost one child and was not going to lose another. Which is a very normal reaction under the circumstances, and would tend to ruin the theory that they were never worried as they should have been.

I have avoided this thread out of respect for IDI's and I am still not here to argue. I am curious as to IDI's (especially Anti-K) opinions of PMPT in terms of fairness? I purposely skipped over the Steve Thomas book because I am well aware of the theory there. So far PMPT seems to be a more neutral reporting of the facts.

However, on the other side, there is one other thing I had forgotten about that, IMO, strongly points to my long time theory that PDI. That is the phone call from John to the hardware store asking about what items Patsy charged on those two dates in December. I don't recall the dates exactly, and don't have the book with me, but it was early December.

Any IDI theories on why a man that clearly did not track his wife's spending was suddenly interested in small charges at a hardware store?

Thanks so much for this post. I completely agree with your sentiment here. There are cases where I believe that someone could not have been guilty only to find out they are. Really Guilty.

In this case, PMPT has a lot of information I have considered over and over but what stands out for me is that DNA. And the Touch DNA. That for me is the trump card. The fact that nothing on her body pointed to one of her family killing her stands out for me.

There are enough evil people in this world and I believe one of them was there in the house that night when they got home and killed her.

There are some cases that don't have DNA and I really need to be convinced. But in this case that DNA sings to me. It tells me who did it, Just not their name.

I believe that John and Patsy grieved deeply for this child and tried as much as they could to protect Burke from harm. I see nothing in their behavior that points to anything but grief and devastation.

I have seen killers put on an act before but it did not look like real grief. This was grief.

 

[gramcracker]

^^^ moved to RDI thread

 

[Tawny]

Nevermind, not the appropriate place.

 

[lawstudent]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how frequently attorneys actually help their clients set something up with police and negotiate the "manner" of it? I was under the impression that most attorneys in this day and age would almost consider it malpractice to let any client with the slightest air of suspicion around him or her to sit down with police. From their standpoint, it is so much riskier than telling an innocent client not to say anything and letting people talk. Especially if they may not have done what they are accused of, but done anything else that could be problematic and cause them to be inconsistent.

 

[Zzzz]

I am trying to learn more about this case and have not yet developed an opinion. I would like to hear from IDIs on why you believe the ransom note was not written by PR, when so much of the handwriting analysis matches her and the paper is sourced to the home. Please, this is a genuine question looking for answers to help me think through - not an argument for or against. I would also like to know how big the DNA sample is, where it is located on the panties and what it is (blood, semen, what?). Why was it not seen at first? Was JB sexually abused over a long period or just that night? Thank you for your input.

 

[Mama2JML]

I am trying to learn more about this case and have not yet developed an opinion. I would like to hear from IDIs on why you believe the ransom note was not written by PR, when so much of the handwriting analysis matches her and the paper is sourced to the home.

The paper, notepad, & pen were sourced to the home, and Patsy's handwriting was far from a match.

Please, this is a genuine question looking for answers to help me think through - not an argument for or against. I would also like to know how big the DNA sample is, where it is located on the panties and what it is (blood, semen, what?). Why was it not seen at first?

DNA was isolated from a few locations on the victim's body & on items within direct contact to the victim.

Was JB sexually abused over a long period or just that night? Thank you for your input.

The evidence, facts, etc. do not persuade me to believe JonBenét was victimized prior to the 25th of Dec., 1996.

 

[reedus23]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how frequently attorneys actually help their clients set something up with police and negotiate the "manner" of it? I was under the impression that most attorneys in this day and age would almost consider it malpractice to let any client with the slightest air of suspicion around him or her to sit down with police. From their standpoint, it is so much riskier than telling an innocent client not to say anything and letting people talk. Especially if they may not have done what they are accused of, but done anything else that could be problematic and cause them to be inconsistent.

Only from my experience, I don't know a single attorney that, once representing a client, would ever allow that client to speak to LE period, without it being a formal, recorded interview that the attorney themselves set up with LE. They would never allow LE and the client to set it up and would never allow the client to do it without the attorney being present.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how frequently attorneys actually help their clients set something up with police and negotiate the "manner" of it? I was under the impression that most attorneys in this day and age would almost consider it malpractice to let any client with the slightest air of suspicion around him or her to sit down with police. From their standpoint, it is so much riskier than telling an innocent client not to say anything and letting people talk. Especially if they may not have done what they are accused of, but done anything else that could be problematic and cause them to be inconsistent.

I never understand why people have such an issue with the R's being really cautious when it came to the police. They were not charged. They were only witnesses. But they were treated in PUBLIC by the police and the DA as if they were guilty. It was obvious that the powers that be were sending messages that they thought they were guilty. Of course, that takes the heat off the police to find the real killer.

They had attorneys and the attorneys are the ones you trust to guide and protect you. If the police really wanted info they should have just agreed all along to their terms. But it was the police who made it hard for them to talk without any cause to.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The paper, notepad, & pen were sourced to the home, and Patsy's handwriting was far from a match.

DNA was isolated from a few locations on the victim's body & on items within direct contact to the victim.

The evidence, facts, etc. do not persuade me to believe JonBenét was victimized prior to the 25th of Dec., 1996.

And for all they know, Someone could have stolen those items at a previous date and then wrote the note and brought it all back to point it to the R's.