RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[DeeDee249]

The pineapple alone is not proof of their guilt. Is it just one thing of many that implicates them.
And it is correct that R prints would be expected to be found on items from the home- yet the Rs denied owning them.

 

[Chrishope]

The pineapple alone is not proof of their guilt. Is it just one thing of many that implicates them.
And it is correct that R prints would be expected to be found on items from the home- yet the Rs denied owning them.

Maybe the intruder brought the bowl?

That's the thing, why deny owning your own bowl. Why deny buying the pineapple in your own fridge. Just say you don't know when JBR ate the pineapple. It's the lying and denial that rasises suspicion.

 

[Buckethead]

This is what bothers me about many IDIs, they ignore anything that doesn't fit their theory and change time and other facts as they go along.

The same EXACT thing can be said for the "RDIs".

She was being asked to remember pineapple that was out on the counter, the night of the murder.

Uh..............maybe she didn't remember or have any knowledge of it being there. Why is this so hard to understand? If someone commits a crime in your house, should you be crucified if there's a bowl of cherries in the kitchen you don't remember being there?

Exactly. It isn't the pineapple, the bowl or whose prints were on it-

Oh really? Those were the points you were making in your earlier post until I posted and this other guy responded, and now all of a sudden it "isn't" the pineapple. Make up your mind. It either is or it isn't. You just say stuff that is convenient for you post to post.

And medicated or not, I'd remember what my child ate/wore/did on the night she died.

How do you know? Ever been under heavy influence of sedatives for lengthy periods of time? Obviously not or you wouldn't make such a bold statement.

That's what I was trying to say on another thread. The events after the head bash don't fit with a normal parent who had a temporary fit of rage.
There's an abrupt shift in psychology.

Amazing that you understand that aspect of crime, yet still think Patsy did it. That was a good post by the way, just wanted to highlight that part of it. Most don't seem to be able to grasp what it took for that crime itself to be committed in the first place.

 

[Chrishope]

Uh..............maybe she didn't remember or have any knowledge of it being there. Why is this so hard to understand? If someone commits a crime in your house, should you be crucified if there's a bowl of cherries in the kitchen you don't remember being there?

It's not hard to understand. It's also not difficult to understand that the fact that JBR ate pineapple doesn't fit with the story that she was carried upstairs asleep, and put to bed. A story different from the way Burke tells it. It's the denial that's hard to understand. The bowl is there. There's pineapple in the fridge. How bad can memory get? She didn't have alzheimers that we know of.

Amazing that you understand that aspect of crime, yet still think Patsy did it. That was a good post by the way, just wanted to highlight that part of it. Most don't seem to be able to grasp what it took for that crime itself to be committed in the first place.

I lean more towards JR did it, PR helped with the coverup. I'd like to believe an intruder did it, I just can never square the RN with any realistic intruder. Plus the RN is in PR's handwriting.

 

[Buckethead]

It's not hard to understand. It's also not difficult to understand that the fact that JBR ate pineapple doesn't fit with the story that she was carried upstairs asleep, and put to bed. A story different from the way Burke tells it. It's the denial that's hard to understand. The bowl is there. There's pineapple in the fridge. How bad can memory get? She didn't have alzheimers that we know of.

Did you ever wake up in the middle of the night as a child and have a snack? I sure did, and my parents might have had a hard time explaining certain things had anything happened in the night as they had no knowledge of me being up at 1 am eating chips n dip while watching a replay of WWF.

I lean more towards JR did it, PR helped with the coverup. I'd like to believe an intruder did it, I just can never square the RN with any realistic intruder. Plus the RN is in PR's handwriting.

I cant square the ransom note with the Ramseys. Its way too convenient for one of them to have written it. Had Jon or Patsy been the creator of it, the monetary amount would have been much different. They wouldn't have painted a bullseye on their own backs when simply adding a few zeros to the amount would have led LE on a different path.

 

[Chrishope]

Did you ever wake up in the middle of the night as a child and have a snack? I sure did, and my parents might have had a hard time explaining certain things had anything happened in the night as they had no knowledge of me being up at 1 am eating chips n dip while watching a replay of WWF.

Sure I got up and had a snack my parents didn't know about. We keep going over and over the same territory here. It's not that she had a snack, it's the goofy denial that raises suspicion. When the Rs were told that JBR had pineapple, last, in her GI tract, why wouldn't they just say "She must have gotten up at night, sneaked down to the kitchen, and had some pineapple". What cop would have any trouble with that? But why say it's not my bowl. It's not our pineapple. I didn't buy the pineapple in the fridge. They lack credibility.

I cant square the ransom note with the Ramseys. Its way too convenient for one of them to have written it. Had Jon or Patsy been the creator of it, the monetary amount would have been much different. They wouldn't have painted a bullseye on their own backs when simply adding a few zeros to the amount would have led LE on a different path.

I can see the logic of that POV. But doesn't the same logic apply to the intruder? Why would he point back at himself? Why would he paint a bullseye on his back? The intruder has the same incentive to put in extra zeros, and the same disincentive to put 118K.

In fact if this started out as a real kidnapping for Ransom, then the intruder has more incentive to add zeros. Why settle for such a small amount from such a wealthy man?

118K instantly tips off the cops that something is hinky about this case. It immediately makes cops want to investigate everyone who knew the amount of JR's bonus. That group couldn't be very large, so it ends up pointing back to the intruder himself. if the intruder was someone at AG who'd had an argument with JR, that would be known. Police would then have a suspect and a motive. Why would the perp put himself in that position ?

 

[angelwngs]

Someone in the family has NO reason to wipe prints off of anything, INCLUDING murder weapons. Amazing that you don't realize this

Oh, Crap, Buckethead! You just proved that the only intruder theory I thought possible, isn't possible...

An intruder would not have wiped the Ramsey's prints off of their own flashlight and batteries if he was trying to make it appear that the Ramseys did it! (Especially not the batteries!)

Dagnabit. Now it looks as if I am back to an absolute RDI.

 

[UKGuy]

No, it doesn't. Mister Magoo could jump out of a comic strip and kill Jonbenet and the pineapple still has no relevancy regarding the murder itself.

No one is denying that pineapple exists. So there's no point in trying to prove its existence.

So? What's your point? Maybe they didn't feed it to her. There's ZERO proof regarding who fed her the pineapple. If there is proof, either post it or stop insinuating they are lying over such a minor issue of the case regarding the actual murder.

Family prints on the bowl are irrelevant. Surely this has been mentioned here at least a thousand times.

Its a known fact Patsy was heavily medicated in the weeks following Jonbenet's murder(and probably longer). I'm not surprised that details such as what snacks Jonbenet ate in the days/hours/weeks prior are fuzzy.

Go tranquilize yourself and see if you remember what your kid had for a snack a week ago. Then when you cant remember, hopefully you hold yourself to the same standards you've set for Patsy.

Funny you don't ask this same question about Patsy, but that would mean you gotta aim your sights somewhere else.

Someone in the family has NO reason to wipe prints off of anything, INCLUDING murder weapons. Amazing that you don't realize this.

How convenient. The pineapple isn't an issue for the Ramseys. The pineapple was on their property, along with the bowl the pineapple was in. The spoon is also their propery, and fingerprints better be on there somewhere or something is wrong.

Yet you think the pineapple is proof of their guilt??

Buckethead,
You should really have Devil'sAdvocate as your Nickname. Since all you seem to do is promote the contrary or the converse.

No, it doesn't. Mister Magoo could jump out of a comic strip and kill Jonbenet and the pineapple still has no relevancy regarding the murder itself.

The pineapple demonstrates that JonBenet was alive and walking about long after arriving home from the White's. This contradicts the parents assumption that JonBenet was lying sleeping in her bed.

Family prints on the bowl are irrelevant. Surely this has been mentioned here at least a thousand times.

Well you just made that number one thousand and one times, and repetition does not make the evidence go away, any person's prints on the bowl or spoons etc link them to JonBenet when she was alive e.g. not in bed sleeping, and so able to offer an account of events. This may explain why the Ramsey's disowned the tableware, but not the table!

Yet you think the pineapple is proof of their guilt??

No it is proof that this fact is inconsistent with their version of events. As is the fact that JonBenet was discovered wearing size-12 Bloomingdale underwear, yet none was found anywhere in the house, despite Patsy stating she placed the size-12 underwear into JonBenet's underwear drawer in the bathroom.

The bottom line is that the Ramsey version of events is, at best, inconsistent and full of holes.



.

 

[Ames]

Got any examples of real kidnappers leaving 3 page RN's? Look forward to reading them.

I second that! I look forward to reading them too. Chrishope, I believe that we will have to wait for an eternity......tick, tock, tick, tock.

 

[Ames]

Oh, Crap, Buckethead! You just proved that the only intruder theory I thought possible, isn't possible...

An intruder would not have wiped the Ramsey's prints off of their own flashlight and batteries if he was trying to make it appear that the Ramseys did it! (Especially not the batteries!)

Dagnabit. Now it looks as if I am back to an absolute RDI.

Excellent point, angelwings. A real intruder, would have worn gloves..and left the Ramsey's flashlight out, with the Ramsey's prints on it and the batteries.

 

[Solace]

Oh, Crap, Buckethead! You just proved that the only intruder theory I thought possible, isn't possible...

An intruder would not have wiped the Ramsey's prints off of their own flashlight and batteries if he was trying to make it appear that the Ramseys did it! (Especially not the batteries!)

Dagnabit. Now it looks as if I am back to an absolute RDI.

Buckethead sounds familiar.

 

[Solace]

The same EXACT thing can be said for the "RDIs".

Uh..............maybe she didn't remember or have any knowledge of it being there. Why is this so hard to understand? If someone commits a crime in your house, should you be crucified if there's a bowl of cherries in the kitchen you don't remember being there?

Oh really? Those were the points you were making in your earlier post until I posted and this other guy responded, and now all of a sudden it "isn't" the pineapple. Make up your mind. It either is or it isn't. You just say stuff that is convenient for you post to post.

How do you know? Ever been under heavy influence of sedatives for lengthy periods of time? Obviously not or you wouldn't make such a bold statement.

Amazing that you understand that aspect of crime, yet still think Patsy did it. That was a good post by the way, just wanted to highlight that part of it. Most don't seem to be able to grasp what it took for that crime itself to be committed in the first place.

You are a snide poster Buckethead, or should I say Shill.

 

[Ames]

Buckethead sounds familiar.

Yep!!! And I believe that BUCKEThead describes him perfectly.

 

[daffodil]

John said JB was becoming afraid of the dark and the people who should know -J & P-said she wouldnt have got up for a snack.

 

[LI_Mom]

John said JB was becoming afraid of the dark and the people who should know -J & P-said she wouldnt have got up for a snack.

I bet she wouldn't have been afraid if Burke was with her.

 

[coloradokares]

Yep!!! And I believe that BUCKEThead describes him perfectly.

I do not want anyone to worry My DH came home and saw some of the recent posts he is taking me away for a few days. Many of you would worry if you didnt see me .... dont. Love you all coloradokares

 

[BBB167893]

I do not want anyone to worry My DH came home and saw some of the recent posts he is taking me away for a few days. Many of you would worry if you didnt see me .... dont. Love you all coloradokares

We love you too!

 

[angelwngs]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...w=132&prev=/images?q=burke+ramsey&gbv=2&hl=en

Scroll down to the picture with the caption Christmas Morning 1996- It shows PR and JB. PR looks to have her hand holding JB's arm. JB has on the gold cross which was found around her neck when she was found murdererd. Look at the hairstyle JB is sporting for Christmas morning as well as the nightclothes she has on for awakening to find Santa. This top appears to be very thin cotton PJ's or long johns, probably having matching bottoms, which could easily be worn underneath other clothing.

The most important question I had about the picture is if it is indeed labeled correctly, Christmas Morning 1996, I thought PR said that she had already redied JB's roots blonde... They certainly don't look just touched up to me. How about you guys???

Also, look at the Christmas 1996 Party photo with Santa in front of the tree with all the children attending...

 

[LI_Mom]

I do not want anyone to worry My DH came home and saw some of the recent posts he is taking me away for a few days. Many of you would worry if you didnt see me .... dont. Love you all coloradokares

Uh oh..... sounds like CK got sent to the corner. lol

See you when your timeout is over.

 

[LI_Mom]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...w=132&prev=/images?q=burke+ramsey&gbv=2&hl=en

Scroll down to the picture with the caption Christmas Morning 1996- It shows PR and JB. PR looks to have her hand holding JB's arm. JB has on the gold cross which was found around her neck when she was found murdererd. Look at the hairstyle JB is sporting for Christmas morning as well as the nightclothes she has on for awakening to find Santa. This top appears to be very thin cotton PJ's or long johns, probably having matching bottoms, which could easily be worn underneath other clothing.

The most important question I had about the picture is if it is indeed labeled correctly, Christmas Morning 1996, I thought PR said that she had already redied JB's roots blonde... They certainly don't look just touched up to me. How about you guys???

Also, look at the Christmas 1996 Party photo with Santa in front of the tree with all the children attending...

I thought the hair looked ok.... but I'm no expert of hair dying.


Ugh.

I get sick everytime I see the disgusting sexpot pictures of that little child.