RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[eileenhawkeye]

eileenhawkeye.
I'm surprised that JR would do media interviews for this time of year. Of course JR is going to point to some intruder, who else can an exonerated man accuse?

.

Where does it say that John gave an interview?

 

[DeeDee249]

I lean towards your interpretation because the true bills said the R's rendered assistance to someone who committed "first degree murder" of their daughter. Burke could not have been considered responsible for "first degree murder" due to his age, so how could the reference be of him?

Of course it could refer to him. He could not be accused BY NAME. The indictment had to refer to someone. It actually is worded exactly the way it should be if the perp was someone else in the home. No names were needed.

 

[midwest mama]

Of course it could refer to him. He could not be accused BY NAME. The indictment had to refer to someone. It actually is worded exactly the way it should be if the perp was someone else in the home. No names were needed.

OK. So the GJ said "first degree murder", which is an intentional murder executed with malice and aforethought. If we look at a BDI theory, then don't we have to believe BR knew his actions would kill his sister and he did it on purpose? If the GJ saw any evidence indicating JB'S death happened because of any type of accidental accidental action or an act resulting in rage, then wouldn't they have had to use "second degree murder" or "manslaughter" as verbiage?

If the GJ thought the R's were complicit in covering for BR, then they must have thought BR intentionally killed JB?

BRRRR....just too chilling, IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

OK. So the GJ said "first degree murder", which is an intentional murder executed with malice and aforethought. If we look at a BDI theory, then don't we have to believe BR knew his actions would kill his sister and he did it on purpose? If the GJ saw any evidence indicating JB'S death happened because of any type of accidental accidental action or an act resulting in rage, then wouldn't they have had to use "second degree murder" or "manslaughter" as verbiage?

If the GJ thought the R's were complicit in covering for BR, then they must have thought BR intentionally killed JB?

BRRRR....just too chilling, IMO.

midwest mama,
BBM: They patently decided it was no accident. Did they come to the same conclusion as some at WS, i.e. one of the parents asphyxiated JonBenet, but due to not being able to prove who did what, they charged the parents with assisting , leaving the first degree murder charge hanging?

If you accept the general BDI then BR did not intentionally kill JonBenet, only that he likely whacked her on the head, the rest being attributed to the parents? So the GJ need not consider BR on the first degree charge.

The true bills as returned implicate the parents in the staging, but not the murder, and airbrush BR out of the picture. Which was possibly the best result for the R's under the circumstances, certainly not optimal, but with AH chosing not to prosecute, meant the R's could live to fight another day.

The unaswered question is: did the GJ suspect BR was directly involved in the death of JonBenet, but recognizing the legal constraints in naming him, accepted the compromise of charging the parents with assisting and leaving the first degree charge as an open question?

i.e. It was political fix, engineered by AH with the final touch being the announcement that there were no charges levelled against the R's!

.

 

[DeeDee249]

While her DEATH may have been unintended, bashing her on the head WAS a deliberate act, and as such might result in First Degree Murder charges. That bash was NO accident. At his age, BR probably would not have foreseen her death resulting from that act. If someone in that home had been chargeable, I believe they would have been.
Usually, however, Murder One requires premeditation. I have seen no evidence of that, but of course, I have not seen all the evidence. Manslaughter or Murder Two seems more like it to me, based on what I have seen. Again- was the perp chargeable? In this case, I believe not. I also believe it is why AH refused to sign the indictment and lied about there being one.

 

[elannia]

While her DEATH may have been unintended, bashing her on the head WAS a deliberate act, and as such might result in First Degree Murder charges. That bash was NO accident. At his age, BR probably would not have foreseen her death resulting from that act. If someone in that home had been chargeable, I believe they would have been.
Usually, however, Murder One requires premeditation. I have seen no evidence of that, but of course, I have not seen all the evidence. Manslaughter or Murder Two seems more like it to me, based on what I have seen. Again- was the perp chargeable? In this case, I believe not. I also believe it is why AH refused to sign the indictment and lied about there being one.

This is exactly what I think. And I also believed AH lied about the GJ not returning an indictment because someone could not be named and therefore how could he put it out there that they covered for that someone without his being named made public if he had in fact read the true bills that told what the GJ really did indict on. Because then of course people would suspect or know who that person was who the R's covered for.

 

[otg]

OK. So the GJ said "first degree murder", which is an intentional murder executed with malice and aforethought. If we look at a BDI theory, then don't we have to believe BR knew his actions would kill his sister and he did it on purpose? If the GJ saw any evidence indicating JB'S death happened because of any type of accidental accidental action or an act resulting in rage, then wouldn't they have had to use "second degree murder" or "manslaughter" as verbiage?

If the GJ thought the R's were complicit in covering for BR, then they must have thought BR intentionally killed JB?

BRRRR....just too chilling, IMO.

A homicide does not have to be intentional or premeditated, and it does not require malice aforethought, to elevate it to First Degree Murder. If the victim's death is the result of an act (or acts) committed during the commission of certain other felonies (specified in CO Statutes), it is First Degree Murder (M-1) -- even if the resulting death is an accident. Sexual Assault is but one of those specified felonies that were committed against JonBenet during the events that caused her death.

Kolar believes (or at least he has indicated that he believes) that Kidnapping was a felony that was committed which could elevate the homicide to M-1. While technically that is correct (by strict legal definitions of Kidnapping), I think it would be difficult getting a jury to buy the concept of kidnapping since she was never taken away from the house. [I suspect that Kolar is telling us that the charge of Kidnapping could be used (instead of the more obvious Sexual Assault charge) because he only refers to his "Theory of Prosecution" without explaining it to his reader, and he is careful to avoid being too specific in any accusations of exactly what took place.]

 

[otg]

I lean towards your interpretation because the true bills said the R's rendered assistance to someone who committed "first degree murder" of their daughter. Burke could not have been considered responsible for "first degree murder" due to his age, so how could the reference be of him?

Since at the time of the crime, he was 9 years old, in the eyes of Colorado law Burke was incapable of forming criminal intent. Therefore, he cannot (ever) be charged with a felony committed at that time. However, that does not mean that an illegal act cannot be committed by a minor, or that an adult who acts as an accessory cannot be charged for acts committed by them in relation to the act of a minor. Applicable Annotations from C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age) state the following:

Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).
​

The reference to People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911...%20v.%20MILLER) was from a case in which a parent appealed her conviction of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor because the child was too young to be charged with a crime (theft). From that Appeals Court opinion:

Miller first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She asserts that her eight-year-old son was not charged with theft because a child under the age of ten cannot be charged and convicted of any offense. Section 18-1-801, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Thus, according to Miller, since it was impossible for her son to violate any state law, she cannot be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
​

The Appeals Court’s decision states:

Here, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly is concerned with adults who encourage children under eighteen to commit crimes. The statute does not require that the minor be charged or convicted of a crime nor does it require the minor to be over the age of ten.


​

Further, Miller's reliance on § 18-1-801 is misplaced. Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. Rather, in enacting § 18-1-801, the General Assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts. It did not determine that such persons could not commit the acts themselves. Cf. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
​

 

[elannia]

The TOD puzzles me. They say they arrived home at 9:30? and went to bed approximately 10:30(cannot remember exact times) well if her TOD was estimated at 12 or 1 and it was 45 to 90 minutes estimated between the head blow and strangulation then wouldnt that assume that they were still up or had just gotten in the bed. She was still alive after the head blow for some time and what went on for those extra minutes before the strangulation. Time enough for them to figure out the plan. We know she was awake to eat pineapple, and BR said she walked in the house.

 

[DeeDee249]

The TOD puzzles me. They say they arrived home at 9:30? and went to bed approximately 10:30(cannot remember exact times) well if her TOD was estimated at 12 or 1 and it was 45 to 90 minutes estimated between the head blow and strangulation then wouldnt that assume that they were still up or had just gotten in the bed. She was still alive after the head blow for some time and what went on for those extra minutes before the strangulation. Time enough for them to figure out the plan. We know she was awake to eat pineapple, and BR said she walked in the house.

Remember, they SAY she went to bed. In all likelihood, she never went to bed. I believe Patsy never went to bed either, and I am pretty sure JR and BR did not as well. BR probably was SENT to bed after the event(s) in which HE participated and told to stay there no matter what. I do not believe BR participated in any of the coverup- that was the parents. This is also made clear in the GJ indictments.
My time frame has them returning home around the time they stated - 9:30 pm. I feel they DID get JB ready for bed. After that, as the parents busied themselves (especially Patsy) getting the last things ready for the trip, there was a bedtime snack of pineapple, provided either by Patsy or eaten from a bowl that was left out on the table from breakfast. JB and BR were unattended and some sexual activity took place, very possibly upstairs in one of their bedrooms. The head bash happened (I believe the flashlight was used) and the rest took place after that.
Some of the reasons I believe the flashlight was used are that the housekeeper caught BR and JB under the covers on his bed "playing doctor" and using a flashlight under the dark covers. Then there is the unusual wiping down of the light and the batteries (I believe wiping the batteries is unprecedented as far as a crime goes) and also that an identical maglight was used to produce a similar hole in forensic tests. These, combined with the Rs trying to distance themselves from the light by saying they had one "just like it" but this one wasn't theirs because it was "dirty" (in reality, it was the fingerprint powder that made it look dirty) all make me believe the flashlight was the bludgeon that was used to provide the blunt force trauma.
They told the truth about the one thing that could be fairly easily verified- the time they left the White's, made a few stops, and arrive home. After that, behind closed doors with ONLY the family present, there were no other witnesses and all bets were off. They could say whatever they wanted and there is no way to PROVE what happened. The autopsy's discovery of the pineapple was the wrench thrown into their carefully planned coverup. They NEVER expected it to be found and identified as pineapple, let alone matched to the pineapple found on their own table in their own bowl. This is why they tried at first to claim the bowl and pineapple wasn't theirs. Of course, that same bowl was seen in a photo on their table at their party on the 23rd, so they couldn't deny owning it after that. And other pineapple was found in the fridge that matched the pineapple in the bowl and her stomach. So that was the end of trying to say an intruder brought pineapple in- and served it in Patsy's bowl and put the rest back in the fridge. I mean, the crap they tried to throw out there defies reason.

 

[UKGuy]

The TOD puzzles me. They say they arrived home at 9:30? and went to bed approximately 10:30(cannot remember exact times) well if her TOD was estimated at 12 or 1 and it was 45 to 90 minutes estimated between the head blow and strangulation then wouldnt that assume that they were still up or had just gotten in the bed. She was still alive after the head blow for some time and what went on for those extra minutes before the strangulation. Time enough for them to figure out the plan. We know she was awake to eat pineapple, and BR said she walked in the house.

elannia,
The TOD is conventionally somewhere around midnight. You can debate if it should be an hour earlier or later, but as an order of magnitude its a good estimate.

What is more puzzling, is what did the R's do for the rest of the night given the forensic mess they left behind?

Lets assume JonBenet was not killed on 12/25/1996 and that the R's went on vacation as planned. So they return from the White's, with the kids doing whatever they do before bed, and the parents finalising the departure details before they retired to bed.

So a conservative guess is that both children should be in bed before 11:30 PM and the parents say shortly after 12:00 PM?

Yet with the TOD set any time around 12:00 PM or thereafter has, assuming a BDI, both children still awake? This conflicts with the R's early rise the next morning, particularly if they had intended to rise earlier than their version of events suggested?

a minimal explanation is that shortly after arriving home JonBenet snacked pineapple and possibly Burke sipped tea at the breakfast bar discussing the upcoming vacation and their expectations regarding presents? After the snack Burke and JonBenet retired to their bedrooms to settle down for the night, with JonBenet having her hair dressed with assymetric ponytails by Patsy?

Later with both John and Patsy in bed either BR visited JonBenet's bedroom or vice versa. As far as I know nobody has posited BR's bedroom as the primary crime-scene, I've seen no forensic details regarding any discovery in his bedroom. There is nothing to prevent his bedroom being the location where the initial assaults on JonBenet took place.

The latter scenario might help explain away why the children were still awake around midnight. With both PR and JR assuming they were tucked away in bed resting for the early rise next morning?

If JonBenet never went to bed, why does she have assymetric ponytails and probably wearing either a pink barbie nightgown or longjohns?

That Patsy was wearing the same clothes she wore to the White's might simply represent forensic awareness, in that whatever she did wear that night she washed and hung up to dry?



.

 

[midwest mama]

Thanks otg and DeeDee249. Your references, otg, help me to understand why BDI must remain a viable theory. Yes, DeeDee249, we have to remember that the only thing about the timing of JB'S death, as told by the R's, that we can factor into any theory, is approximately what time they left the White's, since it could have been easily validated by more than one witness.

Too many lies from too many key players in this case to ever make heads or tails out of the real truth. And those who have truth to share stay silent. Maddening.

 

[elannia]

We do not know what happened after they arrived home, but the evidence shows JB ate pineapple before she died and there was no intruder who would have fed her pineapple. I believe B when he said she walked in just ahead of PR and thats when she probably went to help her ready for bed. Imo, she had on the pink nightgown and her size 6 panties. Then maybe she went downstairs to eat pineapple, patsy finished up for the trip, maybe this is when JB and BR got into it. Or maybe JB and PR got into it after the snack. Maybe it all started in the kitchen, maybe it startd in JB bedroom. The FL was used for something... what was its purpose? It was wiped clean of all prints. I believe this was the weapon to hit her. But who hit her and where did it happen. Did J and B really mess with a toy he had gotten? Or was that a lie. Did something happen when they got home and P and JB went to ready for bed? So many different things to consider

 

[andreww]

Thanks otg and DeeDee249. Your references, otg, help me to understand why BDI must remain a viable theory. Yes, DeeDee249, we have to remember that the only thing about the timing of JB'S death, as told by the R's, that we can factor into any theory, is approximately what time they left the White's, since it could have been easily validated by more than one witness.

Too many lies from too many key players in this case to ever make heads or tails out of the real truth. And those who have truth to share stay silent. Maddening.

I think that we all have to remember that even though it is quite possible that Burke might struck JB in the head, that is not what killed her. I don't think anybody believes that Burke fashioned the garrote and strangled her to death, so if we are actually talking about the murder aspect, it could have only been one of the parents.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think that we all have to remember that even though it is quite possible that Burke might struck JB in the head, that is not what killed her. I don't think anybody believes that Burke fashioned the garrote and strangled her to death, so if we are actually talking about the murder aspect, it could have only been one of the parents.

It is true that the strangulation ended her life, but she would have died without it, from the effects of the head bash alone. That was a fatal blow without a doubt, and forensic experts agree. The coroner ruled that BOTH the bludgeon and ligature caused her death and listed them "in association" with each other in the autopsy report.

 

[Chelly]

Remember, they SAY she went to bed. In all likelihood, she never went to bed. I believe Patsy never went to bed either, and I am pretty sure JR and BR did not as well. BR probably was SENT to bed after the event(s) in which HE participated and told to stay there no matter what. I do not believe BR participated in any of the coverup- that was the parents. This is also made clear in the GJ indictments.
My time frame has them returning home around the time they stated - 9:30 pm. I feel they DID get JB ready for bed. After that, as the parents busied themselves (especially Patsy) getting the last things ready for the trip, there was a bedtime snack of pineapple, provided either by Patsy or eaten from a bowl that was left out on the table from breakfast. JB and BR were unattended and some sexual activity took place, very possibly upstairs in one of their bedrooms. The head bash happened (I believe the flashlight was used) and the rest took place after that.
Some of the reasons I believe the flashlight was used are that the housekeeper caught BR and JB under the covers on his bed "playing doctor" and using a flashlight under the dark covers. Then there is the unusual wiping down of the light and the batteries (I believe wiping the batteries is unprecedented as far as a crime goes) and also that an identical maglight was used to produce a similar hole in forensic tests. These, combined with the Rs trying to distance themselves from the light by saying they had one "just like it" but this one wasn't theirs because it was "dirty" (in reality, it was the fingerprint powder that made it look dirty) all make me believe the flashlight was the bludgeon that was used to provide the blunt force trauma.
They told the truth about the one thing that could be fairly easily verified- the time they left the White's, made a few stops, and arrive home. After that, behind closed doors with ONLY the family present, there were no other witnesses and all bets were off. They could say whatever they wanted and there is no way to PROVE what happened. The autopsy's discovery of the pineapple was the wrench thrown into their carefully planned coverup. They NEVER expected it to be found and identified as pineapple, let alone matched to the pineapple found on their own table in their own bowl. This is why they tried at first to claim the bowl and pineapple wasn't theirs. Of course, that same bowl was seen in a photo on their table at their party on the 23rd, so they couldn't deny owning it after that. And other pineapple was found in the fridge that matched the pineapple in the bowl and her stomach. So that was the end of trying to say an intruder brought pineapple in- and served it in Patsy's bowl and put the rest back in the fridge. I mean, the crap they tried to throw out there defies reason.

In my opinion, this theory is the most logical.

 

[elannia]

Could this have been a "mercy killing"? Example, someone (I wont say who) bashed her on the head, parents found out, maybe they knew she was dying or thought she was dead, maybe she was having crazy breathing (sorry, I dont know how to put that) and maybe they did it thinking they were helping her, if they knew she would have died, they couldnt take her to the ER, so they set this plan in motion. DeeDee, the pineapple just sums it up for me as well... cannot believe they denied owning the bowl, did they honestly think people would believe an intruder would bring that in with him(well IDI would), but owning up to saying yes, she had pineapple when we got home would mess up their story about her being asleep. Maybe they did not know she ate the pineapple, she could have helped herself, or had help from someone else. But the pineapple puts her being awake after arriving home. Say they were innocent, when they woke and thought she really was kidnapped, would they have noticed the pineapple out on the table while searching for her, If so they would have brought it to attention, I would hope(example: there is a bowl of pineapple out on the table, we did not leave that there, it wasnt there after we got home from the party, etc) But instead they try to deny even owning the bowl.

 

[otg]

The TOD puzzles me. They say they arrived home at 9:30? and went to bed approximately 10:30(cannot remember exact times) well if her TOD was estimated at 12 or 1 and it was 45 to 90 minutes estimated between the head blow and strangulation then wouldnt that assume that they were still up or had just gotten in the bed. She was still alive after the head blow for some time and what went on for those extra minutes before the strangulation. Time enough for them to figure out the plan. We know she was awake to eat pineapple, and BR said she walked in the house.

As DeeDee has pointed out, you can't put too much into what they SAY happened. Because of the pineapple, we know she didn't go straight to bed after they arrived home from the Whites' party. It's possible (maybe) that the 'rents went upstairs to get ready for the next day's trip and then went to bed without knowing about the pineapple snack. But they had to have known she didn't go straight to bed without getting up. That was all denial for the purpose of distancing themselves and Burke from what happened.

Also, just keep in mind that the "45 to 90 minutes" interval is only one person's opinion. Most other experts disagreed with that, so don't put all your faith in its validity.

 

[andreww]

Just a quick question. The Ramsey's say JB was asleep when they got home and that they carried her to bed. As I understand it, her hair was done in pigtails when she was found? And her hair was without pigtails at the Whites? How was that explained by the Ramsey's? Do they suggest an intruder did it?

Am I off the mark here? I can't remember reading anything directly related to her hair but have seen lots of people mentioning it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

As DeeDee has pointed out, you can't put too much into what they SAY happened. Because of the pineapple, we know she didn't go straight to bed after they arrived home from the Whites' party. It's possible (maybe) that the 'rents went upstairs to get ready for the next day's trip and then went to bed without knowing about the pineapple snack. But they had to have known she didn't go straight to bed without getting up. That was all denial for the purpose of distancing themselves and Burke from what happened.

Also, just keep in mind that the "45 to 90 minutes" interval is only one person's opinion. Most other experts disagreed with that, so don't put all your faith in its validity.

otg,
BBM: So who dressed JonBenet's hair with asymetric ponytails?


.