RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[andreww]

I feel I pretty much know (as much as anyone can know) what happened in this case now. IMO based upon the totality of information I've read, I'm going with Kolar's theory that Burke did it and his parents covered for him. Is there anyone who could be any more qualified to have an opinion on the case than Kolar, btw? I mean, there are a lot of us amateur crime sleuths but then here we have an experienced, highly trained investigator that was privy to the most sensitive information on the case...one has to acknowledge this in an objective way. That said, I only have one more question. Let me hear your opinion, if you have one. From what I have read about the DA's, Alex Hunter and now Mary Lacy; they both have really gone out of their way to protect or clear the Ramsey's name. Why? I have a theory that seems to fit my BDI belief. I'd like to hear other's theories regarding why the DA's behaved the way they have in this case.

Steve Thomas for one.

 

[andreww]

In my theory there is no legal case to be found, and there hasn't been for many years. If the DA had any inkling of the actual innocence of this boy's actions (i.e. he was covering up the head bash by himself), he might have been more inclined to shield him. A case against the parents was destroyed in the first hours at the scene and thus their lawyers could argue IDI in court forever. If the DA knew that the preponderance of evidence was BDI and it was an accident, then why bring the circus to town? Why try the case? To accuse the mom with ovarian cancer of writing a fake note? The Grand Jury returned the exact indictments needed for a case against the parents as accessories after the fact, but the only way to prosecute was to name the underage son as the "killer" by accusing his sick mom of writing the note, and still probably lose. There was nothing to gain. It was all the more tragic that a child apparently killed his sister trying to save himself from punishment, thinking she was already dead. If true, it is heart breaking.

This DA theory, by the way, applies to Alex Hunter. I think Mary Lacy drank the IDI Kool-aid.

First, lets not paint Patsy as some kind of bed ridden cancer patient. At the time of the crime she was in full recovery and was a strong, confident woman. There was no love between her and LE. As for the cops letting this slide because they knew it was Burke, well that is simply ridiculous. What if the kid had re-offended a year or two later?

I think that Hunter was simply spooked by what had happened to LA DA Gil Garcetti in the wake of the OJ Simpson verdict. Hunter knew that he had a case that was at best "weak". He knew that he'd also have to face some of the best lawyers in the country. He was inexperienced and outmanned and he was handed a case that had just as much media attention as OJ Simpson. He knew losing would likely cost him his job and he knew that the case was unwinnable given his resources. So he simply buried it. When the cops said it was the Ramseys he hired Lou Smit to take it in a different direction.

Make no mistake, this case was never going to court without a confession or a copped plea.

 

[otg]

Is there anyone who could be any more qualified to have an opinion on the case than Kolar, btw?

Steve Thomas for one.

Sorry, andreww, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Not to in any way discredit Thomas, but he was on the case for 20 months after it happened. He resigned before the Ramsey Grand Jury was finished with its investigation. A grand jury is able to subpoena evidence and compel witnesses to testify that a police detective just cannot. Since he was not part of the RGJ process, and since he resigned before it had completed its tenure, he’s unaware of any information that it may have developed -- as well as anything that may have been found after it had been dissolved.

Kolar, OTOH, was hired by Boulder in 2004, and put in charge of the Ramsey case in June of 2005. A lot of investigative work had been done in the seven years between 1998 and 2005. A lot of evidence that Thomas was unaware of had been discovered or developed by the time Kolar was tasked with reviewing all that evidence and leading the investigation.

Again, not to take away anything from Steve Thomas’ abilities, but he just didn’t have the same amount of information that Kolar had available to him.

 

[andreww]

Sorry, andreww, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Not to in any way discredit Thomas, but he was on the case for 20 months after it happened. He resigned before the Ramsey Grand Jury was finished with its investigation. A grand jury is able to subpoena evidence and compel witnesses to testify that a police detective just cannot. Since he was not part of the RGJ process, and since he resigned before it had completed its tenure, he’s unaware of any information that it may have developed -- as well as anything that may have been found after it had been dissolved.

I'd agree with you if anybody of consequence had testified in front of the Grand Jury, specifically John and Patsy. Everybody else that testified also would have talked willingly to police with the exception of Burke. So I highly doubt that anything said to the GJ would have come as a shock to Thomas. Not sure why BPD didn't assign the case to their most experienced detective from day one. It was the first murder of the year, why give it to a rookie detective?

 

[BOESP]

Sorry, andreww, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Not to in any way discredit Thomas, but he was on the case for 20 months after it happened. He resigned before the Ramsey Grand Jury was finished with its investigation. A grand jury is able to subpoena evidence and compel witnesses to testify that a police detective just cannot. Since he was not part of the RGJ process, and since he resigned before it had completed its tenure, he’s unaware of any information that it may have developed -- as well as anything that may have been found after it had been dissolved.

Kolar, OTOH, was hired by Boulder in 2004, and put in charge of the Ramsey case in June of 2005. A lot of investigative work had been done in the seven years between 1998 and 2005. A lot of evidence that Thomas was unaware of had been discovered or developed by the time Kolar was tasked with reviewing all that evidence and leading the investigation.

Again, not to take away anything from Steve Thomas’ abilities, but he just didn’t have the same amount of information that Kolar had available to him.

BBM: care to elaborate on the newly discovered or developed evidence that proves BDI instead of PDI or SEDI? TIA :dunno:

 

[Fides]

First, lets not paint Patsy as some kind of bed ridden cancer patient. At the time of the crime she was in full recovery and was a strong, confident woman. There was no love between her and LE. As for the cops letting this slide because they knew it was Burke, well that is simply ridiculous. What if the kid had re-offended a year or two later?

I think that Hunter was simply spooked by what had happened to LA DA Gil Garcetti in the wake of the OJ Simpson verdict. Hunter knew that he had a case that was at best "weak". He knew that he'd also have to face some of the best lawyers in the country. He was inexperienced and outmanned and he was handed a case that had just as much media attention as OJ Simpson. He knew losing would likely cost him his job and he knew that the case was unwinnable given his resources. So he simply buried it. When the cops said it was the Ramseys he hired Lou Smit to take it in a different direction.

Make no mistake, this case was never going to court without a confession or a copped plea.

Hi andreww,

I agree with you. I think Hunter knew there was no case. I used the cancer patient as an example of the kind of language a defense lawyer could use to destroy the DA's case.

And I did not say the cops let this slide because a child was involved, I said the DA might have backed away because if BR did all physical harm, then there was no one to charge except a distraught mom who wrote a fake note. And even if handwriting experts could agree, that accessory after the fact case was bound to fail because the crime scene was not secured.

Here's another the thing- when a child cannot be charged due to "infant" age, then in my state the case is turned over to social workers and becomes about the protection and treatment of the child perpetrator. CPS or another branch of the state charged with child welfare makes a determination about the child's safety and that his or her mental health needs are not neglected. I recall reading that there was not enough evidence to open a CPS case on BR, but I am sure it was discussed. Perhaps this is why both parents made a point of saying that BR was under the care of a psychiatrist, because that is probably more intensive therapy than most kids will ever receive from the state.

 

[questfortrue]

Steve Thomas for one.

A different counterpoint to Kolar would be Chief Beckner. He also saw the indictment, reviewed reports in the file and spoke to the detectives investigating the case. In his AMA he praises Kolar’s book for its accuracy of evidence, obviously respects Kolar, and comments briefly that he has a different theory of the case. (This is before he made his AMA disappear so as not to cause the city and BPD problems for being forthright.)

 

[questfortrue]

Hi andreww,

I agree with you. I think Hunter knew there was no case. I used the cancer patient as an example of the kind of language a defense lawyer could use to destroy the DA's case.

And I did not say the cops let this slide because a child was involved, I said the DA might have backed away because if BR did all physical harm, then there was no one to charge except a distraught mom who wrote a fake note. And even if handwriting experts could agree, that accessory after the fact case was bound to fail because the crime scene was not secured.

Here's another the thing- when a child cannot be charged due to "infant" age, then in my state the case is turned over to social workers and becomes about the protection and treatment of the child perpetrator. CPS or another branch of the state charged with child welfare makes a determination about the child's safety and that his or her mental health needs are not neglected. I recall reading that there was not enough evidence to open a CPS case on BR, but I am sure it was discussed. Perhaps this is why both parents made a point of saying that BR was under the care of a psychiatrist, because that is probably more intensive therapy than most kids will ever receive from the state.

Regarding the DA's decisions -

JonBenet had been subjected to chronic sexual abuse, and Patsy wrote the note. Besides the explanations of the cause of JB’s death in the autopsy report, those are the only two pieces of evidence I believe for sure.

There are several on our sister site FFJ who think that PR was responsible. And another forum believes a JDI scenario. So, I would say this about the DA’s office. Although the TBs seem to support a BDI scenario, if a portion of the crime was perpetrated by PR and/or JR, it remains a very dark cloud over AH’s and ML’s behavior.

However, if BDI, I think anyone with any kind of decency would hope that whatever BR endured as a child, whatever he did, he has found some kind of peace with his sister’s death.

Where I have a problem considering AH’s and ML’s actions, is in evaluating the aftermath. Was it worth $2+ million and countless hours spent pursuing justice for JBR, only to have the world judge your town and police department as incompetent, vicious dogs, corrupt? (ML is still at large, ‘slamming’ the BPD.) And whether or not we know the answer to the legal question regarding the parents’ child abuse charges, if those charges should have been pursued, whether the case could have been tried or not, I also have to ask was burying the case worth all that happened to innocent people?

Hiding the TBs enabled the Rs and their team to insinuate the FW family into the crime. FW’s son spoke poignantly about beginning his life and having career opportunities tainted by the mention of his name in association with the crime. Many others also had to endure being named by the Rs as perpetrators of the crime and experiencing the “taint” of accusation. So, the Rs went on to poison other innocent people’s lives and ruin careers, and if it was all simply to hide one person’s actions, their son, the karmic weight of the harm to others is a burden the “R” family name will have to carry for perpetuity. As Beckner says, no one will now know what happened without a confession. The case is unprosecutable.

Personally, I still find it reprehensible that AH hid the TBs existence, and that ML "forgave/exonerated" the R family. I don't know how others perceive the DAs' actions, but seeing corruption and cowardice at work don't make me feel very good about our justice system. mho

 

[topcop]

I lean to this theory. In police work we sometimes give a pass to drivers that fall asleep and run into a tree. Not a great analogy, I know, but the theory is they (AH and ML) gave the family a pass on the sympathetic point of view that they damaged mostly their own family and everyone has suffered enough. Also the factor that Burke was probably already a damaged kid and no good would be served to put him in jail.

I have my reservations if they decided this between themselves. Why? Well in my view the damage was not only really done to their own family. Officers and other innocent parties lost their reputations, probably more than a million dollars of taxpayers money was spent, careers were lost, and the list goes on.

 

[CorallaroC]

That is an interesting question, topcop.

Here is my theory of the crime, which proposes that BR staged the wrist and neck ligatures by himself:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?20426-Members-Theories&p=11899603#post11899603

My theory of events supposes that a coverup by BR to avoid punishment was not only possible, it was within the expected framework of moral development for a child his age - see work by Lawrence Kohlberg, good short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.htm

I am not sure most adults understand or recall the very different moral code of children. We tend to underestimate children's desire to avoid punishment and their egotistical reasoning. We romanticize them, forgetting their capacity for cruelty via self preservation. Sure, some children develop higher level moral reasoning early, but most move through the stages at the expected rate. The important point is this: Immature moral reasoning is NORMAL in children. So though this may have been an extreme case of a child avoiding punishment, morally it must be forgiven. And legally, it must be forgotten.

In my theory there is no legal case to be found, and there hasn't been for many years. If the DA had any inkling of the actual innocence of this boy's actions (i.e. he was covering up the head bash by himself), he might have been more inclined to shield him. A case against the parents was destroyed in the first hours at the scene and thus their lawyers could argue IDI in court forever. If the DA knew that the preponderance of evidence was BDI and it was an accident, then why bring the circus to town? Why try the case? To accuse the mom with ovarian cancer of writing a fake note? The Grand Jury returned the exact indictments needed for a case against the parents as accessories after the fact, but the only way to prosecute was to name the underage son as the "killer" by accusing his sick mom of writing the note, and still probably lose. There was nothing to gain. It was all the more tragic that a child apparently killed his sister trying to save himself from punishment, thinking she was already dead. If true, it is heart breaking.

This DA theory, by the way, applies to Alex Hunter. I think Mary Lacy drank the IDI Kool-aid.

Hi Fides, thank you for your theory. I've read it several times, put much thought to it, and I commend you for formulating such a brilliant birds-eye view of this case, Birds-eye over all, and all the way to the tiny details. It all fits imo. Well done, well spoken by you.

 

[CorallaroC]

Regarding the DA's decisions -

JonBenet had been subjected to chronic sexual abuse, and Patsy wrote the note. Besides the explanations of the cause of JB’s death in the autopsy report, those are the only two pieces of evidence I believe for sure.

There are several on our sister site FFJ who think that PR was responsible. And another forum believes a JDI scenario. So, I would say this about the DA’s office. Although the TBs seem to support a BDI scenario, if a portion of the crime was perpetrated by PR and/or JR, it remains a very dark cloud over AH’s and ML’s behavior.

However, if BDI, I think anyone with any kind of decency would hope that whatever BR endured as a child, whatever he did, he has found some kind of peace with his sister’s death.

Where I have a problem considering AH’s and ML’s actions, is in evaluating the aftermath. Was it worth $2+ million and countless hours spent pursuing justice for JBR, only to have the world judge your town and police department as incompetent, vicious dogs, corrupt? (ML is still at large, ‘slamming’ the BPD.) And whether or not we know the answer to the legal question regarding the parents’ child abuse charges, if those charges should have been pursued, whether the case could have been tried or not, I also have to ask was burying the case worth all that happened to innocent people?

Hiding the TBs enabled the Rs and their team to insinuate the FW family into the crime. FW’s son spoke poignantly about beginning his life and having career opportunities tainted by the mention of his name in association with the crime. Many others also had to endure being named by the Rs as perpetrators of the crime and experiencing the “taint” of accusation. So, the Rs went on to poison other innocent people’s lives and ruin careers, and if it was all simply to hide one person’s actions, their son, the karmic weight of the harm to others is a burden the “R” family name will have to carry for perpetuity. As Beckner says, no one will now know what happened without a confession. The case is unprosecutable.

Personally, I still find it reprehensible that AH hid the TBs existence, and that ML "forgave/exonerated" the R family. I don't know how others perceive the DAs' actions, but seeing corruption and cowardice at work don't make me feel very good about our justice system. mho

QFT, your post is very eloquently written and I agree with your sentiments. Wholeheartedly agree. TY

 

[BBB167893]

First, lets not paint Patsy as some kind of bed ridden cancer patient. At the time of the crime she was in full recovery and was a strong, confident woman. There was no love between her and LE.

That's an understatement. For all her pose as a gracious belle, it's clear she was just barely keeping a lid on a boiling cauldron.

I think that Hunter was simply spooked by what had happened to LA DA Gil Garcetti in the wake of the OJ Simpson verdict.

He all but SAID it spooked him.

Hunter knew that he had a case that was at best "weak". He knew that he'd also have to face some of the best lawyers in the country. He was inexperienced and outmanned and he was handed a case that had just as much media attention as OJ Simpson. He knew losing would likely cost him his job and he knew that the case was unwinnable given his resources.

To say nothing of being hounded into and during retirement by an outraged public and intrusive media.

So he simply buried it. When the cops said it was the Ramseys he hired Lou Smit to take it in a different direction.

I've often wondered if someone in the DA's office didn't get in Smit's ear specifically for that purpose.

Make no mistake, this case was never going to court without a confession or a copped plea.

Par for the Boulder course, I'm to understand.

 

[Fides]

Hi Fides, thank you for your theory. I've read it several times, put much thought to it, and I commend you for formulating such a brilliant birds-eye view of this case, Birds-eye over all, and all the way to the tiny details. It all fits imo. Well done, well spoken by you.

Thank you for this generous comment Corallero.

 

[BBB167893]

There's something I'd like to get off my chest, and now is as good a time as any.

There's been a lot of talk about the crime scene staging. One subject is, "how effective was it?"

Let's say it had been effective. To what end? What was the endgame there, if there was one? If it had led to another suspect, would the Rs have let that person possibly be punished, if there had been a conviction or plea bargain?

Susan Smith immediately comes to my mind. If her story had been believed, I shudder to think where it might have led. Same deal with Charles Stuart.

I'm loathe to do it, but let me use a fictional instance just to illustrate: in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond, Terry's father is murdered on orders of his CEO boss for knowing too much. The killer stages the scene to make it look like the murder was committed by a well-known local street gang with whom Terry had an altercation earlier that week (making him think it was revenge, at first). The CEO, a completely heartless and amoral man, seems to have no problem with someone else being targeted by the police for his crimes. One, because he regards other people as lesser beings than himself and has no empathy; two, in this case, the scapegoats are believable because, even if they didn't do THIS crime, they've done other things. (Sounds like JMK)

So, what I'd like to know is what opinions any of you might have on this: was the staging designed to lead to any specific suspect(s), and how far would the Rs have taken it if it did? Because, to my way of thinking, that would truly be evil, and I don't think that PR (JR I don't know about) had that in her.

Let's get it on!

 

[OliviaG1996]

There's something I'd like to get off my chest, and now is as good a time as any.

There's been a lot of talk about the crime scene staging. One subject is, "how effective was it?"

Let's say it had been effective. To what end? What was the endgame there, if there was one? If it had led to another suspect, would the Rs have let that person possibly be punished, if there had been a conviction or plea bargain?

Susan Smith immediately comes to my mind. If her story had been believed, I shudder to think where it might have led. Same deal with Charles Stuart.

I'm loathe to do it, but let me use a fictional instance just to illustrate: in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond, Terry's father is murdered on orders of his CEO boss for knowing too much. The killer stages the scene to make it look like the murder was committed by a well-known local street gang with whom Terry had an altercation earlier that week (making him think it was revenge, at first). The CEO, a completely heartless and amoral man, seems to have no problem with someone else being targeted by the police for his crimes. One, because he regards other people as lesser beings than himself and has no empathy; two, in this case, the scapegoats are believable because, even if they didn't do THIS crime, they've done other things. (Sounds like JMK)

So, what I'd like to know is what opinions any of you might have on this: was the staging designed to lead to any specific suspect(s), and how far would the Rs have taken it if it did? Because, to my way of thinking, that would truly be evil, and I don't think that PR (JR I don't know about) had that in her.

Let's get it on!

Great question! In my opinion, the Rs wanted the stage the scene to give the impression that a real terrorist organization murdered JBR. The "garotte", tying of the wrists, and mention of a "foreign faction" all point in that direction. I think their thought process of, "We have to make it look like terrorists did this," stemmed from marks on JBR's neck caused by a possible shirt strangulation. To cover up those marks, they needed to strangle her with the cord, which is when I think JR had flashbacks of his training in the Philippines and decided the "foreign faction" idea was the only way to go since strangulation of this kind is commonly linked to terrorism.

I don't really think the Rs had any specific people in mind onto whom to place blame when staging the crime, but I think they figured since police were not following up on the terrorists in the note, they started hinting towards the Pughs, the Whites, etc. If any of these "suspects" had ever been arrested, I think whether or not they would defend said person(s) would depend on whom the Rs were covering for. If it was BR, I don't think either of them would've made a peep. If they were covering for each other, I think PR would've cracked much, much easier than JR, if JR cracked at all.

Sorry I rambled a little. All JMO.

 

[UKGuy]

There's something I'd like to get off my chest, and now is as good a time as any.

There's been a lot of talk about the crime scene staging. One subject is, "how effective was it?"

Let's say it had been effective. To what end? What was the endgame there, if there was one? If it had led to another suspect, would the Rs have let that person possibly be punished, if there had been a conviction or plea bargain?

Susan Smith immediately comes to my mind. If her story had been believed, I shudder to think where it might have led. Same deal with Charles Stuart.

I'm loathe to do it, but let me use a fictional instance just to illustrate: in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond, Terry's father is murdered on orders of his CEO boss for knowing too much. The killer stages the scene to make it look like the murder was committed by a well-known local street gang with whom Terry had an altercation earlier that week (making him think it was revenge, at first). The CEO, a completely heartless and amoral man, seems to have no problem with someone else being targeted by the police for his crimes. One, because he regards other people as lesser beings than himself and has no empathy; two, in this case, the scapegoats are believable because, even if they didn't do THIS crime, they've done other things. (Sounds like JMK)

So, what I'd like to know is what opinions any of you might have on this: was the staging designed to lead to any specific suspect(s), and how far would the Rs have taken it if it did? Because, to my way of thinking, that would truly be evil, and I don't think that PR (JR I don't know about) had that in her.

Let's get it on!

SuperDave,
The staging was likely enacted so to point away from any specific suspect and to some generalized intruder. Since much of the forensic evidence originates in the Ramsey household, e.g. ligature, paintbrush, wrist restraints, pen and pad for ransom note, pink barbie nightgown, etc, consider JonBenet's clothing, i.e. longjohns, again these are sourced by PR herself, and the size-12's, well they are part mystery but purchased by PR, so the staging was always going to be unconvincing.

I reckon the staging is intended to explain why JonBenet was not found dead in her bed, along with the ransom note intending to offer a rationale as to why JonBenet might have been moved either from the breakfast bar, bedroom, or train-room to the wine-cellar. The latter destination another reason why it points away from some specific person, since the wine-cellar was so obscure.

The staging accomplishes forensic evidence removal, with JonBenet being wiped down, underwear changed along with being redressed into the longjohns, someone forgot to tell Patsy about the size-12's so she had to fabricate the tale about JonBenet wanting the size-12's!

IMO the staging was all about obsfucating the forensic evidence, i.e. not pointing to an R, the RN scenario was never going to fly, the R's knew this since they knew the deadline would arrive with no demands, by necessity.

Since JonBenet'was dressed with two assymetric ponytails she may have snacked pineapple then went to bed as expected by PR, only later for either BR to visit JonBenet's room or JonBenet to visit BR's room?


.

 

[CorallaroC]

About the staging, I am relieved to read discussions which deeply ponder the scapegoating aspect of this crime - because I strongly believe that forensic psychology does not seem to address the issue well enough.

My opinion is very blunt: any parent or caregiver who contemplates killing a child, or I would even venture to say that anyone who abuses a child in any way, has already in their mind (at least) figured out who or what they will BLAME if they get caught or if they fall under suspicion by authorities. Period.

The human need to find a "scapegoat" is awfully fundamental. So fundamental in fact, the concept is mentioned many times in the Bible both old Testament and most certainly in the New Testament.

A good read is a book The Scapegoat Principle. Small book, not sure if it's still in print. Very enlightening the psychology.

Plus, keep in mind there are parents who have attempted to murder their own child and went so far as to scapegoat THAT CHILD! For example, a house burns down and the parent blames the child by claiming that the child was often reprimanded for messing around with the kitchen stove. Or a teenager blamed for sneaking a cigarette in their bedroom. In the mind of a killer (or even just an abuser) the possibilities for scapegoating ideas are limitless.

Lastly, I would say that anyone who would murder a child, would have no qualms whatsoever about some innocent person being convicted and punished for the crime.

I've said enough. painful subject, sorry

 

[andreww]

There's something I'd like to get off my chest, and now is as good a time as any.

There's been a lot of talk about the crime scene staging. One subject is, "how effective was it?"

Let's say it had been effective. To what end? What was the endgame there, if there was one? If it had led to another suspect, would the Rs have let that person possibly be punished, if there had been a conviction or plea bargain?

Susan Smith immediately comes to my mind. If her story had been believed, I shudder to think where it might have led. Same deal with Charles Stuart.

I'm loathe to do it, but let me use a fictional instance just to illustrate: in the pilot episode of Batman Beyond, Terry's father is murdered on orders of his CEO boss for knowing too much. The killer stages the scene to make it look like the murder was committed by a well-known local street gang with whom Terry had an altercation earlier that week (making him think it was revenge, at first). The CEO, a completely heartless and amoral man, seems to have no problem with someone else being targeted by the police for his crimes. One, because he regards other people as lesser beings than himself and has no empathy; two, in this case, the scapegoats are believable because, even if they didn't do THIS crime, they've done other things. (Sounds like JMK)

So, what I'd like to know is what opinions any of you might have on this: was the staging designed to lead to any specific suspect(s), and how far would the Rs have taken it if it did? Because, to my way of thinking, that would truly be evil, and I don't think that PR (JR I don't know about) had that in her.

Let's get it on!

I think you already know the answer to this Dave. Did the Ramsey's have any problem pointing their fingers at their housekeeper or the Whites? Did they have any problems suing reporters, handwriting experts and authors? Did the Ramsey's stand up and say "that's enough" when JMK tried to take the fall for this crime?

The Ramsey's are an entitled lot, and I think they believe they are a cut above the rest of us. They tolerate our presence when we work for them but no matter how close or friendly they may appear, we are not going to expect an invitation to their next dinner party. For them it would mean nothing for one of us to be sacrificed for their sins.

You know the answer as well as I do Dave, and if Karr had been believed and shipped off to prison, I have no doubt he'd still be there today. And the Ramsey's probably would have written a book about it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BBB167893]

Great question! In my opinion, the Rs wanted the stage the scene to give the impression that a real terrorist organization murdered JBR. The "garotte", tying of the wrists, and mention of a "foreign faction" all point in that direction. I think their thought process of, "We have to make it look like terrorists did this," stemmed from marks on JBR's neck caused by a possible shirt strangulation. To cover up those marks, they needed to strangle her with the cord, which is when I think JR had flashbacks of his training in the Philippines and decided the "foreign faction" idea was the only way to go since strangulation of this kind is commonly linked to terrorism.

I don't really think the Rs had any specific people in mind onto whom to place blame when staging the crime, but I think they figured since police were not following up on the terrorists in the note, they started hinting towards the Pughs, the Whites, etc.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Truth be told, I had a similar conversation a few years ago with another poster, and at the time, I felt that the Rs only switched to the intruder theory that Lou Smit was selling because their original scapegoats (the people you mentioned) didn't pan out. But now, I'm much closer to your idea. As I phrased it not so long ago, they were throwing all kinds of s**t at the wall and seeing what stuck.

If any of these "suspects" had ever been arrested, I think whether or not they would defend said person(s) would depend on whom the Rs were covering for. If it was BR, I don't think either of them would've made a peep. If they were covering for each other, I think PR would've cracked much, much easier than JR, if JR cracked at all.

Sorry I rambled a little. All JMO.

I'm reminded of when the Rs would talk about the possibility of one of their friends being the killer. They always emphasized that they didn't want to believe it. That leads me thinking that they might have actually defended the person. JR even doubted JMK's story.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,
The staging was likely enacted so to point away from any specific suspect and to some generalized intruder. Since much of the forensic evidence originates in the Ramsey household, e.g. ligature, paintbrush, wrist restraints, pen and pad for ransom note, pink barbie nightgown, etc, consider JonBenet's clothing, i.e. longjohns, again these are sourced by PR herself, and the size-12's, well they are part mystery but purchased by PR, so the staging was always going to be unconvincing.

I can see that now. I didn't always.