RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[eileenhawkeye]

If all the press could get was the idea that B and/or the parents might have done it, I take that to mean there wasn't much else. It's not like once the story got even bigger, people spoke up a bit more to explain/defend the assertion or against contradictory claims. I think it is entirely possible they thought B did it, or at least thought it was a possibility, but do not have any big details that we don't. There's nothing else to leak, or at least some of the same sources would have kept talking.

I can buy that the DA wanted to cover for the child, or at least was unsure enough as to the exact circumstances that he didn't want to just pin it on the kid, ruining his life and causing considerable backlash against the parents. But it's still a little weird the way the DA handled it. Not sure what to make of it. I just don't believe the Ramseys were so powerful that they were coddled. I could see police being very reluctant to think it was them, and therefore botching the investigation and then being embarrassed to backtrack, but only for so long. With all the pressure, I would have thought they'd change their minds eventually. Not sure what to make of it.

Re the jackson case - i do not mean just people speaking up, but rather that documents, correspondence, photos, or credible adult witnesses who weren't willing to be paid off would have surfaced. In this case, it was a brief incident so I wouldn't expect correspondence, plus it was pre-Internet domination, and there are docs but they are sealed.

Their lawyers seem powerful enough to me:

http://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/senate/6502/primer/primer2_tip.html

Also, I'm pretty sure the police leaned towards RDI from the beginning. I don't think they were ever relucant to think it was the parents. It was the DA who leaned towards the intruder theory.

I 100% believe that the Ramseys' money and connections played a big part in how this case played out and how the Ramseys were treated.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The Grand Jury heard 30,000 pages of the investigation. Many people testified in front of them. The whole process lasted months. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Grand Jury did not learn any information we do not already know. I also don't think it has to be on the level of "JonBenet was killed by a sex ring of powerful people!" for the tabloids to write about it. They didn't exactly have high standards for what would be considered "news" in this case, and they could always embellish or make up stuff to add to the information they are giving.

 

[BoldBear]

I'm certain that the GJ saw evidence that hasn't been released. I just don't understand how you can get a random group of people and get lucky enough to have every one of them keep secrets--not so much as talk to the dog and have it overheard. If there was something shocking, a really big secret, it's harder to keep. I guess I'd never be a good juror. I could keep the secret during a trial, but not for the rest of my life. Too much of the damn boy scout in me.

Wealth and power is a good point, but you also have to take into account the Ramsey's warmth. Patsy could turn on the 'southern charm' when she needed it. I didn't see much of that in the CNN interview. I'm not sure she was good at that during these types of interviews. It was probably better when you met her in person. I also just finished watching an interview John gave after Patsy passed away. He was warm and affectionate or as someone once said, "cordial". We all look at this as the police screwing up from the first moment and they did. I'm just not too sure if LE wasn't caught-up in the idea that these people were so nice that they'd never do anything bad--they must be victims. I believe that's how Smit felt. LE let their guard down because they saw what they wanted to see and failed to follow procedure. After that, wealth and power came into play; although, I'm not sure if it was just the Ramsey's power. Doesn't it seem odd that this investigation could get derailed by the Ramsey's power alone?

I need to read SD's book. I just hate the idea that I'm going to have to buy and read wood pulp. If that's the way it is, I'll have to get 'old school' for a while. Whatever did these people do late night before they had glowing screens?

 

[BoldBear]

Just ordered the book from Amazon.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm certain that the GJ saw evidence that hasn't been released. I just don't understand how you can get a random group of people and get lucky enough to have every one of them keep secrets--not so much as talk to the dog and have it overheard. If there was something shocking, a really big secret, it's harder to keep. I guess I'd never be a good juror. I could keep the secret during a trial, but not for the rest of my life. Too much of the damn boy scout in me.

Wealth and power is a good point, but you also have to take into account the Ramsey's warmth. Patsy could turn on the 'southern charm' when she needed it. I didn't see much of that in the CNN interview. I'm not sure she was good at that during these types of interviews. It was probably better when you met her in person. I also just finished watching an interview John gave after Patsy passed away. He was warm and affectionate or as someone once said, "cordial". We all look at this as the police screwing up from the first moment and they did. I'm just not too sure if LE wasn't caught-up in the idea that these people were so nice that they'd never do anything bad--they must be victims. I believe that's how Smit felt. LE let their guard down because they saw what they wanted to see and failed to follow procedure. After that, wealth and power came into play; although, I'm not sure if it was just the Ramsey's power. Doesn't it seem odd that this investigation could get derailed by the Ramsey's power alone?

I need to read SD's book. I just hate the idea that I'm going to have to buy and read wood pulp. If that's the way it is, I'll have to get 'old school' for a while. Whatever did these people do late night before they had glowing screens?

The Ramseys started filing lawsuits right around when the GJ was going on/ending. I wonder if that was sort of a "warning"---if you reveal anything that happened at the GJ, you will *pay*. Maybe that explains why we never heard anything immediately afterwards. There was an article with interviews with the GJ members, and none of their names were published. Maybe that was just a decision by the Daily Camera, or all/some of them did not want their quotes attributed to them.

I think warmth is an important factor too. I think that's one of the Ramseys were able to get so much pro-IDI media thoughout the years.

 

[lawstudent]

I'm sure the lawsuits were noted by those involved, but anonymity is usually enough to override that. There are ways of finding out the source, obviously, but usually it is not worth it. Plus, there was almost nothing the Ramseys could have won a suit over - of course, the expense of fighting one is a deterrent in itself, but no one was going to pay. Disobeying the court order was a much more serious issue. I'm surprised more effort hasn't gone into fighting for the release of some of this - there are definitely some constitutional issues that could be argued, especially given the length of time and public interest.

I just keep thinking of the Casey Anthony case - you can sit through months of testimony and not end up with a clear or true picture, or place the emphasis on things that the case scrutinizers would expect you to. It can all blur together. Much of a long trial is redundant - different testimony on the same facts, told in rambling way, setting the stage, asking in question format. Time/length does not equal better or more information. Often the opposite.

 

[Annapurna]

Speaking of Casey Anthony, I had a thought about another trial that had a similar outcome (tons of evidence but no clear story): the OJ Simpson Trial, which


I think the R's were influenced directly by the OJ Simpson trial, the trial of the century. The TV news networks & the papers covered every detail they could. Everyone would be talking about it. Even if one didn't watch the news every night, or the paper every day would not be able to avoid coverage and information about the case. At the very least tabloids in the checkout aisle.

I have reason to believe the R's would have been familiar at the least with some of the major pieces of evidence in the case: The DNA, the defense claiming contamination, reasonable doubt &c. This case also illustrated how a good team of lawyers can spin (If the glove don't fit!). JR was a successful business man, he likely kept up with current events for work & conversation at work. PR, the housewife with young children, frequently traveled & socialized, likely at the very least heard the basics. However for the reasons previously listed I think she likely would have been quite tuned in to the coverage of the case (Side note: I'm a year younger than JB. My mother has told me how everyone was riveted by the case, and she watched it every day while taking care of me... I think thats its where i get my love of mysteries. PR was likely as engaged as my mother was).

So if we can assume for the reasons above that the R's were somewhat familiar with the OJ case I think it explains a lot of the early behavior of the R's."If OJ can get acquitted so can we." PR called a whole lot of people to come over that morning. I believe that the R's combined knowledge of the OJ case lead to this prescient notion of contaminating the scene. Additional contamination may have been the motive of PR's showy lazarus display in which she threw herself on top of the body. Perhaps this was also the reason JR decided to discover the body, though I think there are a variety of reasons for that.
The R's also hired lawyers right away, and for everyone. Good, well connected lawyers to be specific. They also would have witnessed the media frenzy, and they knew that they shouldn't wait to hire lawyers.

This doesn't of course solve the mystery of which R, but I think it might show some evidence of collusion, that they were both directly involved in the crime and or staging in some way.

 

[DeDee]

I'm sure the lawsuits were noted by those involved, but anonymity is usually enough to override that. There are ways of finding out the source, obviously, but usually it is not worth it. Plus, there was almost nothing the Ramseys could have won a suit over - of course, the expense of fighting one is a deterrent in itself, but no one was going to pay. Disobeying the court order was a much more serious issue. I'm surprised more effort hasn't gone into fighting for the release of some of this - there are definitely some constitutional issues that could be argued, especially given the length of time and public interest.

I just keep thinking of the Casey Anthony case - you can sit through months of testimony and not end up with a clear or true picture, or place the emphasis on things that the case scrutinizers would expect you to. It can all blur together. Much of a long trial is redundant - different testimony on the same facts, told in rambling way, setting the stage, asking in question format. Time/length does not equal better or more information. Often the opposite.

IMHO ~ The Casey Anthony verdict was won during Jose Baez' opening statement by placing doubt straight away.

BAEZ: How in the world can a mother wait 30 days before ever reporting her child missing? That`s insane. That`s bizarre. Something`s just not right about that.

Well, the answer is actually relatively simple. She never was missing. Caylee Anthony died on June 16, 2008, when she drowned in her family`s swimming pool. As soon as Casey came around this corner and went back, she saw George Anthony holding Caylee in his arms. She immediately grabbed Caylee and began to cry. And cry. And cry.

And shortly thereafter, George began to yell at her, "Look what you`ve done. Your mother will never forgive you, and you will go to jail for child neglect for the rest of your frickin` life."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/24/ijvm.01.html

 

[DeDee]

Can someone identify the adult that's standing to the far right side in this picture? TIA

ST said the Stine's weren't friends with the Ramsey's, or within their circle of friends, until after the murder but it sure looks like Susan Stine to me at the December 23, 1996 party.

 

[BOESP]

It probably is Susan Stine according to info found here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

 

[OliviaG1996]

Can someone identify the adult that's standing to the far right side in this picture? TIA

ST said the Stine's weren't friends with the Ramsey's, or within their circle of friends, until after the murder but it sure looks like Susan Stine to me at the December 23, 1996 party.

Sounds to me like SS was trying to distance herself and her family from the Rs before (and during) the crime. Gotta ask yourself why she would do that...

 

[DeDee]

SteveThomas (May. 10, 2000 02:04 AM)
ACandyRose (read)

Dear ACandyRose,

SNIPPED for relevance

Hope this answered your question on the pineapple.

Re: the Stine's -- why werent they called by Patsy that morning? In my opinion, the Stine's didnt really become close friends until after this tragedy. I found nothing indicating they were in the Ramsey's close circle before Christmas, although they were acquainted and on freindly terms. But the White's and Fernie's were obviouly much closer.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm


An interesting, archived WS post from 2004 by Ivy RE: The Stine's and the Ramsey's relationship

03-20-2004, 12:06 AM
(While Iwas typing this, BC beat me to the punch...but I'll go ahead and post this without deleting the portions BC already mentioned.)

Although the Stines' son Doug was about Burke Ramsey's age and the two were friends, Susan and Glen Stine were not close friends of John and Patsy's until after JonBenet died. Then suddenly they became very close, and the Ramseys lived with them until moving to Atlanta. During the Ramseys' stay at the Stines', Susan became very protective of Patsy, and was given the nickname "Patsy's pitbull" by reporters.

One thing in particular that makes me raise an eyebrow regarding the Stines is that when Burke returned to school after JonBenet's death, Susan drove Doug and Burke to school every day (and maybe home afterward) without any kind of protection or security device in her vehicle. She (and apparently Glen) didn't appear to be worried that the killer/s could come after Burke and attack them.

Susan Stine is a little odd (LOL...understatement of the day). Here's a Rocky Mountain News article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_2009831,00.html) about Susan sending emails to various people connected to the case while pretending to be BPD Chief Mark Beckner.

For your additional reading pleasure, here's an article that includes a description of one of Susan Stine's "pranks" in which she swiped a reporter's wallet at her door and called the police on him, claiming he was an intruder...and of Glen Stine and John Ramsey chasing a reporter down the street and into a restaurant, where he hid from them in the kitchen. (John also once had an altercation with the author of the article, Boulderite Frank Coffman, a.k.a. "Masked Man," who used to post at WS regularly years ago.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/02291999feedingfrenzy-bw.htm

I don't know how familiar you are with the other case players, but here's a link to a page that will give you a basic idea of who's who.
http://www.acandyrose.com/02291999feedingfrenzy-bw.htm


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5983.html

 

[BoldBear]

Thank you DeDee

 

[DeDee]

The Grand Jury heard 30,000 pages of the investigation. Many people testified in front of them. The whole process lasted months. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Grand Jury did not learn any information we do not already know. I also don't think it has to be on the level of "JonBenet was killed by a sex ring of powerful people!" for the tabloids to write about it. They didn't exactly have high standards for what would be considered "news" in this case, and they could always embellish or make up stuff to add to the information they are giving.

I'll get to this statement in a future post. Hopefully, it will be this year since my sweet but ornery 83yo father with Dementia Alzheimer's lives with me.

"JonBenet was killed by a sex ring of powerful people!"

I began enjoying to read about true crime as a teenager. Charles Manson. Ted Bundy. Dr. Sam Sheppard. Jim Jones. Patty Hearst whom I believe had Stockholm Syndrome. Her book detailed the events of her capture and subsequent treatment. I recall her being chained to the pipes under the cabinet in the bathroom without food or water. Later, as an empty nester, I became hooked on Court TV and watched it all day during the summers when on holiday from teaching.

When the news first broke about JonBenet's death, I purchased every Nat'l Enquirer I could find and still have many of them in an old piece of luggage [along with Princess Diana memorabilia including a copy of her will]. Two things immediately struck me as intriguing in JBRs murder.

1) JBRs sexy costumes and poses for photographs. The black and white checkered dress was gorgeous but really styled more for Vegas and not a 6yo. The startling changes in her costumes through the years can be observed on this page.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-jonbenet-timeline.htm

2) An intruder broke into the home and fed JBR pineapple before he sexually assaulted, banged her on the head and 40 minutes to an hour later, strangled her until she died. Although the coroner could not conclusively state which actually killed her, the head wound or the strangulation, my theory is both occurred but the complete strangulation occurred at home in the basement by PDI because it had to mimic the manner in which she was initially injured.

I think I've finally figured out the complex pineapple issue. I will post it soon on the Pineapple thread. It is my belief that JBR ate the pineapple snack moments before going to the White's home. PR admits the family had a big Christmas breakfast but did not make lunch because the breakfast was enjoyed rather late in the morning. JBR goes out to ride her bike. She enjoys her other toys. She spends time in her room before the family goes to the White's home. She is hungry. She nibbles on the pineapple. They get in the car and leave for the White's party.

I have spent copious hours gathering evidence that points to the conclusion regarding the pineapple but it may take me several days or a week before I can completely compose it succinctly for posting on the aforementioned thread.

 

[Hatfield]

Speaking of Casey Anthony, I had a thought about another trial that had a similar outcome (tons of evidence but no clear story):

....snipped for focus.....

Totally Agree

I just wanted to chime in that the prosecutions approach in the CA trial really bugged me and I do think it helped defeat themselves when they spent days and days and days going over lab results.

They totally lost the jury IMO when they could have just tried to get the main points across. To me, it came across like they were trying to fool the jury with science and I think some of the jury members probably felt the same way.

The reason I know it was overkill was just look how quick the jury took to contemplate the case. Its not like a jury is going to start digging through all that material they spent days and days on. I think more prosecuters need to keep this in mind. Present what you need to but don't overwhelm a jury with tons of stuff they will no way look at during deliberations.

JMO of course

 

[otg]

Can someone identify the adult that's standing to the far right side in this picture? TIA ST said the Stine's weren't friends with the Ramsey's, or within their circle of friends, until after the murder but it sure looks like Susan Stine to me at the December 23, 1996 party.

It is Susan Stine:

Strange, isn't it, how little the Ramseys claimed to have to do with the Stines and how "not close" they were with them prior to JonBenet's death. Yet I would point out the following:

• They all traveled together to spend a weekend in New York with one another prior to JonBenet's death.
• Susan and Doug were at the Ramsey house preparing for the December 23 Christmas party (shown in the above photo).
• The Stines (Glen, Susan, and Doug) were at that December 23 Christmas party -- along with Glen's mother and Susan's mother.
• Susan Stine felt comfortable enough in the Ramsey home to answer the door when BPD responded to the 911 call -- and send them away.
• The Ramseys had presents for three couples whose homes they drove to Christmas night to deliver. They only made it to the Walkers and the Stines. They claim to have decided not to go to the Fernies because of the further distance to their home -- yet after discovering the RN they called the Fernies and not the Stines.
• They felt comfortable enough with the Stines immediately after JonBenet's death that they moved in with them.
• It was Susan Stine who told a friend (not BPD) about overhearing Burke describing to his buddies how JonBenet was killed. This upset the friend so much that she passed the info on to investigators.
• Susan Stine committed a criminal act impersonating and representing herself as Boulder's Chief of Police in order to intimidate witnesses.
• Susan was trusted enough with Burke's safety that she was enlisted to drive him and her son to and from their school when Burke returned to classes.
• Both Stines quit their jobs and moved to Atlanta along with the Ramseys, and Glen went to work for John Ramsey in his new business venture (Jalisco).

If they weren't "close" before JonBenet was killed, they certainly became close afterwards faster than anyone could imagine.

 

[Annapurna]

I agree. The prosecution should not have pressed for Murder 1 with Death Penalty in her case, I believe overconfidence was their downfall.

 

[Annapurna]

I finally re-read the AMA with Kolar, I skimmed it the first time and missed some good parts. I found this quote most interesting:

Based upon my review of those theories, it is my belief that the fingernail marks on JBR’s throat were created when the collar of her shirt was pulled tight around her neck, at the same time that the triangular shaped bruise was formed on the front her neck. Next came the blow to her head that rendered her unconscious.
The garrote could not have been responsible for the triangular bruising, and was applied some period of time later, when JBR was unconscious and unable to struggle against the placement of the cord.
I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR

I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on this? If the cord was not staging (which I've always been iffy on anyways, its so dark & brutal) then what could it be for?

Kolar mentions that the bruise could not have been caused by the cord. That's huge! However it raises some questions for me:

If her shirt had been pulled, was this for control? If that is the case what of the cord? The cord seems to be a "control device" (perhaps a leash, remember on one pageant app PR wrote JB liked to "play kitty")
So I guess in a convoluted way I'm asking where people think this fits in.

By the way otg, I have read your theory on the BDI angle, and I thought your theory is the most cogent so far. I believe that everyone in the house had a part in her death though.

 

[UKGuy]

I finally re-read the AMA with Kolar, I skimmed it the first time and missed some good parts. I found this quote most interesting:



I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on this? If the cord was not staging (which I've always been iffy on anyways, its so dark & brutal) then what could it be for?

Kolar mentions that the bruise could not have been caused by the cord. That's huge! However it raises some questions for me:

If her shirt had been pulled, was this for control? If that is the case what of the cord? The cord seems to be a "control device" (perhaps a leash, remember on one pageant app PR wrote JB liked to "play kitty")
So I guess in a convoluted way I'm asking where people think this fits in.

By the way otg, I have read your theory on the BDI angle, and I thought your theory is the most cogent so far. I believe that everyone in the house had a part in her death though.

Annapurna,
I agree with much of what Kolar says. I do not get his take on the ligature, but then he knows more than me on this subject.

I reckon JonBenet was initially strangled manually, the head bash might represent a first attempt at staging, on failure the ligature is applied.

I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR

I interpret this as: The person applying the ligature intended to asphyxiate JonBenet, i.e. it was no accident of circumstance.

If you analyze the wine-cellar crime-scene: its only JonBenet herself who has been staged, everything else of note has just been dumped into the wine-cellar, JonBenet was redressed, wiped clean, and wrapped in a blanket.

I think the parents staged a crime-scene then abandonded it, opting for the wine-cellar *advertiser censored* abduction scenario, with some items being tossed into the wine-cellar.

The pulling of JonBenet's shirt will have been to restrain her, possibly from escaping to tell Patsy what was happening?

Here is my speculative timeline of events:

1. JonBenet is Sexually assaulted.

2. Manual restraint of JonBenet causing vagus nerve compression, leading to comatose state.

3. Head bash to kill JonBenet, which fails.

4. Ligature asphyxiation to kill JonBenet which succeeds.

5. Crime-scene staged at some unknown location.

6. Latter crime-scene abandoned.

7. Wine-Cellar chosen to implement the abduction plan.

8. Ransom Note authored.

9. Phone 911.




.

 

[Annapurna]

Thanks for the reply UKguy.

This case just keeps me coming back, I can never quite be satisfied with any theories.

I think this line of events makes a lot of sense but I would have one change: I believe that the head bash was part of the motivation for the cord. With the severity of her wound she would possible be convulsing, havinghttp://www.breathsounds.org/rtedu/pattern.html breathing patterns that could be very scary to a kid.

I think perhaps fear was the cause of the second strangulation. A kid raised in a v. religious household, perhaps he thought she was possessed (idk about the ramsey's religion so idk if that would fit).

Just a thought.