Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[Mama2JML]

And this new evidence has revealed the identity of the killer? It just happens to exonerate the killer, yet it also just happens to point to no real suspect.

The "CSI effect" has spoiled people into believing that finding evidence at a crime scene is a common thing. In truth, often there is very little physical evidence at a crime scene. Most of the time, all you have is the circumstantial evidence.

But, HERE, we have some physical evidence (not a lot as far as we know) and the majority, aside from four fibers, does not implicate the Ramseys in the least. Not only does the totality of physical evidence create reasonable doubt, it establishes a basis for IDI theories.

 

[THE BUNK]

But, HERE, we have some physical evidence (not a lot as far as we know) and the majority, aside from four fibers, does not implicate the Ramseys in the least. Not only does the totality of physical evidence create reasonable doubt, it establishes a case for a general IDI theory.

How does that evidence proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramsey's are innocent if it doesn't beyond a reasonable doubt convict another suspect?

 

[Mama2JML]

How does that evidence proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramsey's are innocent

That is not my argument. Is that what you're looking for? Proof of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt?

if it doesn't beyond a reasonable doubt convict another suspect?

Until/unless LE arrests an IDI suspect and a trial ensues, we won't know.

 

[THE BUNK]

That is not my argument. Is that what you're looking for? Proof of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt? Until/unless LE arrests an IDI suspect and a trial ensues, we won't know.

No, I am looking for the same thing, I assume you are. Justice for Jonbenet Ramsey. I want all bases covered. That is what IDI's argue the police did not do. So why should we make the same mistake? The Ramsey's should remain suspects on this case till another person has been indicted. I see nothing with that logic, do you?

 

[Anti-K]

The Vincent Bugliosi quote:

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…" There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder

As someone with a favored theory, but always open to alternative RDI theories, I think he sums it up pretty well, at least for me. Yes, the main reason I am RDI is my inability to accept the IDI theory for reasons we have all discussed for almost 18 years.

I think Bugliosi describes the problem nicely: If we come to “the conclusion that Jonbenet was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it?”

A case against a Ramsey has to be based on more than “the conclusion that Jonbenet was not murdered by an intruder...”
If all we have is “the conclusion that Jonbenet was not murdered by an intruder...,” than what we have is, “by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys….”

The evidence against the Ramseys is so weak that not only can we not tell which one did it, but if the Ramseys had had a guest that night we would have to include them, too. What if JAR had been there? Four suspects. Melinda? Five; and so on...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

By that logic I could say that IDIs look at the note and say is it a pedophile or a kidnapper or both? Commonality...no Ramsey.
FACT is, the reason RDIs don't consider an outsider wrote the note is because they have already come to the conclusion that a Ramsey Did It. Why in the world would someone who believed it was a Ramsey look at the note and think "aha intruder". Do you, an IDI, look at the note and consider a Ramsey wrote it?

Some IDI are influenced by the lack of incriminating evidence, some by the exculpatory evidence; some by the evidence indicative of an intruder; etc. I think that I most respects IDI and RDI are exactly the same; same coin, different sides.

Yes, I do look at the note and consider that a Ramsey wrote it. I have to. But I accept the conclusions of those experts hired by BPD, as reported through various media. They did not identify an author. Mrs Ramsey was not eliminated (though, not necessarily included) and the only real distinction between her and most others was that she was in the house (which is only meaningful if we conclude “that Jonbenet was not murdered by an intruder.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

bbm
Basic tenets of investigating a murder: Means, Motive and Opportunity
If the opportunity to murder is so important to the investigative body, who are we to ignore it? Again, FACT is that the Ramseys had the best opportunity to murder their child. That's a freaking great stepping stone on the path of this mystery

Yes, we always consider those who had opportunity. But, having opportunity is not indicative of or even suggestive of involvement. As I’ve always said, you are citing a reason why the Ramseys warranted investigation; but, that’s all.
...

AK

 

[elannia]

I watched on ID about a cold case, a young child was murdered and his case was solved after 25 years... why cant we get that done for Jonbenet.... what would need to be done to get people to open this case back up and get justice for JBR.

 

[UKGuy]

I watched on ID about a cold case, a young child was murdered and his case was solved after 25 years... why cant we get that done for Jonbenet.... what would need to be done to get people to open this case back up and get justice for JBR.

elannia,
It has been reviewed on cold-case basis and BR does not wish to be interviewed!

 

[2 percent]

Yes, we always consider those who had opportunity. But, having opportunity is not indicative of or even suggestive of involvement. As I’ve always said, you are citing a reason why the Ramseys warranted investigation; but, that’s all.
...

AK

Like I said, determining opportunity in a crime is a basic step in an investigation. The people with opportunity are always considered and not discarded as suspects until they can prove to the investigator's satisfaction that they did not have the opportunity.
The point is that you are trying to say RDI, in whatever percentage, consider opportunity in this crime more important than you.
No. There is not one RDI that I've seen posting here that believes first and foremost that opportunity is the most compelling evidence against the Ramseys.
Why do you want to minimize the RDIs thought processes, beliefs and theories anyway? It's a waste of space.

 

[Anti-K]

Like I said, determining opportunity in a crime is a basic step in an investigation. The people with opportunity are always considered and not discarded as suspects until they can prove to the investigator's satisfaction that they did not have the opportunity.
The point is that you are trying to say RDI, in whatever percentage, consider opportunity in this crime more important than you.
No. There is not one RDI that I've seen posting here that believes first and foremost that opportunity is the most compelling evidence against the Ramseys.
Why do you want to minimize the RDIs thought processes, beliefs and theories anyway? It's a waste of space.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said what you are implying, at all. Sorry.
...

AK

 

[elannia]

elannia,
It has been reviewed on cold-case basis and BR does not wish to be interviewed!

Burke and Linda Ardnt both need to be interviewed. She talked to Patsy before she died and mentioned stuff to her right? Why wont she talk and get justice for JB. Are LEO or anyone else able to make these people talk?

 

[THE BUNK]

elannia,
It has been reviewed on cold-case basis and BR does not wish to be interviewed!

Why, I can't imagine. If they were cleared, what does he have to risk in helping the investigation? If he was aslepp during the time, then he would have no risks in re-iterating that fact. Unless of course, he has reason to believe the police might know that he wasn't asleep.

This leads me to believe the police have some information or maybe even proof that Burke wasn't asleep. And I think the Ramsey lawyers know this and that is the have told Burke not to talk.

 

[elannia]

Why, I can't imagine. If they were cleared, what does he have to risk in helping the investigation? If he was aslepp during the time, then he would have no risks in re-iterating that fact. Unless of course, he has reason to believe the police might know that he wasn't asleep.

This leads me to believe the police have some information or maybe even proof that Burke wasn't asleep. And I think the Ramsey lawyers know this and that is the have told Burke not to talk.

He wont talk because he knows something obviously. If he didnt know anything one would think that now he is older he would want to find out who killed his sister. Oh he doesnt want to be interviewed one has posted... well of course not when he knows what happened that night. And if she was killed not long after returning home that night someone would have heard something unless they fall asleep super fast. Sorry I just dont see how everyone goes to bed and hears nothing. Burke was just down the hall. It wasnt premeditated remember they had vacation planned. But I believe that it was Patsy JB and Burke awake at the time(john in bed) and I think what happened happened. Their FP on the things on the barbie gown. But if they had called people before the 911 call(lawyers) etc if it were burke that did the deed they would have said he couldnt be prosecuted. But maybe they had to come up with that plan so others wouldnt know the truth about what really happened... moo

 

[THE BUNK]

He wont talk because he knows something obviously. If he didnt know anything one would think that now he is older he would want to find out who killed his sister. Oh he doesnt want to be interviewed one has posted... well of course not when he knows what happened that night. And if she was killed not long after returning home that night someone would have heard something unless they fall asleep super fast. Sorry I just dont see how everyone goes to bed and hears nothing. Burke was just down the hall. It wasnt premeditated remember they had vacation planned. But I believe that it was Patsy JB and Burke awake at the time(john in bed) and I think what happened happened. Their FP on the things on the barbie gown. But if they had called people before the 911 call(lawyers) etc if it were burke that did the deed they would have said he couldnt be prosecuted. But maybe they had to come up with that plan so others wouldnt know the truth about what really happened... moo

Hypnosis might even be an option. I would think putting Burke under might uncover some memories that he does not realize. Maybe he even saw the killer?

I know the results of hypnosis can be sketchy, but why not try i? What do the Ramseys have to loose if they are innocent and cleared by Boulder DA?

 

[elannia]

Hypnosis might even be an option. I would think putting Burke under might uncover some memories that he does not realize. Maybe he even saw the killer?

I know the results of hypnosis can be sketchy, but why not try i? What do the Ramseys have to loose if they are innocent and cleared by Boulder DA?

Exactly. But such a traumatic event taking place you would think he would remember everything. If he wasnt involved you know he has to sit and wonder about his murdered sister. Maybe he is protecting someone and thats why he wont talk. Maybe John now that Patsy is dead? I know the DA cleared them but can they still come back now and file charges or force him to talk?

 

[2 percent]

You’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said what you are implying, at all. Sorry.
...

AK

Let's try this:

I find IDI devotion to the DNA being not only the most important piece of evidence, but also that it has exonerated the Ramseys, a seriously flawed premise on which to base a theory. Especially since it cannot be supported by clear evidence of ingress and egress by an outsider nor does the evidence of the prior sexual assault, that has been confirmed by more than one expert, fit an outsider. The RN does not match the crime nor the mood of the crime and the lack of struggle in areas completely undermines the likelihood a stranger did this, probably a casual acquaintance, too.

This is the first time I've wasted space by bringing up IDI theory flaws in this direct a way. What response do I expect from it? A vigorous defense from IDIs. Why? Because when you say things like this, directly or indirectly, you are looking for a certain response.

***By the way IDIs, please don't respond to this post*** if you can restrain yourself. Although I believe in everything I said I don't like to go about things in this way and won't respond. It is too emotional and not conducive to the kind of discussion I like.

 

[Mama2JML]

Foreign DNA doesn't exonerate the Ramseys, IMO. By itself, the presence of the same foreign, male DNA profile in a few "curious" locations causes me to consider it quite likely a 5th person was in the home that night, and that he had direct, unlawful contact with the victim.

 

[chlban]

Burke and Linda Ardnt both need to be interviewed. She talked to Patsy before she died and mentioned stuff to her right? Why wont she talk and get justice for JB. Are LEO or anyone else able to make these people talk?

I personally think the killer is already dead, Burke cannot be prosecuted for any part he may have played due to his age at the time, and the Statute of Limitations has expired on anything I think John may have done to cover it up.

Of course, like everyone else here, I would love to see a final resolution, but realistically, I don't think it will happen.

 

[THE BUNK]

It should be pointed out that even if there is an intruder, that doesn't mean the Ramsey's are not involved. There are hybrid IDI/RDI theories. JAR was part one. He was part of a theory that friend of his planned the kidnapping as a quick cash grab and botched it

If an intruder suspect were to be found, one of the first questions to be asked is what his connection to the Ramseys is. A quick plea deal implicating the Ramseys would not be out of the question.

Basically what I am saying is RDI and IDI do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

Nor does the Ramsey innocence need to be an all or nothing at all prospect. They could still be innocent of killer their daughter, but one of them could still be guilty of raping their daughter or abetting the killer. Only the Ramsey lawyers and the Ramseys' themselves need it to be a 100% deal.