Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[dodie20]

exactly. If things happened as they said, he would have said 'the world went mad on that night'. According to them, the day was great and it was in the wee hours of the night, (next morning), when things turned bad. Also, his explanation about Christmas doesn't seem right. I'm a parent, and I think I would want the exact opposite. I would cling to the memories of a my daughter's last Christmas being happy and not want to associate her brutal murder with Christmas, especially with her being so young and still believing in santa claus. That whole thing is just wrong. moo

 

[THE BUNK]

exactly. If things happened as they said, he would have said 'the world went mad on that night'. According to them, the day was great and it was in the wee hours of the night, (next morning), when things turned bad. Also, his explanation about Christmas doesn't seem right. I'm a parent, and I think I would want the exact opposite. I would cling to the memories of a my daughter's last Christmas being happy and not want to associate her brutal murder with Christmas, especially with her being so young and still believing in santa claus. That whole thing is just wrong. moo

Right. Christmas day should not be a bad day for JonBenet's memory. It should have been a happy time that abruptly turned into a nightmare in the wee hours.

You can also add the stories of arguments over JonBenet's dress and the JonBenet crying about "how she didn't feel pretty" to this as well.

Add that to the lack of video and photos of that Christmas, you get the feeling that the days prior and Christmas day were not a pleasant period for the Ramsey family.

And the fact that JAR did not join them this Christmas.

 

[dodie20]

I read an interview on here, (cnn, I think), where PR blew me away. She and Thomas were going back and forth and she kept telling him to tell her what happened that night. She wanted to hear him go through it, step by step. At one point, she asked him what she did 1st...wrote the note or murdered her daughter. Which, at the time, seemed like her popping off, but years later, (after finding out there may have been a big time lapse between the head bash and strangulation), it seems telling. At that time, any PR theory, was based on rage=murder=coverup, (essentially an accident gone bad), but here she was putting the idea out there, that she may have written the note before the murder...so maybe there was more going on than a coverup of an accident gone bad. So while ST, gave her the benefit of the doubt on the murder being unplanned, she herself, hinted otherwise. And although most PR theories were based around JR not being involved until after the fact, ST had a little verbal challenge with JR, and IMO, he didn't seem convinced that JR was as innocent as we were all led to believe. Anyway, like you, I think ST got his theory essentially right, but IMO, where he lacked details, he leaned towards giving the Rs the benefit of of the doubt. If he took away all those benefits, I wonder how his theory would evolve? moo.

 

[Anti-K]

Whoa. I really wish you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations. To make the assertion that their theories are not based on evidence is an opinion that you hold, and does not make it fact.

The reason their theories differ so much is actually quite simple, and is the result of 2 critical differences of their investigations. Thomas believed Patsy wrote the note, and given that he concluded she murdered her daughter. He witnessed first hand how Hunter's inaction resulted in opportunities lost, and that critical evidence was lost forever. He saw the reputations of his colleagues disparaged in the media b/c it served the Ramsey's PR machine, and the lives of innocent citizens dragged through the mud b/c the Rs were willing to sacrifice their 'friends' as a means of deflecting suspicion away from themselves. He watched as Hunter negotiated away critical information, while granting the Rs unprecedented concessions in exchange for their "cooperation. He, along with others from the BPD were excluded from participating in the Rs second round of interviews, and he and other key detectives were left out of the GJ process. And when he left the force, the case continued without him, leaving him no opportunity to learn anything new about the case.

Kolar had the benefit of all the work of those who went before him, including Thomas. He also knows what went on in that GJ courtroom. And like Thomas, he watched as the DAs office held onto the idea that an unknown intruder committed this horrific crime, refusing to pursue the Rs involvement b/c Lacey didn't want to "harm her relationship with the Ramseys." He didn't come to his conclusions on a whim, or b/c of an agenda. He spent month after month reviewing the evidence, and believed the evidence pointed toward family involvement. He didn't want it to be true, but he felt it was where the evidence led. Much in the same way Meyer didn't go looking for evidence of prior sexual abuse, but its what he found.

As for for your assertion that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common," that's an opinion you hold, it's not a fact. How about this for a sweeping generalization: why is it IDIs continually demand and expect a detailed explanation of every aspect of this case when it's an RDI viewpoint, whereas IDIs are free from the same burden?

"Anything goes," could very well be a true, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't define that sentiment in the same way. Just like we aren't going to view the evidence in this case the same way.

eace:

Yes, everything I said was IMO. But, I stand firm in my belief that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common." Of course, I realize things aren’t as simple or b&w as that, but...

RDI is composed of PDI, JDI, BDI, and every permutation of those that one can think of, so when you strip it all away what you’re left with is "disbelief in IDI.” Some, a Docg for example, base their theories on this belief. it is a common theme.

Who wrote the note? Some think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey dictated it to Mrs Ramsey, some think one of them wrote it without the other’s knowledge. Some think the note was a message from one Ramsey to the other... etc. So, what’s the commonality? No IDI.
.

I think the bulk of the investigation and evidence gathering was done in Thomas’ time. He may not know the details of what went on with the grand jury, but he certainly would have known, beforehand, much of what was presented to them! Seriously. Most of what would have happened after Thomas left was probably DNA related, and neither Thomas nor Kolar were affected by that.

Indeed, I’d bet money that Kolar’s theory wasn’t influenced by anything that Thomas wasn’t already aware of. If so, what could it be? What piece of evidence (excluding DNA) do you think Kolar saw that Thomas didn’t? I think that piece of evidence would have to be pretty significant because the difference between the two theories is pretty significant. But, I don’t think any such piece of evidence exists. I think these two guys looked at pretty much the same thing and they both saw it in a different way. The only thing they really agreed on was disbelief in IDI.
.

RDI’s are expected to present a more detailed theory because RDI claim to know who committed the crime. When IDI have an identified suspect then they will share the same burden. Some IDI have a firm suspect, Karr for example. Those IDI are expected, and are continually demanded, to provide a detailed description of every aspect of this case, too.

This has nothing to do with RDI, and it is not a special burden put upon you that others are exempt from. It is a burden out on those who accuse and/or condemn another for committing a horrendous act. It’s a very serious accusation, and that sort of accusation – against anyone – is a weighty thing, and should carry a heavy burden.
(excuse errors; rushed... )
...

AK

 

[dodie20]

IMO, the main reason RDI is so confusing though, is because that's the way the R's wanted it. It's not fair for them to muddy the waters, but then have people blame investigators for not knowing exactly who did what. Why not blame the Rs for muddying the waters? Criminals with criminal minds instinctively do anything in their power to beat the system, and IMO, that's what the Rs did. moo.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes, everything I said was IMO. But, I stand firm in my belief that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common." Of course, I realize things aren’t as simple or b&w as that, but...

RDI is composed of PDI, JDI, BDI, and every permutation of those that one can think of, so when you strip it all away what you’re left with is "disbelief in IDI.” Some, a Docg for example, base their theories on this belief. it is a common theme.

It certainly isnt as black and white as that, for sure! Nothing in this case is. And as far as disbelief in IDI being a common theme among RDI, isn't disbelief in RDI the common theme among IDI? And see, I'm not making a blanket statement, I'm asking a question.

Who wrote the note? Some think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey dictated it to Mrs Ramsey, some think one of them wrote it without the other’s knowledge. Some think the note was a message from one Ramsey to the other... etc. So, what’s the commonality? No IDI.

The disbelief in IDI is the direct result of the evidence and where many of us believe it leads. On this board at least I think it's fair to say that a majority of RDIs believed in the Rs innocence at first. Some, like me, believed it for years, b/c despite MSM and the Rs themselves reporting that they were "under suspicion," neither ever really backed up those claims as to why that suspicion existed. And Dodie brings up a very valid point. Refusing to cooperate, and "muddying the waters" doesn't make LE and the public believe your sincere about finding the perpetrator. Having a lawyer is not the issue. Willingness to talk with police in a timely manner is critical in these types of cases. Complete cooperation in a timely manner would have gone a long way in proving their innocence. Not brokering deals in exchange for those interviews, and waiting 4 months to talk with investigators before doing so does not make one look innocent. They have to be cleared regardless of how distasteful the experience is, it has to be done, period. For example there was a discussion the other day about the broken window as a possible point of entry, and the way so many of the "details" were explained in the Rs later statements versus what was said initially. I believe it may have been you (??) who commented that they couldn't be accused of not being forth coming, b/c they relayed the information during their interviews. IA that initially some details could be forgotten or even minimized due to the emotions of the situation, but this is exactly why LE wants to interview immediately, and for as long as it takes. Instead there was never before Info revealed much later, such as the clever chair, and Johns "observance" of strange vehicles in the neighborhood. Those things could have been jumped on immediately, it does very little to forward the investigation when such info is revealed 18 months after the crime. Kolar discusses these opportunies lost, and laments that we'll never know if that info could have proved useful.

Instead of cooperating with police the Rs preferred to go on TV, issue press releases and assemble a team whose main goal was "keeping them out of jail," all while creating a narrative that can never be disputed in a court of law.

I think the bulk of the investigation and evidence gathering was done in Thomas’ time. He may not know the details of what went on with the grand jury, but he certainly would have known, beforehand, much of what was presented to them! Seriously. Most of what would have happened after Thomas left was probably DNA related, and neither Thomas nor Kolar were affected by that.

Indeed, I’d bet money that Kolar’s theory wasn’t influenced by anything that Thomas wasn’t already aware of. If so, what could it be? What piece of evidence (excluding DNA) do you think Kolar saw that Thomas didn’t? I think that piece of evidence would have to be pretty significant because the difference between the two theories is pretty significant. But, I don’t think any such piece of evidence exists. I think these two guys looked at pretty much the same thing and they both saw it in a different way. The only thing they really agreed on was disbelief in IDI.
.

I disagree that Kolar didn't learn anything new, or that despite being excluded from the GJ proceedings Thomas knew what went on. Sure he had a good idea, but he didn't know what was presented as evidence, or more importantly what potential new info was gleaned from testimony.

Thomas never considers Burke's potential involvement. He was never considered, or looked at by anyone in the investigation. Thomas stated this during Larry King. Kolar writes, "My review of the investigation revealed that little attention had been paid to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the events of December 25th and 26th." Bill Nagal admits this to Kolar, and goes on to say how LW "campaigned" Hunter to exonerate Burke. And Gov Owens prodded the DAs office to respond to Kolar's 2nd attempt to get Lacy to consider his theory. her reply to Kolar was scathing as you know, as you recently posted it to discredit him. But what I found more interesting in that letter was that amid her condemnation she clearly illustrates that she had little interest in advancing the case to begin with.

I hired you as my Chief Investigator in July 2005. At that time, we discussed your role regarding the Ramsey case. I was clear in my direction to you that we would follow-up leads from law enforcement and other credible sources that had indicia of reliability. That decision was based upon recent history that involved Chief Investigator Bennett having to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to leads that were marginal at best. We made a deliberate decision to put our investigatory priorities on recent cases. You obviously disregarded my direction. You proceeded without my approval and without consulting with me. You were clearly acting outside of your defined role. Finally, I need to remind you that as of the date of your resignation from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, you are no longer protected by any immunity from civil litigation based on your conduct as an investigator. I recommend that you discuss your unauthorized activities with the City of Telluride’s Risk Management Office to determine what if any liability you current employer might have as a result of your activities.

So in Lacy's view leads from her own lead investigator don't rise to "indicia of reliability?" Why is that? Is she actually saying that Bennett brought leads to her attention developed by law enforcement, and that they were "marginal at best?" All he asked was to explore the possibility of new info. He never claimed, "arrest these people, they're guilty as hell, lock 'em up before they kill again!" And then taken directly from the Rs play book, she throws in the threat of him being sued

RDI’s are expected to present a more detailed theory because RDI claim to know who committed the crime. When IDI have an identified suspect then they will share the same burden. Some IDI have a firm suspect, Karr for example. Those IDI are expected, and are continually demanded, to provide a detailed description of every aspect of this case, too.

This has nothing to do with RDI, and it is not a special burden put upon you that others are exempt from. It is a burden out on those who accuse and/or condemn another for committing a horrendous act. It’s a very serious accusation, and that sort of accusation – against anyone – is a weighty thing, and should carry a heavy burden.
(excuse errors; rushed... )
...

AK

Stating "RDIs claim to know who committed this crime" is an over simplification. Most believe (sorry if I'm speaking for anyone who doesn't hold this view) there was family involvement. And yes, the specifics vary, as they do with IDI. We theorize based on what we know--not a lot--and that's about it. It's all any of us can do regardless of what theory we believe in. Someone commented elsewhere that it all comes down to finding credibility in one set of evidence versus the other. We're not in a court of law here, as RDI I don't have the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, yet we're treated as if we need to operate under that constraint. I don't have all the answers, nor does anyone else. Barring a confession--and even then--we'll never know the whole story. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask IDI to be held to the same standards as is expected of RDI. Replying, "it's not a theory, I'm just throwing it out there," is exactly what RDI is doing. As far as RDI being a serious accusation, well IMO, they have no one to blame but themselves

 

[Chrishope]

Yes, everything I said was IMO. But, I stand firm in my belief that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common." Of course, I realize things aren’t as simple or b&w as that, but...

RDI is composed of PDI, JDI, BDI, and every permutation of those that one can think of, so when you strip it all away what you’re left with is "disbelief in IDI.” Some, a Docg for example, base their theories on this belief. it is a common theme.

Who wrote the note? Some think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey dictated it to Mrs Ramsey, some think one of them wrote it without the other’s knowledge. Some think the note was a message from one Ramsey to the other... etc. So, what’s the commonality? No IDI.
.

I think the bulk of the investigation and evidence gathering was done in Thomas’ time. He may not know the details of what went on with the grand jury, but he certainly would have known, beforehand, much of what was presented to them! Seriously. Most of what would have happened after Thomas left was probably DNA related, and neither Thomas nor Kolar were affected by that.

Indeed, I’d bet money that Kolar’s theory wasn’t influenced by anything that Thomas wasn’t already aware of. If so, what could it be? What piece of evidence (excluding DNA) do you think Kolar saw that Thomas didn’t? I think that piece of evidence would have to be pretty significant because the difference between the two theories is pretty significant. But, I don’t think any such piece of evidence exists. I think these two guys looked at pretty much the same thing and they both saw it in a different way. The only thing they really agreed on was disbelief in IDI.
.

RDI’s are expected to present a more detailed theory because RDI claim to know who committed the crime. When IDI have an identified suspect then they will share the same burden. Some IDI have a firm suspect, Karr for example. Those IDI are expected, and are continually demanded, to provide a detailed description of every aspect of this case, too.

This has nothing to do with RDI, and it is not a special burden put upon you that others are exempt from. It is a burden out on those who accuse and/or condemn another for committing a horrendous act. It’s a very serious accusation, and that sort of accusation – against anyone – is a weighty thing, and should carry a heavy burden.
(excuse errors; rushed... )
...

AK

The various RDI theories are not "based" on disbelief in IDI. Rather, IDI is considered, then rejected as extremely unlikely. From there, theories are developed based on the weight one gives to various "evidence" and how convincing (or not) certain scenarios are.


As for myself, I was never IDI, not even for 5 minutes. As soon as I knew there was a body and a RN in the same house at the same time, I knew she'd been killed by a family member.

Might as well say the same about IDI theories, all they have in common is the "logic" that a parent wouldn't do that to their own child so it must have been the boogeyman. Since no RDI theory can be proven to the satisfaction of everyone in the world, it must be IDI.

 

[questfortrue]

Well, Bettybaby and Chrishope, I think you’ve stated my sentiments already, but I’m gonna chime in on a couple of things.

Some IDI think it was a pedophile, some think it was someone with a grudge against JR, some think it was more than one intruder, some think it was a master criminal mind who wanted to “show up” the FBI and police. So would the commonality for a proponent of IDI theory then be simply it wasn’t one of the Rs?

Statistics actually are on the side of RDI, not for kidnapping scenarios, but for children’s deaths in the homes.

• In the situation of children dying in the home, where the cases have been solved, roughly 80% are attributed to the family.
• Another 14.3% are killed by caregivers – kin or non-kin.
• 5.6% of these deaths are attributed to unknown persons.

These statistics certainly don’t “prove” anything, but certainly do give credibility as to why it is not outlandish to consider family involvement. The idea that there is an extra burden of proof on RDI doesn’t wash with me. There’s no participation in a courtroom here where the “burden of proof” is weighted on the side of the prosecution, since no one here is prosecuting anyone. Like others here, as far as I know, this is merely a discussion forum. It’s the discussion of theories based on the evidence we’ve considered.

Here’s my biggest burden: It weighs on me that no one has been held responsible for a little girl’s death in her home.

JMHO

 

[Anti-K]

It certainly isnt as black and white as that, for sure! Nothing in this case is. And as far as disbelief in IDI being a common theme among RDI, isn't disbelief in RDI the common theme among IDI? And see, I'm not making a blanket statement, I'm asking a question.


The disbelief in IDI is the direct result of the evidence and where many of us believe it leads. On this board at least I think it's fair to say that a majority of RDIs believed in the Rs innocence at first. Some, like me, believed it for years, b/c despite MSM and the Rs themselves reporting that they were "under suspicion," neither ever really backed up those claims as to why that suspicion existed. And Dodie brings up a very valid point. Refusing to cooperate, and "muddying the waters" doesn't make LE and the public believe your sincere about finding the perpetrator. Having a lawyer is not the issue. Willingness to talk with police in a timely manner is critical in these types of cases. Complete cooperation in a timely manner would have gone a long way in proving their innocence. Not brokering deals in exchange for those interviews, and waiting 4 months to talk with investigators before doing so does not make one look innocent. They have to be cleared regardless of how distasteful the experience is, it has to be done, period. For example there was a discussion the other day about the broken window as a possible point of entry, and the way so many of the "details" were explained in the Rs later statements versus what was said initially. I believe it may have been you (??) who commented that they couldn't be accused of not being forth coming, b/c they relayed the information during their interviews. IA that initially some details could be forgotten or even minimized due to the emotions of the situation, but this is exactly why LE wants to interview immediately, and for as long as it takes. Instead there was never before Info revealed much later, such as the clever chair, and Johns "observance" of strange vehicles in the neighborhood. Those things could have been jumped on immediately, it does very little to forward the investigation when such info is revealed 18 months after the crime. Kolar discusses these opportunies lost, and laments that we'll never know if that info could have proved useful.

Instead of cooperating with police the Rs preferred to go on TV, issue press releases and assemble a team whose main goal was "keeping them out of jail," all while creating a narrative that can never be disputed in a court of law.



I disagree that Kolar didn't learn anything new, or that despite being excluded from the GJ proceedings Thomas knew what went on. Sure he had a good idea, but he didn't know what was presented as evidence, or more importantly what potential new info was gleaned from testimony.

Thomas never considers Burke's potential involvement. He was never considered, or looked at by anyone in the investigation. Thomas stated this during Larry King. Kolar writes, "My review of the investigation revealed that little attention had been paid to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the events of December 25th and 26th." Bill Nagal admits this to Kolar, and goes on to say how LW "campaigned" Hunter to exonerate Burke. And Gov Owens prodded the DAs office to respond to Kolar's 2nd attempt to get Lacy to consider his theory. her reply to Kolar was scathing as you know, as you recently posted it to discredit him. But what I found more interesting in that letter was that amid her condemnation she clearly illustrates that she had little interest in advancing the case to begin with.



So in Lacy's view leads from her own lead investigator don't rise to "indicia of reliability?" Why is that? Is she actually saying that Bennett brought leads to her attention developed by law enforcement, and that they were "marginal at best?" All he asked was to explore the possibility of new info. He never claimed, "arrest these people, they're guilty as hell, lock 'em up before they kill again!" And then taken directly from the Rs play book, she throws in the threat of him being sued


Stating "RDIs claim to know who committed this crime" is an over simplification. Most believe (sorry if I'm speaking for anyone who doesn't hold this view) there was family involvement. And yes, the specifics vary, as they do with IDI. We theorize based on what we know--not a lot--and that's about it. It's all any of us can do regardless of what theory we believe in. Someone commented elsewhere that it all comes down to finding credibility in one set of evidence versus the other. We're not in a court of law here, as RDI I don't have the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, yet we're treated as if we need to operate under that constraint. I don't have all the answers, nor does anyone else. Barring a confession--and even then--we'll never know the whole story. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask IDI to be held to the same standards as is expected of RDI. Replying, "it's not a theory, I'm just throwing it out there," is exactly what RDI is doing. As far as RDI being a serious accusation, well IMO, they have no one to blame but themselves

I think everyone should be held to the same standard. But, RDI and IDI most often are saying completely different things, and maybe that’s where the (false) perception of different standards comes from?
.

You cite reasons why, especially in the beginning (not so much now,) the Ramseys should have been considered suspects, and why they warranted investigation. I agree with all that. I just realize that they’ve been investigated to death and nothing came of it.
The Ramseys and the police spent hours together that morning; they were observed, they were talked to; they answered questions and offered information, etc and so on. The fact that the crime changed from kidnapping to murder, almost in front of everyone’s eyes, doesn’t change anything that was gained from those initial hours.

In fact the four month delay should have been an benefit – perhaps to everyone – allowing BPD to collect and receive results from analysis, to interview “witnesses,” to investigate backgrounds, histories, to be advised etc. At any rate, I think that this is the sort of thing that is too often portrayed as b&w.
.

It is not an oversimplification to say that RDI claim to know who committed this crime. This is EXACTLY what RDI claim. The Ramseys did it. You may not agree with which one, or who knew what, etc but you all agree it was the Ramseys: there was NO intruder.
.

Bettybaby00, I think the IDI position is more widely varied than many realize. We’re almost the opposite of RDI. We don’t know what happened and we don’t know who did it. Yes, you can find a KarrDI, a WhiteDI, a McReynoldDI, a HelgothDI, etc, but those have the exact same expectations upon them as RDI. The same standard applies. The same rules. The same expectations. But, IDI have no idea who did it, and we don’t know what happened. IDI is wide open, it’s the specificity of an identified suspect that brings the burden to the claim, but the standard remains the same.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The various RDI theories are not "based" on disbelief in IDI. Rather, IDI is considered, then rejected as extremely unlikely. From there, theories are developed based on the weight one gives to various "evidence" and how convincing (or not) certain scenarios are.


As for myself, I was never IDI, not even for 5 minutes. As soon as I knew there was a body and a RN in the same house at the same time, I knew she'd been killed by a family member.

Might as well say the same about IDI theories, all they have in common is the "logic" that a parent wouldn't do that to their own child so it must have been the boogeyman. Since no RDI theory can be proven to the satisfaction of everyone in the world, it must be IDI.

Chrishope,
I didn’t say that the “various RDI theories” are based on disbelief in IDI. Nope. I didn’t say that at all.
I said that disbelief in IDI was a commonality.
I said that “some, a Docg for example” base their theories on that disbelief.
.

The IDI position does not say “that a parent wouldn't do that to their own child.” Of course parents do terrible things to their children, and worse.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well, Bettybaby and Chrishope, I think you’ve stated my sentiments already, but I’m gonna chime in on a couple of things.

Some IDI think it was a pedophile, some think it was someone with a grudge against JR, some think it was more than one intruder, some think it was a master criminal mind who wanted to “show up” the FBI and police. So would the commonality for a proponent of IDI theory then be simply it wasn’t one of the Rs?

Statistics actually are on the side of RDI, not for kidnapping scenarios, but for children’s deaths in the homes.

• In the situation of children dying in the home, where the cases have been solved, roughly 80% are attributed to the family.
• Another 14.3% are killed by caregivers – kin or non-kin.
• 5.6% of these deaths are attributed to unknown persons.

These statistics certainly don’t “prove” anything, but certainly do give credibility as to why it is not outlandish to consider family involvement. The idea that there is an extra burden of proof on RDI doesn’t wash with me. There’s no participation in a courtroom here where the “burden of proof” is weighted on the side of the prosecution, since no one here is prosecuting anyone. Like others here, as far as I know, this is merely a discussion forum. It’s the discussion of theories based on the evidence we’ve considered.

Here’s my biggest burden: It weighs on me that no one has been held responsible for a little girl’s death in her home.

JMHO

I disagree with a lot of IDI on probably as many aspects of the case as I do with RDI, but I think that one of the commonalities is that we do not see a case for RDI. We see a case for suspicion and cause for investigation, but we think that the investigation, etc places them pretty far down the suspect list. Just a tad above Justin Bieber, maybe.

The other commonality is the - - the evidence: fibers, hairs, DNA, handwriting, contradictory nature of crime, items missing from the home, items brought into the home, contradictory nature of items removed, etc. We see evidence that could be explained by IDI, and a failed case for RDI. Maybe, that’s what we (IDI) have in common.
.

It weighs on all of us. But, how much worse would it be if RDI were indeed false?
...

AK

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
I didn’t say that the “various RDI theories” are based on disbelief in IDI. Nope. I didn’t say that at all.
I said that disbelief in IDI was a commonality.
I said that “some, a Docg for example” base their theories on that disbelief.
.

The IDI position does not say “that a parent wouldn't do that to their own child.” Of course parents do terrible things to their children, and worse.
...

AK

No IDI theory, including the DocG theory, is "based" on disbelief in IDI. Everyone looks at IDI. Many people conclude, after looking into IDI, that it makes no sense and is very very unlikely. Then the proceed to various RDI theories.

But yes, RDI does have the commonality of not believing in IDI, which I guess is what makes them RDI. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Anti-K]

No IDI theory, including the DocG theory, is "based" on disbelief in IDI. Everyone looks at IDI. Many people conclude, after looking into IDI, that it makes no sense and is very very unlikely. Then the proceed to various RDI theories.

But yes, RDI does have the commonality of not believing in IDI, which I guess is what makes them RDI. Thanks for the insight.

It is not uncommon to come across a statement like this: since no one else was in the house (or, since there was no intruder; etc). If this premise is a starting point or an integral aspect of an argument, than it is the basis of the argument.

The elimination of IDI is the starting point for Docg’s theory, it’s the foundation, the basis upon which all else is built. His theory fails if you remove his however-arrived-at-disbelief in IDI. In fact, if you allow for even the remotest possibility of IDI then Docg’s theory would lead to IDI. He must eliminate that possibility.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

It is not uncommon to come across a statement like this: since no one else was in the house (or, since there was no intruder; etc). If this premise is a starting point or an integral aspect of an argument, than it is the basis of the argument.

The elimination of IDI is the starting point for Docg’s theory, it’s the foundation, the basis upon which all else is built. His theory fails if you remove his however-arrived-at-disbelief in IDI. In fact, if you allow for even the remotest possibility of IDI then Docg’s theory would lead to IDI. He must eliminate that possibility.
...

AK

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.

 

[2 percent]

Yes, everything I said was IMO. But, I stand firm in my belief that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common." Of course, I realize things aren’t as simple or b&w as that, but...

RDI is composed of PDI, JDI, BDI, and every permutation of those that one can think of, so when you strip it all away what you’re left with is "disbelief in IDI.” Some, a Docg for example, base their theories on this belief. it is a common theme.

Who wrote the note? Some think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey dictated it to Mrs Ramsey, some think one of them wrote it without the other’s knowledge. Some think the note was a message from one Ramsey to the other... etc. So, what’s the commonality? No IDI.

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?

 

[2 percent]

It is not uncommon to come across a statement like this: since no one else was in the house (or, since there was no intruder; etc). If this premise is a starting point or an integral aspect of an argument, than it is the basis of the argument.

The elimination of IDI is the starting point for Docg’s theory, it’s the foundation, the basis upon which all else is built. His theory fails if you remove his however-arrived-at-disbelief in IDI. In fact, if you allow for even the remotest possibility of IDI then Docg’s theory would lead to IDI. He must eliminate that possibility.
...

AK

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

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

Bugliosi made this statement in September of 1998. He went on to say:

"Well, physical circumstantial evidence—eg, fingerprints, blood, bullets, hair matchups—usually is the very strongest kind of evidence in a criminal case. But nonphysical, circumstantial evidence cases, as the Ramsey case, almost always are the toughest to solve, the most difficult to get a conviction of because we're talking about things like an inappropriate remark. A subtle effort to deflect the investigation. So, this is a very tough case. The only physical evidence that I know of so far are these four fibers that supposedly came from Patsy Ramsey's clothing. And there could easily have been a transference from her clothing to JonBenet's clothing that would have been normal, expected."​

The case has evolved. Investigators have uncovered more physical evidence, and advanced forensic analyses have been conducted. The lack of physical/forensic evidence implicating the Ramseys remains. Has Bugliosi shared his thoughts more recently?

 

[chlban]

Bugliosi made this statement in September of 1998. He went on to say:

"Well, physical circumstantial evidence—eg, fingerprints, blood, bullets, hair matchups—usually is the very strongest kind of evidence in a criminal case. But nonphysical, circumstantial evidence cases, as the Ramsey case, almost always are the toughest to solve, the most difficult to get a conviction of because we're talking about things like an inappropriate remark. A subtle effort to deflect the investigation. So, this is a very tough case. The only physical evidence that I know of so far are these four fibers that supposedly came from Patsy Ramsey's clothing. And there could easily have been a transference from her clothing to JonBenet's clothing that would have been normal, expected."​

The case has evolved. Investigators have uncovered more physical evidence, and advanced forensic analyses have been conducted. The lack of physical/forensic evidence implicating the Ramseys remains. Has Bugliosi shared his thoughts more recently?

Not that I am aware of, but I would certainly be interested in hearing it, although it wouldn't influence by opionion either way. Although certainly an old quote I think it sums it up well. Although I am RDI, I agree with the rest of his commehts as well and have always believed that this is why there was never a trial. I still believe it would possible to convict RDI, if that were possible, but it is not. The charges would, of course, have to be filed against one or both parents (since they could not be filed against Burke). How simple it would be for any defense attorney or attorney's to create "reasonable doubt"?

One only has to read this board, even if giving credence to RDI theories only, to know how difficult it would be to obtain a conviction. Even given RDI-which one or ones?

 

[THE BUNK]

Bugliosi made this statement in September of 1998. He went on to say:

"Well, physical circumstantial evidence—eg, fingerprints, blood, bullets, hair matchups—usually is the very strongest kind of evidence in a criminal case. But nonphysical, circumstantial evidence cases, as the Ramsey case, almost always are the toughest to solve, the most difficult to get a conviction of because we're talking about things like an inappropriate remark. A subtle effort to deflect the investigation. So, this is a very tough case. The only physical evidence that I know of so far are these four fibers that supposedly came from Patsy Ramsey's clothing. And there could easily have been a transference from her clothing to JonBenet's clothing that would have been normal, expected."​

The case has evolved. Investigators have uncovered more physical evidence, and advanced forensic analyses have been conducted. The lack of physical/forensic evidence implicating the Ramseys remains. Has Bugliosi shared his thoughts more recently?

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.

 

[THE BUNK]

The only physical evidence that I know of so far are these four fibers that supposedly came from Patsy Ramsey's clothing. And there could easily have been a transference from her clothing to JonBenet's clothing that would have been normal, expected."

This is the "CSI" effect in a nutshell.