Which is strongest RDI evidence?

[chlban]

Do you think they would have had the presence of mind to think as far ahead to BR being interviewed by the police, sometime in the future, before they even placed the 911 call? I seriously doubt it.

The enhanced 911 call does not support the claim that the parents were putting on a show for BR. He asks them What did you find and JR angrily tells him we aren't speaking to you right now. That sounds like JR basically telling BR to go away and stop interrupting what the parents were trying to do.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but here is the point I am trying to make in all this:

1. PR gave an account of what happened before the 911 call, and the RDI here all say she is lying about that account.

2. JR gave an account of what happened before the 911 call, and many of the RDI here say he is also lying about that account.

3. BR gave an account of what happened before the 911 call, and RDI here believe he is telling the truth(??)

If 1 and 2 are true, then I don't understand 3. Why does it follow that BR would be telling the truth about that? True, if he really does not know anything then it would make sense he is telling the truth, but that is a huge assumption to make. I am not BDI, but to think that BR would not have been coached by his parents to give the very account he gave to LE is IMO incorrect thinking. I do not believe BR's account at all about what happened before the 911 call, any more than I believe PR's account about what happened before the 911 call. Why on earth would any RDI believe him?

I don't believe any Ramsey. Ever. That said, although otg's great theory currently has me subscirbing to the BDI theory, when I lean back to my PDI theory, I believe that neither Burke nor John was aware of the cover up. In that theory I would think that John began to catch on after he saw the RN, but did not participate in the initial cover up.

In my PDI theory, Burke would be telling the truth as he knew it. Because if he did not do it, (either the head blow or anything, was completely uninvolved) then why on earth would the parents clue him in? Much better all around if he does not know.

That may be why some RDI's can accept that BR's account is accurate,

 

[Anyhoo]

I don't believe any Ramsey. Ever. That said, although otg's great theory currently has me subscirbing to the BDI theory, when I lean back to my PDI theory, I believe that neither Burke nor John was aware of the cover up. In that theory I would think that John began to catch on after he saw the RN, but did not participate in the initial cover up.

In my PDI theory, Burke would be telling the truth as he knew it. Because if he did not do it, (either the head blow or anything, was completely uninvolved) then why on earth would the parents clue him in? Much better all around if he does not know.

That may be why some RDI's can accept that BR's account is accurate,

I have many issues with BDI so I am not going to discuss that here, but I do want to comment on your PDI theory. For PR to have done it all would take a very different PR than the one I think I know. She is not that difficult to read. PR is not a genius and is not a deep thinker. She is emotional. She is not very smart (as demonstrated by things she has said). For PR to have done it all does not fit this PR, which is why I strongly believe that JR was involved, at least in the cover up if not the murder. His actions on 12-26 almost prove pre-knowledge and involvement in the cover up. I have heard this claim before that JR figured it out and played along, but that is ludicrous to me. I don't know how you can honestly think that.

As I said before, if BR is completely unknowing and innocent, then there is no need for coaching and the parents can let him go with the Whites without worry and can let LE interview him without worry because he knows nothing. That is one possibility. The other possibility is that BR knows something, even if he did not kill his sister. That is the case I am talking about. In that case there would be coaching and BR would be told to tell LE an account that matches the parents cover story. That is all.

 

[Nom de plume]

I don't necessarily believe ANY Ramsey about anything they've ever said. (What are the chances that two known liars are going to raise an honest child?) I guess it all comes down to a couple of questions.

1. Did BR have any involvement in the crime?

Personally, I still can't see this crime being done by BR, but I know BDI is a very popular theory since JK's book came out.

2. Were JR & PR aware BR was awake before the 911 call?

Sure looks like they had to be if you believe the enhanced tape contains his voice.

So if you answer no to question #1, and yes to question #2, IMO it would be necessary for JR & PR to make BR believe the "kidnapping" scenario was genuine. I think it's possible that PR opening his door and turning on the light saying "Oh God!" could have been her just checking to make sure he was still asleep and hadn't witnessed any part of the crime or staging. I don't see it as necessarily her trying to fool BR. I do think, if BR is innocent, and if he didn't see anything happen, they would have had to pretend the kidnapping was real.

But any way you view it, sending him away, for whatever reason they had, just makes them look guilty. IMO it shows knowledge that they knew there was no kidnapping. Funny, PR tells the citizens of Boulder to "keep your babies close!", yet she did the exact opposite! Isn't that a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do"? Hypocrite.

 

[Anyhoo]

Funny, PR tells the citizens of Boulder to "keep your babies close!", yet she did the exact opposite! Isn't that a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do"? Hypocrite.

My take on this if RDI is that a part of PR actually believed their cover story and when she said this, even though she knew the truth, a part of her believed what she was saying.

But there is another way to look at this which does not have PR lying about saying this. We really don't know what happened at that house that night. I am not implying IDI by saying this but just that: PR knew what happened and we don't, so how are we able to accurately judge her words?

 

[questfortrue]

I don't necessarily believe ANY Ramsey about anything they've ever said. (What are the chances that two known liars are going to raise an honest child?) I guess it all comes down to a couple of questions.

1. Did BR have any involvement in the crime?

Personally, I still can't see this crime being done by BR, but I know BDI is a very popular theory since JK's book came out.

2. Were JR & PR aware BR was awake before the 911 call?

Sure looks like they had to be if you believe the enhanced tape contains his voice.

So if you answer no to question #1, and yes to question #2, IMO it would be necessary for JR & PR to make BR believe the "kidnapping" scenario was genuine. I think it's possible that PR opening his door and turning on the light saying "Oh God!" could have been her just checking to make sure he was still asleep and hadn't witnessed any part of the crime or staging. I don't see it as necessarily her trying to fool BR. I do think, if BR is innocent, and if he didn't see anything happen, they would have had to pretend the kidnapping was real.

But any way you view it, sending him away, for whatever reason they had, just makes them look guilty. IMO it shows knowledge that they knew there was no kidnapping. Funny, PR tells the citizens of Boulder to "keep your babies close!", yet she did the exact opposite! Isn't that a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do"? Hypocrite.

BBM

ITA, there’s evidence that BR and JB were taught to conceal (lie) for family image. Behavior evidence is the hardest to interpret, but the difference in statements between the adult R’s and BR is sometimes perplexing and one can’t count on the differences to reveal any absolute truths. E.g., BR said they came back from the W’s party directly. JR and PR claimed they made stops to deliver gifts. BR also claimed initially not to hear anything. Later he amended that to say he may have heard voices in the distance.

Like many, I do believe he was coached. There were several interesting ideas in BR’s interview with the social services psychologist. One comment was that it seemed to her unusual that BR would lie about past bed wetting issues. (Understandable, perhaps, but unusual.) It was also noted by the psychologist that BR was isolated, but he was also quite protective of his parents. That posits, imo, he knew there was something, some reason to protect them. Now perhaps it was nothing big, just he didn’t want them to have to spend more time with LE, so they all “could get on with their lives.” OTOH, maybe the reason he was protecting them (and himself as well - maybe from foster care or from a supervised counseling center?) was really big. moo

 

[CherCher]

FWIR when working for Head Start years ago, in a clerical position, child suspects or victims in a crime could not be questioned by LE without a parent present, unless the parent waived that right. Child "witnesses to a crime" most certainly could be questioned without a parent being present. IF the child victim was purportedly victimized by a parent, then CPS had to be called, and permission granted by a judge to question the minor child. That was a while back, and in NYS. I don't know if laws vary from state to state.

 

[Nom de plume]

My take on this if RDI is that a part of PR actually believed their cover story and when she said this, even though she knew the truth, a part of her believed what she was saying.

But there is another way to look at this which does not have PR lying about saying this. We really don't know what happened at that house that night. I am not implying IDI by saying this but just that: PR knew what happened and we don't, so how are we able to accurately judge her words?

BBM By her actions! She said to "keep your babies close" and she did just the opposite! She & JR sent BR away to the Whites house. Regardless of what happened that night, she said one thing but did another. I don't see what there is to judge, or even analyze. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. JMO

 

[gramcracker]

January 1, 1997

while unavailable for police interviews the Ramseys appeared on CNN: "Keep your babies close." the (unedited) interview lasted for 40 minutes. in reporter/interviewer Brian Cabell's account (including the 45-minute ride to the CNN studio he shared with the Ramseys) no mention was made of a doctor being present, needed, or requested

Lawrence Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town/kindle location 2286

When the Ramseys returned to Boulder from burying JonBenet, Bryan Morgan, their attorney, wrote to John Eller, offering to make his clients available for a joint interview on January 18, at 10:00 AM. Morgan stated conditions: the police could question Patsy for only one hour, and a doctor had to be present, since she was still ill; the location must be somewhere other than police headquarters; the permissible topics were to be determined by Morgan's office; and Morgan himself would select which police officers would conduct the interviews.

A few days later, Eller rejected the offer. In a letter to Morgan, he said that an interview under the specified conditions would not be helpful. "The time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed," Eller wrote. He offered a counterproposal: he wanted to interview the Ramseys separately on Friday, January 24, at 6:00 PM, and he would not consider any restrictions on the length or the place of the interviews. Eller waited for a reply.

kindle location 2773

On January 21, Bryan Morgan hand-delivered his reply to John Eller's letter concerning the Ramseys' interviews. Morgan rejected the police department's request that the Ramseys be interviewed on Friday, January 24. In his letter, he characterized Eller's conditions as cruel and insensitive. To start an interview at 6:00 PM without a cutoff time meant that they could still be sitting there at 1:00 in the morning.

kindle location 3240

Boulder police have declined to meet with the parents of JonBenet Ramsey unless they come to police headquarters, which they will not do, Ramsey family spokesman Pat Korten said.

"Are we willing to negotiate the terms of such an arrangement? Of course we are, and we always have been," he added. "While we're happy to talk, we're not going to come to police headquarters."

- Kerri S. Smith and Mary George The Denver Post, February 11, 1997

kindle location 4296

JonBenet Ramsey's mother has hired a second attorney, sources close to the investigation said Friday.

Patrick Furman, a criminal law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, has joined attorney Patrick Burke to represent Patsy Ramsey, the sources said.

- Charlie Brennan Rocky Mountain News, March 1, 1997

The Ramsey defense team now included Patrick Burke and Patrick furman, who represented Patsy, while Bryan Morgan, Hal Haddon, and Lee Foreman represented John.

kindle location 4462

On May 18, at Mike Bynum's law offices, the Ramseys' experts - Howard Rile, a former handwriting analyst for the CBI now based in California, and Lloyd Cunningham, a retired San Francisco police handwriting expert who had worked on the Zodiac serial murders, pored over the original note from 9:00 AM to 12:30 PM.

kindle location 4561

March 1997

Then, Chief Koby received a letter from Bryan Morgan. Presumably, Morgan wanted to deal with Eller's boss because the Ramseys still hadn't gotten over the commander's attempt to withhold JonBenet's body. Morgan requested a meeting to discuss the pending issues, among them John's and Patsy's interviews and the possible waiver of attorney-client privilege in any meeting between the Ramseys, their lawyers, and the police. Koby passed the letter on to Hofstrom, placing him back in the middle. Hofstrom told Morgan that topics discussed in such a meeting would not be used against the Ramseys in court. However, any lead developed or evidence discovered as a result of any discussion could be used in a future prosecution. Hofstrom told Hunter he hoped that these exchanges would lead to the formal interviews the police wanted.

it was reported on March 21, 1997 that the Ramsey legal team hired forensic scientist Moses Schanfield to monitor additional DNA testing

kindle location 5280

By April 11, Hofstrom thought that his attempt to broker a deal for the Ramseys' formal interviews with the police had progressed far enough, and he suggested a meeting. Patsy and John Ramsey, their attorneys, and Tom Wickman of the Boulder police met to see if the deadlock could be broken.

[snip]

The attorneys suggested conditions under which their clients would grant interviews to the police: John and Patsy would be interviewed separately, each for no more than two hours. There would be a two-hour lunch break between their interviews, when the Ramseys could consult with their attorneys, advisers, and experts. Under the law, they could have their attorneys present, and the questioning would take place in the office of a neutral Boulder attorney. The most important condition was that the Ramseys' attorneys be given copies of all written police reports that contained statements made by their clients between December 26 and December 28.

After the meeting, Hofstrom and Hunter discussed the conditions. The DA told Eller and Wickman that he saw little point in withholding the documents that had been requested. If the Ramseys were charged, Hofstrom told the police, they would obtain the documents anyway, as part of the discovery process.

But the Ramseys hadn't been charged, Wickman and Eller insisted - they were only suspects. The police were furious that they'd had to wait so long for interviews. Now, on top of the delay, the Ramseys wanted to see their prior statements to the police. Wickman and Eller thought it would compromise the interview process, if not the entire case. Reminded of what they had told the police earlier, the Ramseys could tailor their new answers accordingly.

But Hunter could understand why their attorneys wanted the Ramseys' earlier statements - it was likely they were already looking at their clients as charged defendants. "These people aren't right off the boat," was how the DA put it. "It was obvious they were prime suspects from the first days of the investigation." There was nothing out of the ordinary about the police having to wait to interview the Ramseys - any good defense lawyer would have tried to delay his clients' interrogation.

Hofstrom negotiated with the police, and Eller and Koby grudgingly agreed that the DA could release the statements the Ramseys had made to the police, though not the entire contents of the officers' reports. The police would hand over a total of twenty-six pages. The decision infuriated Steve Thomas, who had been selected to interview Patsy. It would be like having one hand tied behind his back.

the irony is indeed rich, that a DA approved of and had no problem cooperating with defense tactics

 

[Tawny]

IMO, the very fact that they were "unavailable" for police interviews but had plenty of time to appear on CNN doesn't just speak volumes, it screams volumes.

They wanted the public on their side.

 

[chlban]

On January 21, Bryan Morgan hand-delivered his reply to John Eller's letter concerning the Ramseys' interviews. Morgan rejected the police department's request that the Ramseys be interviewed on Friday, January 24. In his letter, he characterized Eller's conditions as cruel and insensitive. To start an interview at 6:00 PM without a cutoff time meant that they could still be sitting there at 1:00 in the morning.

Seriously? An "intruder" has come into your home on Christmas night and "kidnapped" your daughter (to the basement), sexually molested and brutally murdered her. But the idea of having to speak to the police for say up to seven whole hours is cruel and insensitive?

God forbid you be "inconvenienced" with these messy details.

I have said it before, I will say it again. If I disregarded all of the fibers, the ransom note, the fact that virtually everything used in the crime came from inside the house and there was absolutely no sign of any kind of forced entry.
Take all of that away.

The actions of those two horrid, horrid people is enough to convict.

Innocent parents simply do not act like that. Sorry, they just don't.

 

[chlban]

IMO, the very fact that they were "unavailable" for police interviews but had plenty of time to appear on CNN doesn't just speak volumes, it screams volumes.

They wanted the public on their side.

And that worked out well for them, didn't it?

 

[Nom de plume]

Yes, it's all quite telling. They, PR especially, could be interviewed on TV without a Dr. present, but not by LE. Why do innocent people need to see their prior statements? Hmm? I also find it quite telling that JR had HH, LF, & BM, while PR had PF & PB. He gets the heavy hitters, while PR gets the less known, less powerful attys. Yep, dictating the terms of your interviews, and stalling for over 4 months is something innocent people do every day. IMO, AH is guilty of accessory after the fact for not just allowing, but actively assisting these two in getting away with murder. Just unbelievable.

 

[questfortrue]

Seriously? An "intruder" has come into your home on Christmas night and "kidnapped" your daughter (to the basement), sexually molested and brutally murdered her. But the idea of having to speak to the police for say up to seven whole hours is cruel and insensitive?

God forbid you be "inconvenienced" with these messy details.

I have said it before, I will say it again. If I disregarded all of the fibers, the ransom note, the fact that virtually everything used in the crime came from inside the house and there was absolutely no sign of any kind of forced entry.
Take all of that away.

The actions of those two horrid, horrid people is enough to convict.

Innocent parents simply do not act like that. Sorry, they just don't.

Yep, ITA.

For me the strongest evidence is the totality of it all. As seen here from IDI proponents, anyone can take 1 piece and offer opinions to dismantle it – the RN, the entry into home, the clean up/redressing of the body wrapped in a favorite blanket, the vaginal injuries, the fibers' location sites, even the pineapple.

Three of my favorite explanations, to wit: PP statement - That clever intruder must have practiced PR’s handwriting for months, in order to make it similar to hers. Kolar’s tongue in cheek reductio ad absurdum for the foreign faction - it would have taken a diminutive contortionist to enter through the window well, circus performing midgets. JR – the intruder left all these funny little clues.

Then there’s the Rs’ escapist and distancing behavior. JR - “Hey, you guys figure it out, I’ve got to go to Atlanta for a business meeting.”

And we can’t forget the Rs different explanations for it all. Mark Twain apropos: If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
JMHO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Keep it simple, that's my moto. If you believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note (and I believe that there is), then you have to conclude that there was no intruder that night. Now, someone you invite into your home is not an intruder, so one might reasonably suggest that the murderer might have been an invited quest...except that both Patsy and John Ramsey state that there were only 4 known people in the house that night. One of those people is dead, and the other 3 people all shared the same last name...Ramsey. So whether you believe PDI, JDI, BDI or any combination of the 3 did it, you still have to conclude that a Ramsey did it.

That's the most basic conclusion. Narrowing it down to which Ramsey is another matter entirely. Of course, even then, it's certain that Patsy Ramsey, at the very least, knew that her daughter had been murdered...otherwise, why would she have written the ransom note at all? If John was in the dark, we'd have to assume Patsy tried to pass off the ransom note to him as the real deal, and that he bought that hook line and sinker. If Burke was in the dark, then we'd have to believe that that really isn't his voice we think we hear on the 911 tape, and that he had a perfectly innocent reason for pretending to be asleep that morning. If we are to believe that all 3 Ramsey's, at the very least, knew that Jonbenet was dead...well then, logic doesn't have to take so many grand leaps to cover all the bases.

 

[chlban]

Keep it simple, that's my moto. If you believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note (and I believe that there is), then you have to conclude that there was no intruder that night. Now, someone you invite into your home is not an intruder, so one might reasonably suggest that the murderer might have been an invited quest...except that both Patsy and John Ramsey state that there were only 4 known people in the house that night. One of those people is dead, and the other 3 people all shared the same last name...Ramsey. So whether you believe PDI, JDI, BDI or any combination of the 3 did it, you still have to conclude that a Ramsey did it.

That's the most basic conclusion. Narrowing it down to which Ramsey is another matter entirely. Of course, even then, it's certain that Patsy Ramsey, at the very least, knew that her daughter had been murdered...otherwise, why would she have written the ransom note at all? If John was in the dark, we'd have to assume Patsy tried to pass off the ransom note to him as the real deal, and that he bought tPhat hook line and sinker. If Burke was in the dark, then we'd have to believe that that really isn't his voice we think we hear on the 911 tape, and that he had a perfectly innocent reason for pretending to be asleep that morning. If we are to believe that all 3 Ramsey's, at the very least, knew that Jonbenet was dead...well then, logic doesn't have to take so many grand leaps to cover all the bases.

I don't think the sections I have bolded absolutely follow your logic. John could well have been unaware when he woke up that morning. His following actions don't automatically mean he bought it hook line and sinker. He could, and almost certainly would, begin to realize something was seriously "off" when he read the letter, recognizing not only Patsy's handwriting, but also flair for over dramatization. In fact that could explain the strange dynamic between the two of them that morning. His preoccupation and then anger as he puts it together, her shame at even looking, much less talking to him knowing that he has to be realizing what she has done.

As for Burke, the fact that he asked what they found does not, on it's own, indicate guilt IMO. He hears his mother feigning hysteria and shouting into the phone. "What did you find" does not to me sound like a particularly incriminating statement. He can tell something is terribly wrong and is trying to find out what. Also a 9 year old boy feigning sheep to avoid a drama doesn't seem incriminating to me either. I've know grown men that would want to avoid drama so much that, if they actually thought they could pull it off, would have probably tried it themselves. He was nine. Probably still thought it would work.

I am not saying that the above scenario means is what happened. Only that these particular actions don't, IMO, on their own, prove that John or Burke knew from the morning of the 26th. or the time of the crime, knew what had happened.

Although I do agree that Patsy's writing of the RN is evidence that she knew from the morning of the 26th or the time of the crime exactly what happened.
That is why I have always believed, and still do, that it was either Patsy working on her own until later in the morning of the 26th when John "figured it out" (or at least figured that JB was likely dead and who did it) and decided to join the cover up OR Burke did it and the parents both covered immediately after the crime which would then put Burke's question in a different context since he didn't know about the RN.

 

[Venom]

If JR didn't know, how would he know where to find the body? Did he just get lucky in finding it?

 

[chlban]

If JR didn't know, how would he know where to find the body? Did he just get lucky in finding it?

I am not necessarily putting that forth as my theory, only pointing out that It's a possibility. And yes, assuming that theory for the sake of argument, I don't think it's far fetched that he just found the body. Obviously he knew the lay out of the house, knew about the relatively hidden rooms, etc.

Clearly in order to believe in IDI (which I don't, but there still seem to be some that do) one has to assume that he just happened upon the body.

I don't think finding the body, on it's own proves guilt.

 

[Venom]

I am not necessarily putting that forth as my theory, only pointing out that It's a possibility. And yes, assuming that theory for the sake of argument, I don't think it's far fetched that he just found the body. Obviously he knew the lay out of the house, knew about the relatively hidden rooms, etc.

Clearly in order to believe in IDI (which I don't, but there still seem to be some that do) one has to assume that he just happened upon the body.

I don't think finding the body, on it's own proves guilt.

I understand the possibility is there, it just seems rather odd that he had no idea and just found the body, especially when FW didn't see it earlier that morning.

 

[borndem]

If JR didn't know, how would he know where to find the body? Did he just get lucky in finding it?

Good question, Venom, good question. His finding the body in that dark room shouldn't be (and it certainly isn't & will never be) the sole grounds for convicting him (hah! and if only) of 1st Degree Murder, but I did find it odd that he, reportedly, opened the door of that dark, windowless room and quickly screamed after he "saw" her wrapped in the blanket.

Just a few hours before, FW had done the same thing -- opened the door, looked around, could not see anything, then looked for a light switch which he did not find, due to its odd placement -- anyway, FW couldn't see anything in that room... Just odd, IMHO.

 

[DeeDee249]

If JR didn't know, how would he know where to find the body? Did he just get lucky in finding it?

There was no luck involved (and I think you probably agree). The FACT is that he made a bee-line for that hidden cellar room immediately after Det Arndt foolishly suggested he "take another look around". She herself had said that she was rather surprised when he headed straight for the basement; she had expected him to look in JB's room to see if anything important was missing (other than JB). He knew exactly where to look. Even FW said he was surprised, not only that JR saw her when he had not, but that his exclamation that he had found her seemed to come before he actually looked in the room.