Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[BOESP]

Standing outside of the room, open the door – it opens into the room away from you. Stand in the doorway and turn around so that your back is to the room. Place chair. Turn around, walk into room and close door. Exit through window.
…

AK

My understanding is the top of the chair rested under the doorknob, much like what we Southerners call a "scotch." If true, then your explanation is not any help.

 

[Anti-K]

If I made a vine of myself doing this action what you'd see is me slamming the door into the chair, the door flying backwards due to every action having a reaction, and then probably me tripping over the chair.

This scene doesn't make any sense unless there was no chair, or the door opened outwards, in which case a chair makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, Ellie9, that wouldn’t happen. Here’s a floorplan of the basement with the chair location note, maybe this will help.


…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So if you believe that with more persistent lawyers, they would have been allowed to testify, the how can you honestly say no expert believed the note was written by Patsy. We know exactly what Wong and Epstein thought, the fact that they didn't get to say it doesn't make it go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I don’t think more persistent lawyers would have made a difference. Not sure where you got that idea.

And, I’ve never said that “no expert believed that Patsy wrote the note.” But, this aspect of the investigation has been through the Courts, and I’m only really interested in those experts the Court accepted. Í think to do otherwise is to simply choose an expert that fits one’s belief.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Also how come every single expert that thinks the Ramsey's played a role are all incompetent? I mean, I'm fairly sure they played a role here, at least staging, but I don't go around call Lou smit an idiot. I think he's a good detective, but I think he's probably wrong in this particular case.

The way that other evidence is completely brushed aside is causing a noticeable backfire effect in myself. I came to this forum thinking maybe seventy five percent chance that RDI. But the way that IDI speak to RDI and fail to even consider another side makes me lean further and further from this theory. I think bias sets off red flags for me, and I'm probably not alone in thinking this.

Coming up with wild ideas to explain away every single thing makes certain posters seem closer to those alien conspiracy theorists. Even though they think that lizard people control the government they sure enough have an answer for every single thing thrown at them. The problem is that their answers, when taken all together, are too convoluted to be realistic.

Right now if I want to fully believe IDI, I have to put aside all reason. The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world. Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died. This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence. The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own. He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow. He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples. He didn't try any other doors. The alarm wasn't set. The Ramsay's decided to just not set their alarm, lucky for intruder. Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.

Do I need to go on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, many RDI do call Smit an idiot, a liar and much worse. Same for virtually everyone who doesn’t buy into RDI, they’re all treated by MOST RDI as having something seriously wrong with them. Fact.

Anyway, if you read Carnes, the reasons for Epstein and Wong’s rejection are spelled out clearly.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Doesn't sound clear to anyone else on the planet. If you listen to your buddy John talk about the scene at the window, rarely doe he speak about both the window and the suitcase at the same time. He will talk about the window saying "it was unlatched and broken, so I closed it, I didn't think it was unusual ". Then he will talk about the suitcase saying "that's wrong, it shouldn't be there". But Mr Ramsey purposely never discusses the two items together because the ridiculousness of his statement comes shining through. Even Ramsey loving Lou has to stop and ask him something to the effect of "shouldn't have that out of place suitcase under that open window set off alarm bells?" This whole thing is akin to finding an open unlocked window with a ladder underneath it and thinking nothing of it because the window is often open!

But whatever AK, you'll never answer this question because you know he's lying, just like you know he's lying about the pineapple and you know he's lying about his wife's handwriting, and you know he was lying about the reason why they wouldn't talk to LE, and you know he was lying about Fleet Whites behavior, etc, etc, etc.

Your lame, fictional excuses simply don't cut it for most people here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andreww, it’s okay if you don’t like the answer or if you don’t find it acceptable for some reason, but to deny that an answer was given is dishonest.
.

For IDI, the question is the same more-or-less: if Mr Ramsey wanted investigators to think that an intruder broke into his house, than why didn’t he report the window or the suitcase?
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

To be perfectly honest I'm starting to believe Anti-K just enjoys being a contrarian. I've never seen a theory, and all the uncomfortable questions are ignored, along with the uncomfortable evidence.

If you just want to play devil's advocate, fine. But all the excuses add up to a whole mess of coincidences. I don't believe there are so many coincidences, maybe one or two, but not the entire case!

I don’t need a theory to engage in case discussion. But, as it is, I have a lot of theories. You can read one of them here, http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh (4 parts, I think) although I don’t see what difference it should make. I’m not the one claiming to know what happened and I’m not the one accusing anybody of murder.

Of course, much of what I have to say is contrarian, because I am IDI! I have a different view on things, a different perspective, but this doesn’t mean that I am insincere and here just to cause trouble. I’m here for the same reason as everyone else. And, I’ve been doing this since – I dunno – 1999? 2000? So, I have some pretty firm beliefs by now – just like all of you.
…

AK

 

[andreww]

Andreww, it’s okay if you don’t like the answer or if you don’t find it acceptable for some reason, but to deny that an answer was given is dishonest.
.

For IDI, the question is the same more-or-less: if Mr Ramsey wanted investigators to think that an intruder broke into his house, than why didn’t he report the window or the suitcase?
…

AK

You've never answered the question, you have only ever answered half the question.

if Mr Ramsey wanted investigators to think that an intruder broke into his house, than why didn’t he report the window or the suitcase?

I have said this many time if you had bothered to pay attention. Up until about 11:00 am John had no idea what happened to Jonbenet. He did probably have his suspicions because he likely noticed that the penmanship on the ransom note looked like his wife's. He did not report that window because it was likely latched all along, and that suitcase had likely been their for years. It wasn't until he found the body at 11:00 am and subsequently disappeared for an hour, that he started to put two and two together. As part of the agreement for gracing LE with their presence for their first interview, the Ramseys were supplied with transcripts of what they had said to police that day. GOOD GREIF John, you told cops that the house was locked tighter than Fort Knox! Then, "Oops guys, I forgot to mention that I locked the window without telling anyone".

Its all pretty explainable if you open your eyes and drop the attitude.

 

[andreww]

And, I’ve been doing this since – I dunno – 1999? 2000? So, I have some pretty firm beliefs by now – just like all of you.
…

AK

Wrong for sixteen years and proud of it!

 

[andreww]

BTW, many RDI do call Smit an idiot, a liar and much worse. Same for virtually everyone who doesn’t buy into RDI, they’re all treated by MOST RDI as having something seriously wrong with them. Fact.

Anyway, if you read Carnes, the reasons for Epstein and Wong’s rejection are spelled out clearly.
…

AK

I think the reason people don't like Smit is because he was hired for the sole reason of pushing the intruder agenda. If you read Thomas' book you'll see how Smit walked in to the very first meeting without having read the case file, and stated his IDI allegiance. Ask yourself why Smit would be brought in when every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys. Lou Smit was nothing but a paid shill for Alex hunter, hired in an effort to take heat off himself and the AG's office.

And we've all read Carnes report AK. I've read a lot of stuff from Judge Ito as well.

 

[andreww]

I don’t need a theory to engage in case discussion.

AK

I think you do, else you could say "OJ Simpson is innocent because the bogeyman could have easily done it". Your theory is made of the same stuff that horoscopes are made of. Vague ideas dusted with equal amounts of fact and fiction.

 

[OliviaG1996]

BTW, is it not obvious to anyone else that in the RN, some of the “a”s had the upper tail added after the letter “a” had been completed?

It’s not my intent to turn this into a thread about the handwriting. But since these things were brought up earlier, I simply thought it would be helpful to have some examples of what was being discussed for anyone who wasn’t familiar with it firsthand.

Thank you for those posts, otg. Some of the lower-case "t"s in the ransom note also appear to have added-on-later tails at the bottom of them, while other tails of the "t"s are smoother. Some don't have tails at all, such as the "t" in "Listen" and "faction". (UBM):




Needless to say, the writing is very shaky. IMO, the person who wrote this note was not calm, cool, and collected at all.

 

[Anti-K]

You've never answered the question, you have only ever answered half the question.



I have said this many time if you had bothered to pay attention. Up until about 11:00 am John had no idea what happened to Jonbenet. He did probably have his suspicions because he likely noticed that the penmanship on the ransom note looked like his wife's. He did not report that window because it was likely latched all along, and that suitcase had likely been their for years. It wasn't until he found the body at 11:00 am and subsequently disappeared for an hour, that he started to put two and two together. As part of the agreement for gracing LE with their presence for their first interview, the Ramseys were supplied with transcripts of what they had said to police that day. GOOD GREIF John, you told cops that the house was locked tighter than Fort Knox! Then, "Oops guys, I forgot to mention that I locked the window without telling anyone".

Its all pretty explainable if you open your eyes and drop the attitude.

You have me totally confused. Which half of the question did I miss? Which half did I answer?
.

The problem Andreww, is that not even all RDI would agree with you, as many RDI think that Mr Ramsey was responsible for the crime and/or the cover-up or that he took participated in both or either in some fashion. And, I think you’re doing a little side-stepping here. The police would have no way of knowing if the window was already latched and they wouldn’t know how long the suitcase had been there. If Mr Ramsey wanted them to believe that someone came into his house and, if, as you insist, these were possible clues, then, particularly if RDI, he should have mentioned them to the police.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think the reason people don't like Smit is because he was hired for the sole reason of pushing the intruder agenda. If you read Thomas' book you'll see how Smit walked in to the very first meeting without having read the case file, and stated his IDI allegiance. Ask yourself why Smit would be brought in when every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys. Lou Smit was nothing but a paid shill for Alex hunter, hired in an effort to take heat off himself and the AG's office.

And we've all read Carnes report AK. I've read a lot of stuff from Judge Ito as well.

As far as I know, it is only RDI who have a problem with Smit.

Another RDI distortion/myth: every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think you do, else you could say "OJ Simpson is innocent because the bogeyman could have easily done it". Your theory is made of the same stuff that horoscopes are made of. Vague ideas dusted with equal amounts of fact and fiction.

Okay, so my theory is the same as RDI theories. So what?
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

Okay, so my theory is the same as RDI theories. So what?
…

AK

Actually, there is really only one part of the evidence that causes some guessing and wondering with RDI. I think the one thing is probably the trace DNA. Some people have no issue with this. They just explain it by saying there was a lot of trace DNA evidence on JBR's body and clothing. This is acceptable. Some say a factory worker sneezed/coughed on the clothing as he worked. This too is a reasonable explanation. This is the main thing they have to explain in debates, and in my opinion they do it pretty well.

For IDI, you have to take in not just one strange idea, but in my guess over twenty. I can list them all out if you want, but the last time I did that you ignored this section of my post and focused on insulting RDI's.

Another thing, I don't like your appeal to emotions. Please stop saying that we're 'accusing people of murder' as if it had any real life consequence for anyone. The R's are gonne be just fine. We're doing no more damage than they did to themselves and than the media did before this forum began. I think by saying this you're trying to silence people by attempting to make them feel like a bad person just for theorizing.

They are NOT on trial here, we are NOT a court of law, and there are NO consequences for them. No one's going to jail for life over someone's theory. Also we don't have to abide by the same rules so there's no reason to hold us to court-standards. In a court it's almost a game over which side gets the best jurors, which side gets the best experts (who work for their theory) and which evidence is never brought out. Who can trick the jurors best? It's a freaking game, and I honestly have a huge problem with it, but whatever.

There's tons of trials where stuff is just never brought out and I think forums get an advantage over a court in this way... at least we aren't being forced to ignore things due to court politics. This could give us an advantage in discovering a plausible theory, but of course what we say/believe has no consequence for anyone. That's fine. I think we're all here for the same reasons. We want to solve a mystery. We want justice for a little girl who didn't deserve to die, too, but this won't ever happen on a forum.

 

[andreww]

Okay, so my theory is the same as RDI theories. So what?
…

AK

You just don't get it. You don't have a solid theory because evidence does not support any IDI scenario. You can't even get the damn intruder in to the house without running in to evidentiary issues. But even if you get an intruder in the house, there is nothing but a couple of spots of microscopic DNA that weren't even identified until two years after the crime. There are countless explanations for how it may have got there. But basically your list of suspects is at what, 30 billion?

On the other side of the coin we have three people who have been uncooperative and deceitful since the very beginning, were contemplating fleeing the state, and have surrounded themselves and the people around them with the best attorneys in the country. Their fibers and prints are all over the crime scene, and their memories are as faulty as a dead bulb.

Bottom line is that I just don't get your stance and how you can't be swayed by overwhelming evidence? Heck, I've got nothing vested in this, if you could even show me 3 unexplainable facts that would show IDI, I'd switch sides today. But you can't even come up with one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

Actually, there is really only one part of the evidence that causes some guessing and wondering with RDI. I think the one thing is probably the trace DNA. Some people have no issue with this. They just explain it by saying there was a lot of trace DNA evidence on JBR's body and clothing. This is acceptable. Some say a factory worker sneezed/coughed on the clothing as he worked. This too is a reasonable explanation. This is the main thing they have to explain in debates, and in my opinion they do it pretty well.

For IDI, you have to take in not just one strange idea, but in my guess over twenty. I can list them all out if you want, but the last time I did that you ignored this section of my post and focused on insulting RDI's.

Another thing, I don't like your appeal to emotions. Please stop saying that we're 'accusing people of murder' as if it had any real life consequence for anyone. The R's are gonne be just fine. We're doing no more damage than they did to themselves and than the media did before this forum began. I think by saying this you're trying to silence people by attempting to make them feel like a bad person just for theorizing.

They are NOT on trial here, we are NOT a court of law, and there are NO consequences for them. No one's going to jail for life over someone's theory. Also we don't have to abide by the same rules so there's no reason to hold us to court-standards. In a court it's almost a game over which side gets the best jurors, which side gets the best experts (who work for their theory) and which evidence is never brought out. Who can trick the jurors best? It's a freaking game, and I honestly have a huge problem with it, but whatever.

There's tons of trials where stuff is just never brought out and I think forums get an advantage over a court in this way... at least we aren't being forced to ignore things due to court politics. This could give us an advantage in discovering a plausible theory, but of course what we say/believe has no consequence for anyone. That's fine. I think we're all here for the same reasons. We want to solve a mystery. We want justice for a little girl who didn't deserve to die, too, but this won't ever happen on a forum.

I agree with your great post, Ellie9. We on this forum are only bringing theories (and clues) forward which lead us to believe there was family involvement.

And one of several reasons JR is looked at a lot is because of his 'story' revisions. Several years ago, posters took apart all of his comments about the window in the train room, the presence of glass, the timing of his visits to the basement, and who was down there that morning. And JR's comments do not jive with the Detectives or FW who were down in the basement before JR 'says' he was. No one saw a chair blocking the train room. But read this for yourself here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-window-discovery-a-lie&p=6100232#post6100232 Post #10. At the time JR did not realize that his statements would be retained (with references) on the Internet.

Now that Patsy is gone and the SoL has run out on the charges JR's main focus now, when he does make a statement, is to re-enforce the family's innocence (by virtue of DNA evidence) and the incompetence of the BPD. He certainly has no worry of a trial or conviction for anything. Imo, it is the family name he wishes to make sure is rescued. The name "R*****" needs to be sanitized and distanced from this crime. The MSM help JR out with his story line. Note that the MSM never mention the timing between the head blow and strangulation. Nor do they ever mention that the police know JonBenet showed evidence of prior sexual injuries. DNA, OTOH, is always mentioned in conjunction with the crime. Many in the media have no idea about this DNA, whether it's from blood or semen, for example, or how degraded it was, or that there was also tDNA on the wrist cord and the ligature cord which didn't belong to the family. Sadly, what truth we discover is the only justice JonBenet will ever receive.

 

[InstantProof]

I think the reason people don't like Smit is because he was hired for the sole reason of pushing the intruder agenda. If you read Thomas' book you'll see how Smit walked in to the very first meeting without having read the case file, and stated his IDI allegiance. Ask yourself why Smit would be brought in when every LE officer connected to the case could only come to the conclusion that this crime was committed by one of the Ramseys. Lou Smit was nothing but a paid shill for Alex hunter, hired in an effort to take heat off himself and the AG's office.

When I only knew of this case from bit and pieces in the news I thought the parents were probably innocent and people were just giving them a hard time because of the pageants, and because of cases like Susan Smith... then I saw Smit explain the intruder theory and I thought for the first time the parents probably did do it because this doesn't sound right. There has to be a better way to make sense of this. Then once you read the facts....

 

[InstantProof]

You have me totally confused. Which half of the question did I miss? Which half did I answer?
.

The problem Andreww, is that not even all RDI would agree with you, as many RDI think that Mr Ramsey was responsible for the crime and/or the cover-up or that he took participated in both or either in some fashion. And, I think you’re doing a little side-stepping here. The police would have no way of knowing if the window was already latched and they wouldn’t know how long the suitcase had been there. If Mr Ramsey wanted them to believe that someone came into his house and, if, as you insist, these were possible clues, then, particularly if RDI, he should have mentioned them to the police.
…

AK

I think also that John came into this late as it just seems to make sense. As I said previously, I think he had a good idea what was happening and did not think it was going to work, and wanted to be able to say he wasn't involved. Once he's playing along he can't get out of it. But I expect most posters will have different ideas, and I am open to changing my mind.

 

[Ellie9]

When I only knew of this case from bit and pieces in the news I thought the parents were probably innocent and people were just giving them a hard time because of the pageants, because of cases like Susan Smith... then I saw Smit explain the intruder theory and I thought for the first time the parents probably did do it because this doesn't sound right. There has to be a better way to make sense of this. Then once you read the facts....

Same here. I thought the parents were innocent completely at first. Before I knew any facts, heh. Then I actually saw the Smit focused documentary and I was less sure the parents were innocent, but still maybe 90 percent sure. The one thing that kept throwing me off is that one main thing he repeated several times was how "no parents" could ever do "anything like this" to their own children. That was ridiculous to me. Oh yes they sure can. It's rare thank heavens but it happens. The way he kept repeating this and made it sound like it was actual evidence, made me think that there must be other things wrong with this theory. A good theorist doesn't have to play to emotions - they just need to focus on the facts alone and it will suffice.