bbm
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
youre in
italics; im not.
The Ramsay's have basically the worst memories in the world
i dont think this is true. it is the opinion of some people. if you can find it, read the invisible gorilla: how out intuitions deceive us. even if you only read the chapter on memory and eyewitness accounts. you will be surprised and your opinion that the Ramseys have the worst memories in the world might even change.
Jonbenet started a brand new habit of sneaking food coincidentally the day she died.
one doesnt have to believe this. and, i dont think anyone does. some IDI really do believe that the intrude might have fed her pineapple, so you could go that route (i dont), some think she ate it before going to the whites (possible onset of illness slowed or halted digestive process), and, yes, some think she got up in the middle of the night (there was an empty tupperware container in her room, some think she ate pineapple from that) and ate it, but no one thinks it was the beginning of a new habit and no one thinks she was sneaking anything. so, you dont have to believe this to be IDI, either.
This intruder has handwriting that looks a ton like Patsy, by coincidence.
i tend to just point at the BPD experts when it comes to the handwriting, but imo the importance of the similarities is vastly overstated (its printing!). i think if we set up an experiment and all us posters were to be given a printed letter to be matched and printed samples from 10 different people to compare, the failure rate would be high. because of similarities. so, to be IDI, you dont have to believe this, either.
The killer brought along only a couple things, possibly, of his own.
if IDI, this is probably true however one does not have to sat aside reason to do this, as this is a tactic known to the law enforcement community. a criminal brings what he cannot be without and uses found objects on-site.
He knew where the wine cellar was and the latch and light switch, somehow.
one wouldnt have to set reason aside if the killer was familiar with the house. however, the killer might not have needed light to set the body on the wc floor, and he may have had a flashlight; although while any of these things could be true, you dont have to accept them to be IDI. as soon as you get to the bottom of the stairs you see the wc door. you can see the latch. no one needed to know any of these things in advance
He left no finger prints, and like maybe three small DNA samples.
and, possibly, hair and fibers in incriminating locations (in the hands, on the tape, the garrote, the genital area, her shirt); plus, 2 ½ pages of handwriting, and the acts committed (indicative of suspect type). more trace evidence than what is often found.
He didn't try any other doors.
sorry, i have no ide what this means.
The alarm wasn't set.
i have no idea why you would have to set aside reason to believe this.
Jonbenet decided this day she would also start a new habit of wearing panties for girls twice her age.
doesnt have to have been a habit. it may not have been the first time she wore over-size panties. if IDI, these two things wearing over-size panties and the murder are not related.
AK