Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

For anyone who's interested, here's an excerpt from an interview of JR by police about his checking of the doors:



JR originally told Linda Arndt that he checked all of the doors on the first floor, but he didn't mention that he did not check the "pantry door", located in the "Butler's Pantry" room of the house. Coincidentally (or not), this door was the only one open on the first floor:

View attachment 85487View attachment 85488​

And let me just get this straight okay? The intruder closes the train room door and puts the chair back in front of it. He closes the WC door and re latches the hidden latch. He writes the ransom note, then carefully returns the pen and pad to exactly where he found them. Then he walks out the pantry door and leaves it wide open???

Again, John said he checked all the main floor doors that morning, even going out to check the garage? Why would he neglect to check the Pantry door?

I think it's pretty obvious that with the number of people in the house that day, somebody must have cracked the door to let in some fresh air. It was photographed and the Ramsey's jumped all over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

They had a dead body in the house. They needed to explain it in some way or they needed to get rid of it and then explain why it was missing. A kidnapping explains why it was missing. It explains the opposite of what they needed to explain. This is a contradiction.

If the Ramseys, against all odds and reason, decided to go ahead with the fake kidnapping than why didn’t they provide an entry point? Unlock a door, let the police find it. Lie if they have to. If you want someone to believe that another someone came into your home, the first thing you think of is, how did they get in?

IMO this is an almost unbelievable aspect of RDI theories. I know that some RDI recognize this, too, and so arises the idea that the basement window/suitcase was intended as an entry, but the police never noticed it and Ramsey never pointed it out or mentioned it to them!

Wanting the police to think someone came into their home, not pointing out the window/suitcase and telling the police that all the doors were locked contradicts the Ramseys wanting the police to think that someone came into the home.
…

AK

As I've said many times before...

1) I'm not convinced John knew what was happening at first, therefore he said some things that didn't help his case.

2) The Ramsey's almost immediately pointed their fingers at their housekeeper LHP. She obviously had a key. If their original intention had been to frame LHP, then a forced point of entry would not have been required, and in fact would have gone against what they were implying. If your game plan is to Frame LHP, you'd want police to believe all was normal right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

BBM


ah, yes, the Argument from Selective Memory

1)RDI asks “stumper” question
2)IDI answers question
3)Time passes
4)RDI repeats question
5)IDI answers question
6)Time passes
7)RDI repeats question
8)IDI answers question
9)Time passes
10)RDI repeats question
11)IDI gives up
12) RDI, “IDI can’t answer the question.”
13)Therefore RDI
….

AK

Look the fact that Fleet moved that suitcase makes no difference in that John didn't mention that he found it out of place under the unlatched window whilst on the hunt for an entry/exit point.

The only thing Fleets moving the case does do is make me wonder why the Ramsey's and Lou Smit continued to perpetrate the myth that it was put their by an intruder as a means to exit through that window.

You can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InstantProof]

They had a dead body in the house. They needed to explain it in some way or they needed to get rid of it and then explain why it was missing. A kidnapping explains why it was missing. It explains the opposite of what they needed to explain. This is a contradiction.

If the Ramseys, against all odds and reason, decided to go ahead with the fake kidnapping than why didn’t they provide an entry point? Unlock a door, let the police find it. Lie if they have to. If you want someone to believe that another someone came into your home, the first thing you think of is, how did they get in?

IMO this is an almost unbelievable aspect of RDI theories. I know that some RDI recognize this, too, and so arises the idea that the basement window/suitcase was intended as an entry, but the police never noticed it and Ramsey never pointed it out or mentioned it to them!

Wanting the police to think someone came into their home, not pointing out the window/suitcase and telling the police that all the doors were locked contradicts the Ramseys wanting the police to think that someone came into the home.
…

AK

So what if the scene made no sense. I don't think Patsy was in her right mind, and John did not come in until the very end. She did a bad job. Later they would try and make it seem like things in the house weren't right; the widow with the untouched dust and spider web, the pineapple set up, etc. Didn't a neighbor say she saw and discussed a dented back door with Pasty before the murder yet after the murder Patsy points it out to a reporter as something the intruder may have done?

 

[InstantProof]

For anyone who's interested, here's an excerpt from an interview of JR by police about his checking of the doors:



JR originally told Linda Arndt that he checked all of the doors on the first floor, but he didn't mention that he did not check the "pantry door", located in the "Butler's Pantry" room of the house. Coincidentally (or not), this door was the only one open on the first floor:

View attachment 85487View attachment 85488​

Well, there you go, better the detective find it and report it. Same for JB in the cellar.

 

[andreww]

Well, there you go, better the detective find it and report it. Same for JB in the cellar.

Problem is he didn't say he hadn't checked the pantry door until much later. As I remember it (i might be wrong), the open door wasn't noticed until detectives looked at the crime scene photos. Take in to account that there is supposed crime scene photos of the train room window showing it unlatched, but we know John said he locked it. So who knows what was going on here?

 

[Ellie9]

So what if the scene made no sense. I don't think Patsy was in her right mind, and John did not come in until the very end. She did a bad job. Later they would try and make it seem like things in the house weren't right; the widow with the untouched dust and spider web, the pineapple set up, etc. Didn't a neighbor say she saw and discussed a dented back door with Pasty before the murder yet after the murder Patsy points it out to a reporter as something the intruder may have done?

I think the note sort of makes sense to an inexperienced criminal, because it's the only possible way to write out a little story. There's no murder notes that I know of except perhaps from serial killers. PR probably didn't think of something like this, and also serial killer notes tend to be mailed to the police rather than be with the body.

So even though a kidnapping note with a body doesn't make sense, (especially if an intruder did it btw), there's no other way to pin blame on an outsider if RDI. The only way to create a fiction is with a long story in the longest ransom note in history.

John probably thought this idea was stupid but Patsy went with it. John probably thought of pinning the blame on housekeeper. She would have a key and her DNA and prints were likely to be all over as a worker there. John told Patsy to go this way, which may be why Patsy starts going against the foreign faction angle in her own note that very morning, when she points out things that don't make sense in the note. Probably this is exactly things John brought up about the foreign angle before coming up with a better slant with the housekeeper. He was the true crime reader after all.

When it didn't seem like police were buying the housekeeper angle hook line and sinker they decided to just run with the idea that an intruder they didn't know did this, but all they're evidence only points to an insider, like someone who wouldn't have scared JonBenet, fed her some healthy snack, cleaned her body and blanketed her, knew where laundry was, where wine cellar was, had keys,.... I mean shoot even Patsy kept suggesting a woman wrote the note, and it was left where housekeeper lady LHP always leaves notes.

If the police didn't rule her out (along with the rest of the scene looking too hinky) I'd even be a little suspicious myself to be honest with ya. The note doesn't make sense as much, but this was probably a leftover from their first plan, to blame terrorists.

It would be like the Ramsey's to think they're so special foreign terrorists group would harm them. Come on.

ETA: Also let's not forget the whole Lindbergh baby. The baby was kidnapped. note left, - likely died right on scene (from HEAD injury no less), SO there was a note, a body, head injury, and it happened to a rich famous person. It would also be like the R's to think they are as special as Lindbergh was in his day that someone would give a rat's bum about them. Ramsey's please. They're so full of themselves it's ridiculous.

 

[andreww]

So what if the scene made no sense. I don't think Patsy was in her right mind, and John did not come in until the very end. She did a bad job. Later they would try and make it seem like things in the house weren't right; the widow with the untouched dust and spider web, the pineapple set up, etc. Didn't a neighbor say she saw and discussed a dented back door with Pasty before the murder yet after the murder Patsy points it out to a reporter as something the intruder may have done?

Did Patsy do a bad job? Think about her actions, leaving the note on the bottom step "where LHP would generally leave things for her", then immediately telling LE that LHP was in dire straights and asking to borrow money. If Patsy's plan was to pin the whole thing on LHP, then leaving an obvious entry point wasn't necessary.

Think about it, the ransom note was crazy enough that she knew the LE wouldn't believe it. She sets the ransom ridiculously low, but an about that would have been a fortune to LHP. She leaves the evidence in places LHP was know to leave things. The scene shows the person would need a key to get in, and lastly, the person would have been close enough to JBR that she wouldn't scream when they stopped in the kitchen for a pineapple snack. I'm surprised she didn't drive over and dump the body in LHPs backyard.

 

[OliviaG1996]

And let me just get this straight okay? The intruder closes the train room door and puts the chair back in front of it. He closes the WC door and re latches the hidden latch. He writes the ransom note, then carefully returns the pen and pad to exactly where he found them. Then he walks out the pantry door and leaves it wide open???

Again, John said he checked all the main floor doors that morning, even going out to check the garage? Why would he neglect to check the Pantry door?

I think it's pretty obvious that with the number of people in the house that day, somebody must have cracked the door to let in some fresh air. It was photographed and the Ramsey's jumped all over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another explanation could be that the pantry door was the intended point of entry or exit (along with the basement window) and was staged by JR and/or PR to make it look like the house had been broken into by the intruder. My feeling is that JR knew about this door the whole time.

I think that JR failed to report the pantry door because he wanted to stay more as "the parent who knows nothing about anything" and less as "the parent who's finding everything pertaining to the case". Maybe his plan was to "find" JBR the whole time, so finding anything else incriminating would be suspicious.

BTW, I hope you understood my use of "coincidentally" in my previous post was sarcasm.

 

[andreww]

Another explanation could be that the pantry door was the intended point of entry or exit (along with the basement window) and was staged by JR and/or PR to make it look like the house had been broken into by the intruder. My feeling is that JR knew about this door the whole time.

I think that JR failed to report the pantry door because he wanted to stay more as "the parent who knows nothing about anything" and less as "the parent who's finding everything pertaining to the case". Maybe his plan was to "find" JBR the whole time, so finding anything else incriminating would be suspicious.

BTW, I hope you understood my use of "coincidentally" in my previous post was sarcasm.

I know sarcasm when I see it

As for the door, I get what you are saying. But the way I look at it, several people including LE officers did inspections of that house and not once to I recall seeing any statements about the door being open. People were there all day, somebody would have pointed it out. In my opinion the most likely answer is that the detective that was accompanying the photographer wanted to see the inside of the door, maybe to show that there was no deadbolt or signs of forced entry. Much later Smit or one of the Ramsey lawyers come across it and start pointing to it being the exit point. Put ask yourself, if the door was wide open, why did Smit continue to push the theory that the intruder left through the train room window, apparently being fully aware that Fleet White had moved the suitcase there?

And does anyone have any actual info about Fleet moving the suitcase, besides what Thomas stated in his book? Im a little confused because from the interviews with the Ramseys I always got the impression that the case was parallel to the wall, then I see a picture and its perpendicular.

LOU SMIT: Okay. Let's talk about suitcases a
17 little bit as long as your talking about it now.
18 It was right up against the wall?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.





I remember taking it downstairs to
6 clean up. And I think I just kind of sat it in
7 this room here.
8 LOU SMIT: That would be in that hall?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Just in the landing in the hall
10 area.

Now in this picture the suitcase isn't "against the wall" and the window isn't "Latched".



Also, what possible explanation could Fleet White have had for moving the suitcase from the hallway to under the train room window?

Sorry, I'm really confused about all this.

 

[Ellie9]

I know sarcasm when I see it

As for the door, I get what you are saying. But the way I look at it, several people including LE officers did inspections of that house and not once to I recall seeing any statements about the door being open. People were there all day, somebody would have pointed it out. In my opinion the most likely answer is that the detective that was accompanying the photographer wanted to see the inside of the door, maybe to show that there was no deadbolt or signs of forced entry. Much later Smit or one of the Ramsey lawyers come across it and start pointing to it being the exit point. Put ask yourself, if the door was wide open, why did Smit continue to push the theory that the intruder left through the train room window, apparently being fully aware that Fleet White had moved the suitcase there?

And does anyone have any actual info about Fleet moving the suitcase, besides what Thomas stated in his book? Im a little confused because from the interviews with the Ramseys I always got the impression that the case was parallel to the wall, then I see a picture and its perpendicular.

LOU SMIT: Okay. Let's talk about suitcases a
17 little bit as long as your talking about it now.
18 It was right up against the wall?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah.





I remember taking it downstairs to
6 clean up. And I think I just kind of sat it in
7 this room here.
8 LOU SMIT: That would be in that hall?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Just in the landing in the hall
10 area.

Now in this picture the suitcase isn't "against the wall" and the window isn't "Latched".

Also, what possible explanation could Fleet White have had for moving the suitcase from the hallway to under the train room window?

Sorry, I'm really confused about all this.

Yeah that storage area is a total mess. Why on earth would someone be like, hmm this piece of garbage would look so much better over by these other pieces of garbage! I'll fix that while I'm looking for a missing child or an intruder.

I agree it's by the window, and the window isn't latched. To me this looks like JR realized their housekeeper thing was falling flat and changed their lie again that morning. I bet JR opened the window and suitcase could have been there already and was used later as evidence by Smit. That place was a dump. ANYTHING tall could have been a supposed 'step up'.

Also Smit's theory is a failure though in that it doesn't account for the pineapple, the lack of stun gun, and the loose ties and needless duct tape.

The problem with intruder theories as I see it is that NONE of them work. The problem with RDI theories is that too many of them work, and I can't decide which one fits the best with all the evidence. There's times I think BR is involved, and times I think he can't be. There's times I think both parents staged this after an accident/rage, and times I think one parent did it and the other didn't know anything until putting two and two together the next morning. All these things actually fit and make total sense, I wish it was easier to pin down exactly which RDI theory fits best.

And for those who think, you know, wow I can't believe one Ramsey would stick up for a murderer. You don't know rich people, then. They will do anything to not have anything 'reflect upon them poorly'. To a rich person, having your child's murderer get away with it is LESS of a problem than having it come out that your spouse did it. That could make a person appear trashy, and they sure wouldn't allow something like that to happen. Rich person priority number one is always an image.

 

[andreww]

Ellie, you are right, it's not difficult to construct a believable scenario for any of the Ramsey's is it? I think that in order to come up with a theory that works, you not only have to know the evidence, but you have to think logically as well. As I see it there are seven different possibilities for guilty parties;

- John
- Patsy
- Burke
- John & Patsy
- John & Burke
- Patsy & Burke
- John Patsy and Burke

Then to make things even more confusing you can have a theory where one of them wasn't involved in the crime but aided in the coverup. So there are plenty of possibilities with very little physical evidence.

For me, I throw what the Ramsey's have to say out the window as there are just too many proven lies, and they had months to try and sync their stories.

So we have a six year old girl coming home between 9 & 10:00 with absolutely nothing in her stomach. I think we can all remember what that feels like as a child. I think the first thing on her mind was food and logic would dictate that she would communicate this to her mother. The fact that a healthy snack was chosen further backs that up. In this area we have both Burke and Patsy's fingerprints, so it is reasonable to assume that the three of them were there. It is also logical too assume that this impromptu snack did not last long because the snack was not returned to the fridge, and the quantity of pineapple in JBs stomach was negligible.

This is how you have to think. Piece by piece. What do you think might have happened next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ringfinger]

I don't know how to reply with that photo in the quote,

But I have never looked deeply at that image before. Why is the suitcase used as a step when there is a chair AND an ACTUAL step chair in the room as well? If I was going to step on something, i wouldn't risk it being something that could so easily fail.

 

[InstantProof]

ETA: Also let's not forget the whole Lindbergh baby. The baby was kidnapped. note left, - likely died right on scene (from HEAD injury no less), SO there was a note, a body, head injury, and it happened to a rich famous person. It would also be like the R's to think they are as special as Lindbergh was in his day that someone would give a rat's bum about them. Ramsey's please. They're so full of themselves it's ridiculous.

Housekeeper was one of the main suspects, too.

 

[UKGuy]

Ellie, you are right, it's not difficult to construct a believable scenario for any of the Ramsey's is it? I think that in order to come up with a theory that works, you not only have to know the evidence, but you have to think logically as well. As I see it there are seven different possibilities for guilty parties;

- John
- Patsy
- Burke
- John & Patsy
- John & Burke
- Patsy & Burke
- John Patsy and Burke

Then to make things even more confusing you can have a theory where one of them wasn't involved in the crime but aided in the coverup. So there are plenty of possibilities with very little physical evidence.

For me, I throw what the Ramsey's have to say out the window as there are just too many proven lies, and they had months to try and sync their stories.

So we have a six year old girl coming home between 9 & 10:00 with absolutely nothing in her stomach. I think we can all remember what that feels like as a child. I think the first thing on her mind was food and logic would dictate that she would communicate this to her mother. The fact that a healthy snack was chosen further backs that up. In this area we have both Burke and Patsy's fingerprints, so it is reasonable to assume that the three of them were there. It is also logical too assume that this impromptu snack did not last long because the snack was not returned to the fridge, and the quantity of pineapple in JBs stomach was negligible.

This is how you have to think. Piece by piece. What do you think might have happened next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
All three remaining Ramsey's colluded in the death and staging of JonBenet. Forensic evidence links all three to the wine-cellar the primary fake crime-scene.

By a process of elimination you can arrive at BDI with corroboration from the GJ when the Grand Jury charge JR and PR with assisting JonBenet's killer.

JDI has holes in it, PDI has holes in it, any combination thereof similarly, BDI is the most consistent, also has the merit of explaining away lots of holes, e.g. Hunter's behaviour, Lacy's behaviour, the continuing silence from all the police and legal teams involved, and basically why BR was written out of the script!

.

 

[Ellie9]

andreww,
All three remaining Ramsey's colluded in the death and staging of JonBenet. Forensic evidence links all three to the wine-cellar the primary fake crime-scene.

By a process of elimination you can arrive at BDI with corroboration from the GJ when the Grand Jury charge JR and PR with assisting JonBenet's killer.

JDI has holes in it, PDI has holes in it, any combination thereof similarly, BDI is the most consistent, also has the merit of explaining away lots of holes, e.g. Hunter's behaviour, Lacy's behaviour, the continuing silence from all the police and legal teams involved, and basically why BR was written out of the script!

.

I'm just curious, what linked Burke to the wine cellar? Patsy I know because her Christmas outfit fibers were on the duct tape - and John pulled the tape off JBR's mouth before carrying her body upstairs, so it didn't happen when PR hugged her body. Burke is linked to the pineapple snack for sure but I was just wondering about his connection to the wine cellar though.

I have to look up Hunter and Lacy, I wasn't familiar with these names at all.

I'm not trying to pick on a little boy (at the time) here, but things did look strange, especially his own reported behaviour before the tragic night! The theory is pretty good around him, but I have two nagging issues.

1. At his age, wouldn't he have spilled the beans to someone or slipped up with his story? I would say he was afraid of 'prison' if his parents tricked him into thinking he'd go there, but at that age kids don't tend to have such a great long term memory for consequences.

2. That head wound was bad. Like really freaking bad. Even if they called 911 for help instantly I don't think she'd have lived, or at least not without long term brain injuries. It's hard to picture a chlid hitting another one so hard as to cause that injury, especially knowing that at age six her skull is tougher and stronger than an adult's skull. I think I read this last piece of information in PMPT. I didn't do medical care with children so I don't know if this is true.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I'm just curious, what linked Burke to the wine cellar? Patsy I know because her Christmas outfit fibers were on the duct tape - and John pulled the tape off JBR's mouth before carrying her body upstairs, so it didn't happen when PR hugged her body. Burke is linked to the pineapple snack for sure but I was just wondering about his connection to the wine cellar though.

I have to look up Hunter and Lacy, I wasn't familiar with these names at all.

I'm not trying to pick on a little boy (at the time) here, but things did look strange, especially his own reported behaviour before the tragic night! The theory is pretty good around him, but I have two nagging issues.

1. At his age, wouldn't he have spilled the beans to someone or slipped up with his story? I would say he was afraid of 'prison' if his parents tricked him into thinking he'd go there, but at that age kids don't tend to have such a great long term memory for consequences.

2. That head wound was bad. Like really freaking bad. Even if they called 911 for help instantly I don't think she'd have lived, or at least not without long term brain injuries. It's hard to picture a chlid hitting another one so hard as to cause that injury, especially knowing that at age six her skull is tougher and stronger than an adult's skull. I think I read this last piece of information in PMPT. I didn't do medical care with children so I don't know if this is true.

BR's tDNA was on the bloodstained Barbie nightgown found next to JBR's body in the wine cellar. There's been speculation that the Hi-Tec boot-print found in the cellar may have been BR's as well, since Fleet White Jr. testified to the GJ that BR had owned a pair of Hi-Tecs, after the Rs denied this.

Also, I'm skeptical that a child's skull is tougher than an adult's. I would think the opposite is true, actually.

 

[Ellie9]

Ellie, you are right, it's not difficult to construct a believable scenario for any of the Ramsey's is it? I think that in order to come up with a theory that works, you not only have to know the evidence, but you have to think logically as well. As I see it there are seven different possibilities for guilty parties;

- John
- Patsy
- Burke
- John & Patsy
- John & Burke
- Patsy & Burke
- John Patsy and Burke

Then to make things even more confusing you can have a theory where one of them wasn't involved in the crime but aided in the coverup. So there are plenty of possibilities with very little physical evidence.

For me, I throw what the Ramsey's have to say out the window as there are just too many proven lies, and they had months to try and sync their stories.

So we have a six year old girl coming home between 9 & 10:00 with absolutely nothing in her stomach. I think we can all remember what that feels like as a child. I think the first thing on her mind was food and logic would dictate that she would communicate this to her mother. The fact that a healthy snack was chosen further backs that up. In this area we have both Burke and Patsy's fingerprints, so it is reasonable to assume that the three of them were there. It is also logical too assume that this impromptu snack did not last long because the snack was not returned to the fridge, and the quantity of pineapple in JBs stomach was negligible.

This is how you have to think. Piece by piece. What do you think might have happened next?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This does make the most logical sense so far. I would have said perhaps JBR did get put in bed early, then woke up to a wet bed, woke up PR, asked for food too, and PR went from being annoyed and angry over another wet bed to livid over having to go downstairs when she's exhausted and get food.

Two problems with my thoughts, though, PR probably never changed into night clothes, and probably didn't sleep. If she did change her night clothes fibers would be in the duct tape. Second problem is that Burke's prints were on the pineapple/tea scene, which kind of suggests this wasn't a middle of the night situation with just JBR and PR.

So I'm thinking your theory up to this point works very well. It doesn't discount JR either, who could have been there with the family and just not been involved in food preparation or eating. If you have time could you link me to your own full theory on the night? I know you must have posted it in this thread but it's so many pages long it's a novel by itself.

 

[Ellie9]

BR's tDNA was on the bloodstained Barbie nightgown found next to JBR's body in the wine cellar. There's been speculation that the Hi-Tec boot-print found in the cellar may have been BR's as well, since Fleet White Jr. testified to the GJ that BR had owned a pair of Hi-Tecs, after the Rs denied this.

Also, I'm skeptical that a child's skull is tougher than an adult's. I would think the opposite is true, actually.

Thanks Olivia! I didn't know that about the nightgown. I knew it was there, but I didn't know it had blood on it at all actually.

I just refreshed my memory, yes now I remember Hunter and Lacy! (I feel dumb). I was never as much into the legal fiasco as much as I was into the crime scene fiasco. I think my mind assumed they were family friends due to discussing Burke. I'm trying to look up their words on Burke but having trouble finding it, if anyone can point me in the right direction or link me thanks!

 

[Anti-K]

As far as what the FBI said publicly, you’d be correct they included close friends and other family in their analysis. But in a private meeting, they claimed this crime was not a “Who Done It.” And if they really thought it was perpetrated by someone outside of JB’s immediate family they would not have scorned Lanning’s opinion.

But to your original query, paranoia unnecessary. I think your perseverance is impressive and your debate skills are obvious. This is simply an opinion forum with no legal ramifications. It is not a court of law where as a prosecutor I must prove evidence which has been stated by detectives or confirmed by experts hired by the BPD. From what Tricia posted last June, I believe it is the other way around. “If you are going to say an intruder wrote the note guess what? You have to show us something that backs up your claim. The Ramsey forum is different than all the other forums on Websleuths.” BTW, I hate the whole handwriting discussion, for a variety of reasons which SuperDave has gone over. My understanding is that, if an IDI proponent thinks a close friend of the family wrote the note, they must prove this.

When Fides dissects JR’s story it enables RDI to experience JR working something akin to a “shell game”. Do you know, moreover, that JR changed his window story four times regarding whether he told a detective about the window being open? But an IDI here would counter that memory is fallible. That’s true. Point 1 to the IDI member. For certainly I cannot disprove that it is only memory failings which contribute to JR’s evolving statements. But is the counter argument proof and does it advance us any further in understanding JR’s mindset in changing his windows story or confuzzling his claim about calling the pilot? For me, no. IIRC past poster Meara put it very succinctly: In providing an alternate out-of-the-ordinary point, one can miss the forest for the trees.

I’m only speaking for myself here, and for anyone else who finds IDI posts compelling to answer,or to respond to with different facts, and many do, that’s cool. I’m nobody special on the forum, barely here at all.

Agree with it or not, the Carnes Decision tells us what the experts concluded about Mrs Ramsey as author – she probably did not write the note.

Yes, one can always find an expert with a differing opinion but these experts were “court approved.” This, and their “consensus” of opinion, and the inclusion of all 4 BPD (an RDI-BPD) adds meaning to the conclusions of this group of experts. As a fact determined by a Federal Court, the ransom note author has never been identified. Why should I be expected to go beyond this?

Anyway, it isn’t really my business. Not my forum. I don’t make the rules. If I get warned or worse, I’ll reconsider my involvement. As it is, I think my grasp of and adherence to facts is, at very least, marginally above average. So…

We’ll come back to the FBI stuff, I think I’ve fallen behind the discussion and sort of want to jump ahead.

A cpl quick things: memory IS fallible AND it is MALLEABLE (changes with time, circumstances, etc); if IDI, I think the killer was probably unknown to the family; IMO, Mr Ramsey is/was his own worse enemy.
…

AK