Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

Excellent point!

You guys can pat yourselves on the back all you like, you're not convincing any of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

You need to tell Arndt that because she is convinced by looking into JR eyes when he carried JB up from the basement she knew immediately he was the killer.

She never said he was the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

You need to tell Arndt that because she is convinced by looking into JR eyes when he carried JB up from the basement she knew immediately he was the killer.

Just because I'm in the RDI camp, and open to possibility of IDI if enough good evidence is shown, doesn't mean that I agree with everything everyone from RDI says. I'm not a big fan of Arndt and in her interviews she does this melodramatic stuff that leads me to believe she's not 100% trustworthy. Anyone who believes they can tell from looking into the eyes is wrong. However, if someone is at the scene it's not unlikely that he/she will take in the entire scene and use years of experience in LE to start making judgment calls. So there's that possibility. Maybe she didn't tell from an eye-glance, but from tons of other cues, like the Ramsey's odd behaviour that day.

 

[icedtea4me]

IMO, the ransom note is a massive piece of intruder evidence.

There is absolutely no reason for the ransom note to exist if the parents were responsible and trying to explain why they had a dead body in their house. Ransom notes explain the opposite.

And, if the Ramseys were bizarre enough to think in such a contrary fashion, THIS note still wouldn’t make sense. it is 2 ½ pages of self-incriminating evidence intentionally created and willingly handed over to the police, along with the source it was written on.

It was Christmas and there were scraps of paper and wrappings, and cards and envelopes and packaging and cardboard – iows, available material that would be difficult to trace back to the home that one could write a very short, “no cops, wait for call” ransom note on.

But, they wouldn’t write a note to begin with – no one in such circumstance (dead body they can’t dispose of) ever has and no one ever will – because the note solves a problem (why victim is NOT in house) that wasn’t presented.
…

AK

The note does explain why there's a dead body in the house, but you and some others don't see it because you insist on reading the note with the left side of your brain.

 

[TexasTuff]

If it was just an unusual outfit choice, sure. The same clothing makes it appear as though she stayed up all night in a case where she probably would have had to stay up all night for her to become a suspect.

But this isn't the main problem even. It's just one more part of the big picture. The main problem is the lack of intruder evidence. For another example, that all stuff used in the crime were found in their house. Even the ransom note was written with their pen and paper. Who in the world plans to abduct a child and just brings along nothing of their own to complete the crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wasn't JR going to fly them to Minn. himself? I think she figured they would land and go directly to the house and not run into a lot of people. She had packing and other stuff to do.

 

[Ellie9]

Wasn't JR going to fly them to Minn. himself? I think she figured they would land and go directly to the house and not run into a lot of people. She had packing and other stuff to do.

IIRC they had a private plane, but a pilot. They had to cancel the flight with the pilot that morning. Later that day they all tried to book it out of there and go to Atlanta (I think?) but the police stopped them. If she was wearing boring clothes for the flight, it'd make a lot more sense to put on frumpy sweatpants or PJ's to be as comfy as possible. Party clothes, dress up clothes, seems like quite a stretch for this reasoning, unless she was wearing a different fancy outfit that day, and then I would concede it would appear like she did indeed go to bed and sleep and get ready in the morning.

This isn't the big problem, though, like I said. It doesn't look great, but it's not the main problem. It's mostly that there isn't enough evidence of an intruder that can't be easily explained by other means. If the IDI's can provide better intruder evidence I'd be willing to hear it and think about it.

 

[TexasTuff]

She never said he was the killer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to listen to her interview agan on pg.77, she even insinuates that he might do harm to people in the house when she says she grabbed her shoulder holster because "she didn't know if everyone would be alive at the end of the day after her non-verbal encounter with JR".

She's a nutwad!

 

[InstantProof]

You need to tell Arndt that because she is convinced by looking into JR eyes when he carried JB up from the basement she knew immediately he was the killer.

Sometimes you can express things with your eyes. I'm guessing Arndt saw in his eyes that he was looking at her to see if she was buying any of this or how she would react. Patsy was said to be peeking through her fingers.

 

[InstantProof]

They had to cancel the flight with the pilot that morning. Later that day they all tried to book it out of there and go to Atlanta (I think?) but the police stopped them.

The intruder trying to set them up to look guilty really hit the jackpot with this family.

 

[Ellie9]

Sometimes you can express things with your eyes. I'm guessing Arndt saw in his eyes that he was looking at her to see if she was buying any of this or how she would react. Patsy was said to be peeking through her fingers.

Holy cow this is even more childish than saying her heart went 'pitty-pat' when JBR was missing. She's not some cunning criminal. I think behaviour like this easily explains why her ransom note was garbage. She just wasn't all that sharp and tried to get away with it like any little child would have. "But I didn't steal the cookies! [Imaginary friend's name] did!"

 

[TexasTuff]

The real issue with socio economic differences is that rich people tend to get away with things far more often. Rich people get amazing lawyers. Rich people are not instantly suspected. There is less of a criminal stereotype with the wealthy.

But I can assure you that making assumptions about what a person is or is not capable of based on their income is a fallacy in thinking. If this crime were motivated by a small sum of money, then yes I suppose this makes sense. Rich people probably won't kill someone for a thousand bucks. But this was not motivated by cash. No socio economic group is just above crimes of passion, or child abuse, or attempts of covering their butts.

We can't just look at a person and tell if they are a killer. It's a dangerous myth that you can tell a serial killer by looking into their eyes. You have to take into consideration all of that evidence.

Mainly, there is little to no evidence that an intruder came into that house. All I can think of is DNA on clothes, but this was said to have come from workers handling clothes before shipment. Why should we assume that so many DNA samples must include one outsider killer when there isn't any other proof. There were not a group of men down there traipsing around. It makes far more sense to just assume all that DNA is from workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does their being rich have to do with anything? It never went to trial, that's when having money really comes into play. Are you insinuating that people were bought off?

 

[Ellie9]

What does their being rich have to do with anything? It never went to trial, that's when having money really comes into play. Are you insinuating that people were bought off?

No, I don't think anyone was bought off. I think I already explained it. In your own theory, you said statistics say lower class people statistically are more likely to murder their own children, so therefore you believe this is evidence that the Ramsey's are innocent. I was pointing out this is illogical. Rich people can get away with things easier. The police didn't suspect this nice rich family of much in the very beginning and kind of screwed up searching the house and getting evidence properly. Also, this family had a lawyer advising them before the body was discovered. Rich people can do that - get a lawyer on their side in just a little bit.

I was simply pointing out that the statistics probably don't account for the wealthy people who did this and got away with it (the cases who did go to trial as well as cases who never went to trial.) So I wonder if these statistics are skewed because really this is evidence of people who did NOT get away with murder. Less educated and poor people seem like exactly the kind of people who would not get away with murder.

 

[InstantProof]

It's really not difficult to imagine this playing out in a poor family's house (letter written inside, child hidden away inside) and the parents being arrested.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Yeah, and if you had asked them at the time the detectives believed they did a good job of handeling the crime scene. Arnt is an idiot, what detective in their right mind when they are on a crime scene would allow people to tramp all over the place looking for clues????? She was the freaking detective and it was her job to look for clues.

You need to listen to her interview agan on pg.77, she even insinuates that he might do harm to people in the house when she says she grabbed her shoulder holster because "she didn't know if everyone would be alive at the end of the day after her non-verbal encounter with JR".

She's a nutwad!

Would you be calling Arndt an "idiot" and a "nutwad" if she shared your viewpoint that the Rs are innocent?

 

[giagreen]

Nicely done, otg. What Anti-K and his fellows seem to have done is mistaken what happens on TV with what happens in real life. On TV, every piece of evidence clicks together like a fine jigsaw puzzle. But that doesn't happen in real life. There are ALWAYS pieces that don't fit. And not every case is solved through forensics. Old-fashioned police work still has its place. (I'm not talking rubber hoses, either.)

This goes both ways.

 

[giagreen]

My take on it is this: if this were the case, then the scene would have been staged to look like it was done by the parents. Instead, it was staged to look like someone came in from outside.


Dumb or smart doesn't really apply. A smart person with no experience can make amateur mistakes.



How and where would they do it?

I disagree. I feel like in this case it was staged to ultimately make it look like the parents did it.

And how or where? They were leaving in the AM on their privet plain....as if they couldn't of gotten rid of the evidence along with JBR if they really wanted to. They didn't have to call the police when they did. They could of done so many things and never been caught.

 

[giagreen]

Well, John said the suitcase shouldn't have been there. And John later revealed that he had latched that window closed without telling anybody know. So whether he staged it or not, it seems to me like there was a concerted effort to convince LE that someone came through that window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if he was trying to stage a break in then why latch it then bring it up later? If he wanted people to see that he could of made a bigger deal out of it. But he didn't at the time.

 

[giagreen]

Would you be calling Arndt an "idiot" and a "nutwad" if she shared your viewpoint that the Rs are innocent?

Absolutely.

 

[icedtea4me]

I disagree. I feel like in this case it was staged to ultimately make it look like the parents did it.

And how or where? They were leaving in the AM on their privet plain....as if they couldn't of gotten rid of the evidence along with JBR if they really wanted to. They didn't have to call the police when they did. They could of done so many things and never been caught.

When could they have called the police? How about their pilot? John Andrew and Melinda?

 

[InstantProof]

I disagree. I feel like in this case it was staged to ultimately make it look like the parents did it.

And how or where? They were leaving in the AM on their privet plain....as if they couldn't of gotten rid of the evidence along with JBR if they really wanted to. They didn't have to call the police when they did. They could of done so many things and never been caught.

The had a pilot. They risked a neighbor seeing them leave the house. It looks like they staged the scene because they did.