Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Anti-K]

The ransom note could be viewed in another way in that JonBenet paid the ransom for her parents' sins.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ransom?s=t

Really? Good grief.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

BBM

Ah, yes, counterfactuals. What if there had been no ransom note?

Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: a (fake) kidnapping.

Do we stop there? Why? Why not say: no (fake) kidnapping and no garrote? And, no sexual assault at or near point of death? Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

JBR is struck a massive blow upon the head. Now what? Because this is where your counterfactual needs to begin.
...

AK

You are dodging the question. You are the one that was trying to say it made no sense that the Ramseys wrote the note because they were leaving forensic evidence. Again I ask you, how would it have gone down without the note??

You wont answer because you know the note was an integral part of the staging.

 

[Tawny]

Massive blow upon the head. Call an ambulance, answer all of the probing questions about abuse and sibling rivalry and then the world would know they aren't the perfect family after all. What will happen to BR? Will he be in trouble? Will we lose custody? Will JR's reputation be ruined forever? Will it affect our business and our livelihood? How do we explain that someone who lives here hit JBR hard enough to kill her?

 

[Anti-K]

You are dodging the question. You are the one that was trying to say it made no sense that the Ramseys wrote the note because they were leaving forensic evidence. Again I ask you, how would it have gone down without the note??

You wont answer because you know the note was an integral part of the staging.

You realize that I am under no obligation to answer your questions?

Regardless, Andreww, you get so many things wrong that I’m really starting to wonder if you’re serious about discussion or if you’re just trying to start an argument. The question that you are falsely accusing me of dodging has already been answered by me many times; three times on this thread alone! Here:
http://tinyurl.com/pm57uky Here: http://tinyurl.com/p9q66kz And, here: http://tinyurl.com/nzqh7g3

I’ll answer it a fourth time:
Without the ransom note the Ramseys could have done anything that they wanted. Faked an accident and called an ambulance – no police. No unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence; no absurdities, no nonsense, no contradictions.

You wrote that I won’t answer the question because I “know the note was an integral part of the staging.” You have now shown to be wrong. I have answered the question (several times), so can we now stop with the offensive accusations and get on with real discussion?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

You are dodging the question. You are the one that was trying to say it made no sense that the Ramseys wrote the note because they were leaving forensic evidence. Again I ask you, how would it have gone down without the note??

You wont answer because you know the note was an integral part of the staging.

andreww,
BBM: If you propose a RDI theory then the RN can represent staged forensic evidence, intended to point away from the R's and explain why JonBenet was moved from her bed down to the basement.

Similary in an IDI theory the RN can represent real forensic evidence implicating an intruder. Absence of a RN would have left the R's having to explain why JonBenet was found wrapped in a blanket inside the wine-cellar, with no obvious signs of entrance or exit for an intruder!

.

 

[tovarisch]

BBM

Ah, yes, counterfactuals. What if there had been no ransom note?

Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: a (fake) kidnapping.

Do we stop there? Why? Why not say: no (fake) kidnapping and no garrote? And, no sexual assault at or near point of death? Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

JBR is struck a massive blow upon the head. Now what? Because this is where your counterfactual needs to begin.
...

AK

Bravo, AK!

Head blow took place, JBR is unconscious but she is alive and is breathing.
Now what?

 

[questfortrue]

Massive blow upon the head. Call an ambulance, answer all of the probing questions about abuse and sibling rivalry and then the world would know they aren't the perfect family after all. What will happen to BR? Will he be in trouble? Will we lose custody? Will JR's reputation be ruined forever? Will it affect our business and our livelihood? How do we explain that someone who lives here hit JBR hard enough to kill her?

No one has the soothsaying ability to know whether she would have woken up or not, if she'd received immediate help.

Just to add to the Rs' considerations: What if she wakes up and tells who did this? What if she tells who has molested her? JonBenet’s death removes the fear of any additional repercussions to reputation or (gasp) jail, as the stagers build a scene as though a kidnapper/pedophile/killer intruder did this.

 

[icedtea4me]

No one has the soothsaying ability to know whether she would have woken up or not, if she'd received immediate help.

Just to add to the Rs' considerations: What if she wakes up and tells who did this? What if she tells who has molested her? JonBenet’s death removes the fear of any additional repercussions to reputation or (gasp) jail, as the stagers build a scene as though a kidnapper/pedophile/killer intruder did this.

IMO, that is the reason for this line in the note: Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded.

 

[tovarisch]

No one has the soothsaying ability to know whether she would have woken up or not, if she'd received immediate help.

Just to add to the Rs' considerations: What if she wakes up and tells who did this? What if she tells who has molested her? JonBenet’s death removes the fear of any additional repercussions to reputation or (gasp) jail, as the stagers build a scene as though a kidnapper/pedophile/killer intruder did this.

What if to call The doctor for the beginning, before constructing the garrote, ah? The doctor, remember him?

 

[questfortrue]

What if to call The doctor for the beginning, before constructing the garrote, ah? The doctor, remember him?

Since you are speaking from the IDI standpoint, I am not sure what your point is. However, I’ll ignore your sarcasm (more appropriate on the IDI thread, btw) and respond that some RDI believe that the doctor was called. That fact is unknown as the DA refused to allow an immediate warrant for their phone records. Some also believe, as Kolar indicated in his AMA, that it is possible that the person (one of the Rs according to RDI and Kolar) who struck her also was responsible for her strangulation. If that was the case, then the decision to stage for an intruder is perhaps made more easily. (Just a matter of enlisting the support of the other adult in the family.) This is a “Sophie’s Choice” kind of decision.

Even though they have attorneys before the end of the afternoon of the 26th, the Rs still do not know what will happen, and all of their fears would still be in play. One of them may even have decided it’d be best to ‘blow out of Dodge,’ so to speak. Go to a business meeting. Or take enough drugs, as in Patsy’s case, to be rendered incoherent.

I’ll add that some MEs with long-term backgrounds in child deaths, maintain that in accidents parents will still call an ambulance, even when a child is clearly deceased.

 

[tovarisch]

Since you are speaking from the IDI standpoint, I am not sure what your point is. However, I’ll ignore your sarcasm (more appropriate on the IDI thread, btw) and respond that some RDI believe that the doctor was called. That fact is unknown as the DA refused to allow an immediate warrant for their phone records. Some also believe, as Kolar indicated in his AMA, that it is possible that the person (one of the Rs according to RDI and Kolar) who struck her also was responsible for her strangulation. If that was the case, then the decision to stage for an intruder is perhaps made more easily. (Just a matter of enlisting the support of the other adult in the family.) This is a “Sophie’s Choice” kind of decision.

Even though they have attorneys before the end of the afternoon of the 26th, the Rs still do not know what will happen, and all of their fears would still be in play. One of them may even have decided it’d be best to ‘blow out of Dodge,’ so to speak. Go to a business meeting. Or take enough drugs, as in Patsy’s case, to be rendered incoherent.

I’ll add that some MEs with long-term backgrounds in child deaths, maintain that in accidents parents will still call an ambulance, even when a child is clearly deceased.

Sarcasm is not in my obvious question, sarcasm, and a bad one, in your statement that parents would garrote their injured child out of the fear that child might wake up,alive, and tell the story ??

 

[BBB167893]

“We’ve been over that.” Is that your way of admitting that you’ve once again been proven wrong on a point (something that’s happened quite a bit lately!); because that’s what just happened.

Wrong on all three, Anti-K. It's a nice way of saying that I'm tired of making the same arguments when people won't listen.

The fact that you, or others, find it easy to discount favorable evidence such as Behavioral History isn’t exactly favorable to your position!

In what way?

To be skeptical of a claim is to be unpersuaded one way or the other. I am unconvinced. By either position. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Show me.

Oh, I intend to. Until you gag on it.

It is rare (if ever). And, yes, there are several things stopping this from being one of the rare ones: reality.

Don't talk to me about reality, Anti-K. I've had more of reality than any one person ever should; that's why I'm like I am.

Regardless, just because you think something can happen, doesn’t mean that it did happen and it isn’t evidence that it did happen.

I'll remember you said that.

If it is a common thing, then it becomes probable and the evidence required to establish it, or believe it may be small; however if it is something rare then it is something unlikely and it takes a greater amount of evidence (here, you have none) to establish it. It becomes, essentially, an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That's my argument: it isn't rare, not as much as some of us might think.

 

[BBB167893]

If I misunderstood you, then perhaps you could clarify.

Somehow, I don't think it would help.

But, I suspect that the problem is with your reasoning and not with my understanding.

I'm CONVINCED it's the other way around.

 

[BBB167893]

No one is saying the Ramseys were any different than anyone else

<modsnip> From Day One, that's been the crux of the IDI viewpoint: that these weren't the "kind" of people to do this. It was a damned hard lesson for me to learn, but ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING.

(except, you. you claim that they are rarities).

Not rare enough!

The point is very simple, people who dispose of potentially incriminating evidence out of forensic concern don’t turn around and UNNECESSARILY create self-incriminating evidence with the intent of handing it over to investigators.

Ah, but that's what I'm saying: they thought it was necessary. Or one of them did, anyway. Emphasis on "thought."

I’m not sure if you know how unreasonable “creating ultimately self-incriminating evidence in an attempt to point elsewhere” really sounds. Even if we accept that there was such a need – to point elsewhere – this would not explain unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence. Self-incriminating points towards self, not elsewhere! Good grief.

It's funny how you say it sounds unreasonable, when that's what the FBI guys told the cops. You want the exact passages? I'll provide them.

Moreover, it's easy for you, at your comfortable computer, to say it was unreasonable. You're not the one with his neck on the line.

 

[BBB167893]

Writing a ransom note IS creating evidence. Handwriting IS forensic evidence. Materials used – forensic evidence. ETC. Good grief!
...

AK

You should listen to andreww, Anti-K. He understands it.

 

[BBB167893]

They didn't understand/know it was self-incriminating evidence in doing those things. They believed they were staging a scene that convinced other people they were not involved, that it was clearly an intruder. They failed.

Finally! SOMEONE has it right! I don't know what is so damn hard to understand about that!

 

[BBB167893]

Not sure if the Ramsey's are master criminals or that they are any sort of genius's. I think it was a perfect storm of bad police work and timing with a whole lot of confusion thrown in by the Ramseys. LE should have seen this for what it probably was right from the beginning. The Ramseys should have been confined to one room and no guests should have been allowed access. Dogs should have been brought in early and the Ramseys should have been taken in for questioning the moment the body was found. The biggest problem was that the cops bought in to that convoluted ransom note despite being advised by the FBI that it was likely fake. If they had treated the scene as a possible kidnapping/possible foul play scene from the beginning, John and Patsy would probably still be locked up in a jail somewhere.

It's simpler than that, andreww: no way was AH going to pit his pathetic courtroom skills against lawyers with THAT kind of power.

 

[BBB167893]

Holy cow! It&#8217; so simple. They get rid of the cord so it can&#8217;t be traced back to the house. If this is the reason of getting rid of the cord then it becomes absurd to tie the paintbrush to it, because the paintbrush can be traced back to the house. It&#8217;s absurd, nonsensical; contradictory.
However, an intruder may have only brought the amount of cord that was used &#8211; nothing to dispose of; and, used the paintbrush because it could NOT be traced back to him. same evidence/facts and I very simple explanation.

The Ramseys told the police that the doors were locked, and Mr Ramsey claimed to have broken the basement window himself and that the window was often left ajar. He/they gave investigators no intruder entry/exit point. This is absurd if we are to believe that they wanted investigators to believe an intruder came into their home. Absurd, nonsensical; contradictory.

Without the ransom note: the Ramseys could have done anything that they wanted. Faked an accident and called an ambulance &#8211; no police. No unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence; no absurdities, no nonsense, no contradictions.
...

AK

Gee, it's sure nice to know that there's a widely-available instruction manual on how to kill your child! (SARCASM!)

Actually, I could answer all of those challenges, but I doubt it would do any good.

 

[BBB167893]

We have no way of knowing how loose the wrist ligatures were prior to JR's discovery of the body.

Sure we do! The autopsy report: no bruising or friction marks.

 

[BBB167893]

BBM

Ah, yes, counterfactuals. What if there had been no ransom note?

Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: a (fake) kidnapping.

Do we stop there? Why? Why not say: no (fake) kidnapping and no garrote? And, no sexual assault at or near point of death? Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

JBR is struck a massive blow upon the head. Now what? Because this is where your counterfactual needs to begin.

BBM. The sad part, Anti-K, is that I don't think you're serious.