Evidence of IDI...?

[BBB167893]

"If the intruder's intention was to kidnap Jonbenet...why didn't he just find a way to abduct her from school...or from elsewhere?"

That's what Robert Ressler said!

 

[islanders]

-The prints belong to Ramseys.

-Patsy wasn't excluded as the author of the RN.

-JonBenet wasn't asleep - both her parents originally said she wasn't, only to change that story later, and Burke testified that she walked in the house herself that evening. The pineapple says she was awake after arriving home as well.


What did I forget?[/QUOTE]

This are several of your original points. It is just another RDI by stringing together lose information and hanging on every word of the Rams and putting your own spin on it.

All you will argue is that RDI and that’s why there was no intruder.

Not very objective IMO

 

[Nuisanceposter]

In reference to why didn't the 'napper snag her elsewhere - I try to look at this objectively, and all I can come up with maybe he was afraid of being seen taking JB somewhere.

But that's a good point - JonBenet was very active and participated in many activities. There must have been numerous opportunities to abduct her in a public setting. Why risk sneaking into her house to grab her - on Christmas night, of all nights? How did the intruder know that there weren't going to be extra people, possibly sleeping in the living room, etc?

My point in creating this thread was not to start arguments - far from it. Despite my name, which I find funny for personal reasons, I have no desire to be unpleasant to other posters. I really want to try to understand how someone else who disagrees with me sees the evidence, and why they hold that view.

 

[Chrishope]

-The head wound was fully developed and appears to have preceded the strangulation due to its development.

First, I applaud you for starting this thread. Unfortunately, it won't go anywhere because many people on these boards have been here a long time and have debated the issue once too often. IOW, this will be no place for newcomers.

Second, I'd love to debate the IDI theory, point by point, but I lean more to RDI so I don't think I could give IDI a fair shake.

Third, I question your last point about the head wound preceeding the strangulation. From what I've read, I thought it was the other way around - based on the wound not bleeding very much, which means her heart had stopped, or nearly stopped, which must have been due to strangulation.

IMO this case isn't so much about what is possible - because nearly anything is possible- but what is more probable.

 

[tumble]

First, I applaud you for starting this thread. Unfortunately, it won't go anywhere because many people on these boards have been here a long time and have debated the issue once too often. IOW, this will be no place for newcomers.

Second, I'd love to debate the IDI theory, point by point, but I lean more to RDI so I don't think I could give IDI a fair shake.

Third, I question your last point about the head wound preceeding the strangulation. From what I've read, I thought it was the other way around - based on the wound not bleeding very much, which means her heart had stopped, or nearly stopped, which must have been due to strangulation.

IMO this case isn't so much about what is possible - because nearly anything is possible- but what is more probable.

You are right, there are different interpretations of the head wound.

Some say it was to little internal bleeding which indicates that she was strangled first.

Others say the brain had started to swell which need time and so indicating the blow came first.

Personally I think the garrote screams staging so therefore I chose to belive that the blow came first.

 

[Chrishope]

Personally I think the garrote screams staging so therefore I chose to belive that the blow came first.

Please don't think I'm being argumentative with you - I'm just trying to have a calm discussion here.

To me the garrote screams wierd sadistic pervy activity. I mean, an average peson w/o knowledge of such devices would simply choke with their hands, or wrap a cord or rope around and pull at it to choke. To me the garrote is evidence of some knowledge of sadistic sexual practices.

I suppose the Ramseys could have staged it that way to make a domestic assault look like a pervy sex murder - but it just begs the question as to why the Ramseys would know how to fashion a garrote.

If an intruder did it, why would he need to choke her at all, after bashing in her head? And if he did want to stage something, why a garrote which indicates to police they are dealing with a sadist - why not something more pedestrian?

It seems to me the blow to the head was either staged in hopes of covering up the stragulation (perhaps the perp didn't realize the ligature marks would remain) or it was part and parcel of the killing and came approximately the same time as strangulation.

I'm open to other points of view.

 

[Details]

Neverminding the point by point - I lean towards an intruder because the Ramsey's have been found innocent by a judge, and declared by the police to be no longer suspects, etc. If those experts in the case aren't still looking at them, I tend to believe them. The little bits about patches in the snow, and a ton of other leads that the police didn't investigate due to their original tunnel vision focus on the Ramseys (I posted a link a few days ago, on the DNA thread that had a ton of fascinating info in it) just confirm it. The police did everything possible to find the Ramseys guilty, and didn't come even close.

I tend to be very pro-LE, pro-prosecution, but in this case, once a few lies were cleared up, I just didn't see a clear case. Nothing is impossible, but I sure don't see enough for me to say I'm pretty sure, or even leaning towards that one of the Ramseys did it. I know, and have told others, about what horrible things parents can do to their children - I've got no illusions that being a pretty upper class family insulates the Ramsey's from these kinds of perversions - but the evidence just isn't there.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

Neverminding the point by point - I lean towards an intruder because the Ramsey's have been found innocent by a judge, and declared by the police to be no longer suspects, etc. If those experts in the case aren't still looking at them, I tend to believe them. The little bits about patches in the snow, and a ton of other leads that the police didn't investigate due to their original tunnel vision focus on the Ramseys (I posted a link a few days ago, on the DNA thread that had a ton of fascinating info in it) just confirm it. The police did everything possible to find the Ramseys guilty, and didn't come even close.

I tend to be very pro-LE, pro-prosecution, but in this case, once a few lies were cleared up, I just didn't see a clear case. Nothing is impossible, but I sure don't see enough for me to say I'm pretty sure, or even leaning towards that one of the Ramseys did it. I know, and have told others, about what horrible things parents can do to their children - I've got no illusions that being a pretty upper class family insulates the Ramsey's from these kinds of perversions - but the evidence just isn't there.

Who fed JonBenet the pineapple from the bowl in the kitchen? That's another question I have for the intruder theory.

What reason did the Ramsey's have to deny they gave it to her...and even for Patsy to deny the bowl belonged to them when it did?
It would interfere with their official story, for one.

Way I see it...when it comes to the Ramsey's...there's cause for suspicion...but not enough evidence to throw the glove down.
The JonBenet case is a very weird and very "clean" case in that there just isn't a lot of anything to connect to someone and say exactly what they did.

 

[Chrishope]

Neverminding the point by point - I lean towards an intruder because the Ramsey's have been found innocent by a judge, .

Found innocent?

 

[Chebrock]

Who fed JonBenet the pineapple from the bowl in the kitchen? That's another question I have for the intruder theory.

What reason did the Ramsey's have to deny they gave it to her...and even for Patsy to deny the bowl belonged to them when it did?
It would interfere with their official story, for one.

Way I see it...when it comes to the Ramsey's...there's cause for suspicion...but not enough evidence to throw the glove down.
The JonBenet case is a very weird and very "clean" case in that there just isn't a lot of anything to connect to someone and say exactly what they did.

I believe that after the excitement of Christmas day, Burke pretended to go to sleep and when his Dad finally left, he got up to play with his new toys more. JonBenet heard him (they sleep on the same floor) and went downstairs with him. He didn't want his little sister playing with his new toys so he made her a bowl of pineapple (her favorite) to keep her busy while he played.

After a while, they both became tired and went back to bed.

 

[tumble]

Please don't think I'm being argumentative with you - I'm just trying to have a calm discussion here.

To me the garrote screams wierd sadistic pervy activity. I mean, an average peson w/o knowledge of such devices would simply choke with their hands, or wrap a cord or rope around and pull at it to choke. To me the garrote is evidence of some knowledge of sadistic sexual practices.

I suppose the Ramseys could have staged it that way to make a domestic assault look like a pervy sex murder - but it just begs the question as to why the Ramseys would know how to fashion a garrote.

If an intruder did it, why would he need to choke her at all, after bashing in her head? And if he did want to stage something, why a garrote which indicates to police they are dealing with a sadist - why not something more pedestrian?

It seems to me the blow to the head was either staged in hopes of covering up the stragulation (perhaps the perp didn't realize the ligature marks would remain) or it was part and parcel of the killing and came approximately the same time as strangulation.

I'm open to other points of view.

Appreciate your thoughts and your attitude.

I agree, I don't think an intruder would try to stage the scene like this.
I think the parents staged the scene covering up the headblow.
And I don't think it was an elaborate garrote. I was tied with a doubleknot around the neck and the hair was engangled in the handle. Which means the handle was constructed just by the neck. I think a real perp would contruct the handle first and then tie it around the neck. And I don't really see how the handle would have worked together with a doubleknot.http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

 

[InnocentBystander]

John Karr claims he gave JB pineapple when he met her at family's party.

Of course the party took place on the 23rd.

JMK trying to shoe-horn all the evidence in.

 

[Details]

Who fed JonBenet the pineapple from the bowl in the kitchen? That's another question I have for the intruder theory.

What reason did the Ramsey's have to deny they gave it to her...and even for Patsy to deny the bowl belonged to them when it did?
It would interfere with their official story, for one.

Way I see it...when it comes to the Ramsey's...there's cause for suspicion...but not enough evidence to throw the glove down.
The JonBenet case is a very weird and very "clean" case in that there just isn't a lot of anything to connect to someone and say exactly what they did.

The intruder? Who knows? There's no logical reason, if the Ramseys are guilty, for them to deny she had pineapple either, so I can't see how it points at all to guilt. I think the pineapple is way overblown. Maybe they forgot. Maybe she got some herself with a chair or other tool. Maybe the intruder brought the pineapple with him, put it in a bowl, and gave her some. It just doesn't prove anything.

 

[angelwngs]

I disagree. Reference to it is on every thread, but actual discussion of it in a concise conversation is not. That's why I wanted to open a conversation specifically about individual pieces of evidence. Someone yesterday mentioned that she has seen enough evidence to exclude the Ramseys, and I asked her what that evidence was - and now I can't find the thread where I asked, and if I did, that doesn't mean she can find it or will answer.

I just figured it would be easier if there was a discussion solely about the evidence and how people see it indicate either RDI or IDI. Sorry if it offends people. Maybe I should have chosen a different title.

~~~To find the thread where you posted your question...have you gone to "Member List" at the top of a main page here... Opened it...Clicked on the letter of your name ("N' for Nuisanceposter), found your member listing, clicked on your name and opened to find your posts and clicked on the one you are looking for... It will show where it was posted and responses to it... Then you can bump it so 'she' can answer you...

I think you can actually click on your name beside any of your posts and it will take you to the same initial page of all of your posts... At least some forums are designed that way... Good Luck finding your post~~~~~~~~~

 

[Chrishope]

I'll play devil's advocate and Introduce some reasons for the IDI view, since no IDI advocates seem to want to do it.

Let's start with the window. JR claims the window was broken for several months - since he'd had to break in that way one day when he forgot his keys.

If there was already a broken window, then it would be a easy spot for an intruder to gain entry. He wouldn't have to make any noise by breaking a window, he'd just have to reach through and unlatch the window, swing it open, and get in.

Also there was a suitcase positioned under the window, indicating that an intruder put it there to help him when it came time to escape.

I suggest we don't make a laundry list all at once, but take the IDI evidence one at a time until we've hashed it out.

You do have to admit that a broken window with a suitcase under it makes one think of an intruder.

 

[newtv]

I'm serious here...those of you who believe an intruder was the killer(whether it was Karr or not), what evidence are you basing your opinion on? I'd like to go through it all point by point and discuss it.

Personally, I can't see any forensic evidence that indicates anyone other than a Ramsey was in that house that night, other than perhaps the underwear DNA (and IMO that DNA is too old to have depostited in JB's undies at the time of the murder.)

-The doors weren't unlocked. John and Patsy Ramsey both originally told police and friends that all doors were locked that night, only to change their story later.

-No one went through the window, the chair was in front of the door and the web was intact.

-The prints belong to Ramseys.

-Patsy wasn't excluded as the author of the RN.

-JonBenet wasn't asleep - both her parents originally said she wasn't, only to change that story later, and Burke testified that she walked in the house herself that evening. The pineapple says she was awake after arriving home as well.

-Burke owned HiTecs, and there's no way to date that footprint. The smudge under the window no one went through is a water mark.

-No one has proven a stun gun was used - experts testified that the marks were too close together and those were abrasions and not burn marks.

-Experts have claimed evidence of prior sexual abuse.

-The cord was tied with a fixed knot and not a noose knot, and it was "built" on her neck with no signs of struggle from JB. Her wrists show no signs of struggle. The tape shows no signs of struggle.

-The head wound was fully developed and appears to have preceded the strangulation due to its development.

What did I forget?

why do u ask the question and then anything a person might use to support an intruder theory u say is bogus - even if its true..dna-window open, the fact that the parents have been cleared of involvement..yada
Just state why it isnt-dont ask for anything to counter it- you take that away - even DNA.

 

[tumble]

I believe that after the excitement of Christmas day, Burke pretended to go to sleep and when his Dad finally left, he got up to play with his new toys more. JonBenet heard him (they sleep on the same floor) and went downstairs with him. He didn't want his little sister playing with his new toys so he made her a bowl of pineapple (her favorite) to keep her busy while he played.

After a while, they both became tired and went back to bed.

Chebrock, sounds plausible but why didn't JB fingerprints end up on the bowl or the spoon. Do you think she eat the pineapple with her fingers or did she clean up after herself?

 

[DaTeacher]

First of all, all the so called handwriting experts can't agree whether this nutcases:behindbar handwriting matches or not... Patsy's was inconclusive. So don't ya think we should eliminate the handwritting as proof that Patsy did it?

DebbsD=DaTeacher

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

The intruder? Who knows? There's no logical reason, if the Ramseys are guilty, for them to deny she had pineapple either, so I can't see how it points at all to guilt. I think the pineapple is way overblown. Maybe they forgot. Maybe she got some herself with a chair or other tool. Maybe the intruder brought the pineapple with him, put it in a bowl, and gave her some. It just doesn't prove anything.

Had they admitted that yes they had given her pineapple...it would poke holes in their story that they carried her sleeping to her bed from the car and did nothing more.

JonBenet's fingerprints were not on the bowl. I do not see how she could have gotten a chair, gotten the bowl, and gotten pineapple herself without ever touching the bowl.
Only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on it.

Patsy denied that they had had any pineapple in their house. She also denied the bowl was even theirs'...even though Burke recognized it (he stated he didn't remember getting any pineapple that night).

JonBenet was awake when the Ramsey's say she was asleep. She ate pineapple from that bowl shortly before her death.
It makes no sense she'd sit at the table with a stranger and eat pineapple while the rest of her family was sleeping.

 

[Chrishope]

The intruder? Who knows? There's no logical reason, if the Ramseys are guilty, for them to deny she had pineapple either, so I can't see how it points at all to guilt. I think the pineapple is way overblown. Maybe they forgot. Maybe she got some herself with a chair or other tool. Maybe the intruder brought the pineapple with him, put it in a bowl, and gave her some. It just doesn't prove anything.

It proves one thing - JBR had pineapple approximately 2 hours before dying.

There is one logical reason for the Ramseys to deny she had pineapple -IF (please note I said IF) they are guilty - and that is because their story is that they didn't see JBR after she'd been put to bed.

Of course we don't know - IF it was an intruder- how long it took to do all this. Maybe he sensed everyone was sound asleep by 10:30, and killed her by 11. If she'd had pineapple at the White's party, just before leaving, that would fit.