I still have an open mind as to how this happened and who did it

[MaskedAvenger]

Much simpler and safer to just say the doors weren’t locked; right? Or, that one was open when you came downstairs...
...

AK

Not going to argue there. It would have been easier. Doesn't mean it is the route someone else might choose though.

 

[midwest mama]

Could be MM, although I am much of the opinion that JR gets others to do his "writing" for him.

Oh yes, he has "written" in collaboration, for sure. Indicating his skill with literary composition has been easily dictated, n'est pa?

My query is this: did we see the first example of any of his skill in the ransom note?

I keep going back, though, to the misspellings in the ransom note. Most believe they were done on purpose to add an element of degradation to the writer in order to fool the reader into thinking the writer was not highly educated. But I have noticed the misspelling of the word "occasion" on JR's writing exemplar. And also the style of his "s" printing in that word. It just seems odd to me that the misspellings in the ransom note are also in words with double s's, and the s's in both the exemplar word and the word "bussiness" in the ransom note are so very, very similar.

 

[questfortrue]

Hi, this is my first post here.

{SNIP}
Two of many problems that I am sure will be highlighted in the above sequence:

• John seems far too smart to leave the pad and pen used for the RN sitting in their normal places. Perhaps in the crazy sequence of how this might evolve he just missed this. Same with the pineapple in the bowl.
• Given the RN note contents and the seemingly logical need to remove the body from the house, why does PR call 911? Perhaps she just freaked out and called. They were going to have to call others soon as the flight to Michigan was planned and they would need to explain some reasons for a delay.

ZBob

Welcome, ZBob! Since there are lots of theories on the 911 call, not going to touch that one right now.

There are a number of posts addressing the idea that the two R’s were not agreeing about everything that night and it showed in the morning. (The adult R’s were not comforting one another that morning, e.g.) Handing over the pad to LE might be an indication he was playing ever so “helpful” at PR’s expense. SuperDave started a thread back in 2009 called No Honor Among Thieves, outlining a Plan B JR may have had. You can do a search on the forum and find that thread.

As far as the garrote topic, well it does sound a little “foreign”; at least from what I know about it, it was used in Spain, India and also in the Philippines as a killing device. With the Philippines there’s a JR connection, since that is where he was stationed while serving in the Navy. LS, detective, made an interesting claim in Time Magazine that the garrote was a favorite tool of pedophiles. Never heard that before LS stated it. But it’s anyone’s analysis why JB was strangled. It was a ligature which ended her life, so many here believe the garrote part was for affect. And one’s conclusions why it was included in the crime depends on whether one thinks the ligature/garrote was rigged by BR, PR, JR or IDI. Was the R’s story line that JB was killed in a most horrible way by the kidnappers because the police showed up? IDK.

My personal opinion, like you, is JR put it together, but there’s no direct evidence linking him to it. JR may have tipped his hand one time, when being interviewed with LS. LS was speaking of the intruder and the manner of the killing, stating that the intruder strangled JB first with the garrote, and the head strike came second. While discussing this JR wondered aloud, “We thought the head strike killed her.” LS does not allow JR to continue this line of thinking and keeps charging ahead with the intruder theory. JR recognized immediately that he shouldn’t undermine LS’s theory.

One thing I’ve thought about in connection to the garrote is the fact that the GJ - within count VII, the charge of cover-up against the adult R’s - included language of both first degree murder and child abuse leading to death. The ligature/garrote would appear to many people as a tool for murder and a reason to apply that terminology in the True Bill charges. All my opinion.

 

[MaskedAvenger]

The Inventory of Property Removed lists “four pieces of broken window.” http://tinyurl.com/ke5ao56

From the Steve Thomas book (emphasis added); p. 37: “Downstairs in the basement, another technician examined the broken window. Three windows, each eighteen-by-twenty-inch rectangles were in a row. The top of the pane in the center window was broken, and the screen was off. The tech noticed pieces of glass outside the window and a scuff mark on the wall.”

I think it’s safe to assume that the pieces listed in the inventory and those that the Technician noticed outside the window are the same pieces.

You can see what I think is one of those pieces at 1:57 in the dailybeast video: http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a

Supposedly, White found a piece of glass on the floor and he put it on the window ledge (Thomas; p. 20. Kolar; p. 28). The window was supposedly closed, but not latched.

Go to 1:30 in the video.

Here you can see that when the window is closed it is flush with the trim that runs around it. This means that if the window was closed, or even only slightly ajar there would be no ledge for White to use. Also, glass on the ledge should not be able to move from one side to the other unless someone picks it up and moves it because there is a lip, or ridge that divides the inner and outer window ledge. For these reasons I think that White may have moved the “kernel” of glass that he found to the top of the suitcase, and not the window ledge.
...

AK

Hold on a second. Carnes describes the piece Fleet found as a shard of glass (p.12). The video shows a shard of glass sitting on the ledge which is entirely consistent with claims made by Kolar and Thomas. In this respect, I don't know how a kernel or suitcase even comes into the equation??

Is there some other evidence I need to consider here?

 

[Anti-K]

Hold on a second. Carnes describes the piece Fleet found as a shard of glass (p.12). The video shows a shard of glass sitting on the ledge which is entirely consistent with claims made by Kolar and Thomas. In this respect, I don't know how a kernel or suitcase even comes into the equation??

Is there some other evidence I need to consider here?

“Kernel” comes from Kolar; p. 28: “White did find a small single kernel of glass...”

I would go with Carnes “shard,” as that description probably came from White’s deposition.

Yes, at first I thought the piece of glass on the ledge must be the piece that White put there, but he could only have done so if the window was open. Carnes states that White could not remember if the window was open or closed, but iirc, all other sources claim that White found the window closed.
There was a small piece of glass found on top of the suitcase.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

Oh yes, he has "written" in collaboration, for sure. Indicating his skill with literary composition has been easily dictated, n'est pa?

My query is this: did we see the first example of any of his skill in the ransom note?

I keep going back, though, to the misspellings in the ransom note. Most believe they were done on purpose to add an element of degradation to the writer in order to fool the reader into thinking the writer was not highly educated. But I have noticed the misspelling of the word "occasion" on JR's writing exemplar. And also the style of his "s" printing in that word. It just seems odd to me that the misspellings in the ransom note are also in words with double s's, and the s's in both the exemplar word and the word "bussiness" in the ransom note are so very, very similar.

Greetings, Midwest mama.

In case you are not familiar with Doc G's analysis, this is the link to it. He believes John Ramsey wrote the RN. Doc G describes all about the strokes of each letter and meanings for each phrase. Doc G also has a recently released a book available on Amazon and on his site.

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/

Also, there is this post, by cynic, where Patsy is questioned about the letters:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5896206&postcount=32

 

[txsvicki]

I just want to pop in and say that after reading for awhile now about brain death on Jahi's thread, JonBenet's murderously inflicted head injury seems even more heinous. They need to find out if any adults had part in this and put them under the jail.

 

[Chelly]

I agree with you, but I also can't understand the sick mind that would tightly wrap a child's neck & wrists with a cord.

I try not to look at the autopsy photos, but sometimes when I research the case, I can't help but stumble across them, and I find the photos horrifying.

That sick mind wanted to save his/her own neck! He/she or they did whatever they believed was necessary to stay out of jail. Once JBR was dead, it was no longer about her. It was all about the R's.

 

[borndem]

Partial quote below by ZBob:

Hi, this is my first post here.

:seeya:

:seeya:

:drumroll:Welcome to the Websleuths Gang, ZBob!!:drumroll:

We're always glad to have a new member, and you have arrived fully "armed" with knowledge of this case!! That's terrific!

We welcome your :twocents: , and thank your for your great 1st post.

-----------------------
​

My scenario of the case is 99.99% the same as yours. I have been a BDI-- with help from the rents -- from day one.

I find the garrote, as many do, the most perplexing of all... I have surmised that maybe BR & JB were playing a "Walk the dog" type game where JB was the dog (or cat) and the garrote was the leash -- nothing sexual, just a game. But I also think that the head blow was first -- by BR due to a remark by JB, as you think -- so then the leash-game goes out the window. So, I agree, if the head bash was 1st, IMO it definitely was -- then the asphyxiation came later & it was done by JR.

The only other possibility for the head bash was JB in the bathroom with PR -- and there PR hit her or JB fell when avoiding PR's slap -- either way, JB's head hit the tub or tile floor and she was immediately unconscious. The rest of it could have happened like the "put her out of her misery" that would work in the BDI above.

It drives me nuts to know that the only thing in this case that we will know for sure is that we will never know what actually happened that night/morning to that sweet six-year-old little ray of sunshine.

Grrrrr

Again, ZBob, Welcome!


​

 

[renah]

Also: She may have appeared to be dead, & whoever staged the scene (to look as if an outside predator was to blame) had no idea the child was still alive when s/he wrapped the cord around her neck.

 

[Anti-K]

Hi, this is my first post here.

Welcome ZBob.

I am also new here; I am an IDI. I want to comment on the “JR and PR behaviors that defy logical explanation” aspect of your post. You list four “behaviors.” I would offer that three of these four are not actually behaviors, but were decisions, but I won’t argue the point. In the interest of shortening post length I am only quoting your four behaviors. Your original post that I am quoting from can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/l4y8f2y

The first:

JR and PR behaviors that defy logical explanation:

• Not involving/waking/asking BR about what he might know is an indication that all of them know what has occurred or at least know the critical events that took place. If there was not pre-existing knowledge, this behavior makes absolutely no sense. First, you would want him with you to protect him. Second, you would question and re-question him (and encourage others to do so) about anything he might have heard or seen during the night or beforehand that could possibly be related. If he said he didn’t hear anything you would ask him repeatedly “are you sure”.

I think that the way things played out that morning, not waking Burke, etc makes some sense. Maybe you’d do things differently; I don’t know. We know what we’ve read in books and such, but we don’t really know what’s gone on between family members, what sorts of questions they’ve asked Burke, what discussions they’ve had, how often, etc.. . I see no reason for suspicion here, although I can understand how you might see this as being reason for it.

The second:

When JR finds the body and brings it up the stairs, both he and FW are making a significant and emotional commotion. PR whose child is missing does not run to the location like everyone else does to see what is going on, which includes here friends who are right with her. This is extremely unusual behavior. What mother in this situation would not immediately jump up to find out what is going on?

I don’t know that this is true. In fact, I am quite skeptical about this claim. Sometimes the person most effected, in this case Mrs Ramsey, freezes; they’re in shock, they’re overcome, they can’t act or react, they don’t think, etc. Others, less effected, are more able to respond and act. This seems like an instance of suspecting someone because they didn’t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The third:

• Suppressing the doctor’s records on both JBR and BR would only be important if it were to prevent revealing abnormal behaviors pre-existing in the household.

I don’t know what this is based on; but more importantly I’m not sure which records are being alluded to, or what you mean by “suppressed.” I can think of several reasons why I wouldn’t want my records released. Once again, this seems like an instance of you suspecting someone because they didn’t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The Fourth:

• Obtaining counsel in this situation can be understood, the speed with which this happened is highly unusual and implies to me knowledge of the events and thus a need for legal protection not just representation.

The speed is unusual, but can be logically explained:
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
DIANE SAWYER: December 26 -- how did you hear that something had happened?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends, and we were...

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their nine-year-old son Burke (ph) had gone to stay.

<snip>

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened....
http://tinyurl.com/kz46jzv
...

AK

 

[Amateur Novelist]

Personally, I am not 100% an IDI or RDI. I still have much that I want to read to become educated on the facts as opposed to opinions and possibly "misinformation"; unintentional or otherwise.

I have read a number of threads and posts on this forum and must admit that the behavior of the R's seems suspicious but I do not think that alone confirms guilt.

I have read posts stating that the R's have lied and repeatedly changed their story, protected BR by not releasing medical records, refused to cooperate, etc. Could the "lies" be explained by "misremembering", could the refusal to release medical records be due to the fact that they KNOW that no one in the family was involved and therefore there would not be a valid reason to release confidential records, could the refusal to cooperate be based on their anger towards LE for suspecting them when they KNOW that they were not involved?

It seems as though there is minimal, if any, evidence pointing to a plausible IDI theory but, IMO, that does not mean that it could not have happened.

Perhaps I am extremely naïve as to what people are capable of and admit that it easier for me to believe that an outside party was involved. I have trouble reconciling how a family could do this to a family member - I know that it happens, others have brought up cases where family members have murdered other family members. I am not sure what happened but there are persuasive arguments pointing to family involvement.

Of all things, I have trouble reconciling the pineapple with an IDI theory and why BR will not consent to an interview. I admit that there appear to be a number of suspicious inconsistencies which seem to favor RDI theories.

Rhetorically thinking - I can understand an accidental bash under a RDI theory, but for me, the rest is difficult to reconcile with a RDI theory. Perhaps once I become more knowledgeable concerning the facts, I will be have a stronger position and opinion as to who was responsible.

I know that many have been involved here for a while and I am sure that it gets frustrating every time a new member begins asking the same questions, bringing up the same points that have been mentioned before. Thanks for the input and I continue to hold out hope that someday, we will know what happened and who was responsible.

 

[ZBob]

Welcome ZBob.

I am also new here; I am an IDI. I want to comment on the “JR and PR behaviors that defy logical explanation” aspect of your post. You list four “behaviors.” I would offer that three of these four are not actually behaviors, but were decisions, but I won’t argue the point. In the interest of shortening post length I am only quoting your four behaviors. Your original post that I am quoting from can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/l4y8f2y

The first:



I think that the way things played out that morning, not waking Burke, etc makes some sense. Maybe you’d do things differently; I don’t know. We know what we’ve read in books and such, but we don’t really know what’s gone on between family members, what sorts of questions they’ve asked Burke, what discussions they’ve had, how often, etc.. . I see no reason for suspicion here, although I can understand how you might see this as being reason for it.

The second:


I don’t know that this is true. In fact, I am quite skeptical about this claim. Sometimes the person most effected, in this case Mrs Ramsey, freezes; they’re in shock, they’re overcome, they can’t act or react, they don’t think, etc. Others, less effected, are more able to respond and act. This seems like an instance of suspecting someone because they didn’t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The third:



I don’t know what this is based on; but more importantly I’m not sure which records are being alluded to, or what you mean by “suppressed.” I can think of several reasons why I wouldn’t want my records released. Once again, this seems like an instance of you suspecting someone because they didn’t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The Fourth:



The speed is unusual, but can be logically explained:
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
DIANE SAWYER: December 26 -- how did you hear that something had happened?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends, and we were...

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their nine-year-old son Burke (ph) had gone to stay.

<snip>

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened....
http://tinyurl.com/kz46jzv
...

AK

ZBob - Those are all very good observations. I sometimes tend to think from my perspective of logical actions. I do believe the second point was called out in Kolar's book as I recall it strongly sticking out for me.

 

[Anyhoo]

Welcome ZBob.

I am also new here; I am an IDI. I want to comment on the &#8220;JR and PR behaviors that defy logical explanation&#8221; aspect of your post. You list four &#8220;behaviors.&#8221; I would offer that three of these four are not actually behaviors, but were decisions, but I won&#8217;t argue the point. In the interest of shortening post length I am only quoting your four behaviors. Your original post that I am quoting from can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/l4y8f2y

The first:



I think that the way things played out that morning, not waking Burke, etc makes some sense. Maybe you&#8217;d do things differently; I don&#8217;t know. We know what we&#8217;ve read in books and such, but we don&#8217;t really know what&#8217;s gone on between family members, what sorts of questions they&#8217;ve asked Burke, what discussions they&#8217;ve had, how often, etc.. . I see no reason for suspicion here, although I can understand how you might see this as being reason for it.

The second:


I don&#8217;t know that this is true. In fact, I am quite skeptical about this claim. Sometimes the person most effected, in this case Mrs Ramsey, freezes; they&#8217;re in shock, they&#8217;re overcome, they can&#8217;t act or react, they don&#8217;t think, etc. Others, less effected, are more able to respond and act. This seems like an instance of suspecting someone because they didn&#8217;t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The third:



I don&#8217;t know what this is based on; but more importantly I&#8217;m not sure which records are being alluded to, or what you mean by &#8220;suppressed.&#8221; I can think of several reasons why I wouldn&#8217;t want my records released. Once again, this seems like an instance of you suspecting someone because they didn&#8217;t act as you think you would act, or act otherwise according to your expectations.

The Fourth:



The speed is unusual, but can be logically explained:
DIANE SAWYER: (on camera) Why did they get a lawyer?
DIANE SAWYER: December 26 -- how did you hear that something had happened?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I had been snowshoeing with my family and friends, and we were...

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) When Bynum, who had lost an infant grandchild of his own, learned that JonBenet had been murdered, he rushed to a friend's house, where the Ramseys and their nine-year-old son Burke (ph) had gone to stay.

<snip>

MICHAEL BYNUM: I went, as their friend, to help. And I felt that they should have legal advice -- nothing more, nothing less.

DIANE SAWYER: So you're the reason they got a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I'm the one.

DIANE SAWYER: It did not occur to them first?

MICHAEL BYNUM: They certainly never made any mention of it to me.

DIANE SAWYER: I'm trying to imagine, if I am in the middle of this agony and my friend says to me, "You better get a lawyer " I think I'd go, "What? What?"

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well...

DIANE SAWYER: This horrible thing has happened to my child. There's a note here. I should get a lawyer?

MICHAEL BYNUM: Well, first of all, that was not the words that I used. I told John there were some legal issues that I thought needed to be taken care of. And John just looked at me and said, "Do whatever you think needs to be done," and he and Burke -- he went into a room to talk with Burke and so I did.

DIANE SAWYER: What made you think there were legal issues?

MICHAEL BYNUM: I was a prosecutor. I know how this works. I know where the police attention's going to go, right from the get go.

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) And he says that's exactly what happened....
http://tinyurl.com/kz46jzv
...

AK

Point 1:

It is inconceivable and completely unbelievable to think the Ramsey's would not wake BR to question him once they discovered the RN and that JB was missing. ANY PARENTS would wake up their son immediatly and ask him if he heard anything, etc.

Point 2:

PR should not have been in shock at that point because she only thought her daughter had been kidnapped at that point. She should have been very worried about her daughter's safety. When she heard the commotion she should have immediately ran in from the sitting room to see what was happening. That she did not is very revealing to me. It reveals that PR did not run in there because she already knew her daughter was dead. She already knew her daughter's dead body was probably brought up from the basement, and she dreaded seeing it again. It seems to me that you are jumping through unbelievable hoops to explain her behavior when there is a perfectly logical reason staring you right in the face that you refuse to acknowledge.

Points 3 and 4:

Just more excuses and rationalizations to avoid RDI.

You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, but you are IMO making a mistake by refusing to look at the behavior of the Ramsey's, which is very revealing that they at the very least know things they should not know if IDI. When I was first looking at this case these things jumped out at me immediately, which is why I was never IDI. IMO you would have to be blind not to see these things. Maybe you do see them but you don't want to accept them. I have moved far beyond where you are at. I know the parents are involved but do not know the exact circumstances. I hope that somewhere down the line your eyes are opened and you recognize the truth.

 

[Anti-K]

Personally, I am not 100% an IDI or RDI. I still have much that I want to read to become educated on the facts as opposed to opinions and possibly "misinformation"; unintentional or otherwise.

I have read a number of threads and posts on this forum and must admit that the behavior of the R's seems suspicious but I do not think that alone confirms guilt.

I have read posts stating that the R's have lied and repeatedly changed their story, protected BR by not releasing medical records, refused to cooperate, etc. Could the "lies" be explained by "misremembering", could the refusal to release medical records be due to the fact that they KNOW that no one in the family was involved and therefore there would not be a valid reason to release confidential records, could the refusal to cooperate be based on their anger towards LE for suspecting them when they KNOW that they were not involved?

It seems as though there is minimal, if any, evidence pointing to a plausible IDI theory but, IMO, that does not mean that it could not have happened.

Perhaps I am extremely naïve as to what people are capable of and admit that it easier for me to believe that an outside party was involved. I have trouble reconciling how a family could do this to a family member - I know that it happens, others have brought up cases where family members have murdered other family members. I am not sure what happened but there are persuasive arguments pointing to family involvement.

Of all things, I have trouble reconciling the pineapple with an IDI theory and why BR will not consent to an interview. I admit that there appear to be a number of suspicious inconsistencies which seem to favor RDI theories.

Rhetorically thinking - I can understand an accidental bash under a RDI theory, but for me, the rest is difficult to reconcile with a RDI theory. Perhaps once I become more knowledgeable concerning the facts, I will be have a stronger position and opinion as to who was responsible.

I know that many have been involved here for a while and I am sure that it gets frustrating every time a new member begins asking the same questions, bringing up the same points that have been mentioned before. Thanks for the input and I continue to hold out hope that someday, we will know what happened and who was responsible.

For me the IDI position is simply “an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason.” I’m not sure why that would seem to be implausible to you. If a viable suspect (DNA-man for example) is ever identified than IDI can begin to take form, but til then....

You should be able to get a lot of RDI input here on this forum, but maybe not so much IDI, so I’m going to play that IDI role for you.

I’m not sure why the pineapple is a problem for you; my position on the pineapple is stated here: http://tinyurl.com/k4jlv5g And, on the fingerprints on the bowl: http://tinyurl.com/mwv9bbx

Why wouldn’t Burke talk to investigators? I don’t know. But I find it easy to imagine...

1) he doesn’t know anything, 2) he knows he doesn’t know anything, 3) he’s already answered questions, 4) he testified to the grand jury, 5) he doesn’t trust BPD, 6) he feels resentment or anger towards BPD, etc and so on.

I’m not sure how anyone can think that there was any accident involved in this murder. And, who covers up an accident with a murder anyway?
...

AK

 

[Chelly]

For me the IDI position is simply “an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason.” I’m not sure why that would seem to be implausible to you. If a viable suspect (DNA-man for example) is ever identified than IDI can begin to take form, but til then....

You should be able to get a lot of RDI input here on this forum, but maybe not so much IDI, so I’m going to play that IDI role for you.

I’m not sure why the pineapple is a problem for you; my position on the pineapple is stated here: http://tinyurl.com/k4jlv5g And, on the fingerprints on the bowl: http://tinyurl.com/mwv9bbx

Why wouldn’t Burke talk to investigators? I don’t know. But I find it easy to imagine...

1) he doesn’t know anything, 2) he knows he doesn’t know anything, 3) he’s already answered questions, 4) he testified to the grand jury, 5) he doesn’t trust BPD, 6) he feels resentment or anger towards BPD, etc and so on.

I’m not sure how anyone can think that there was any accident involved in this murder. And, who covers up an accident with a murder anyway?
...

AK

BBM....The key to the answer of your question lies in the chronic sexual abuse of JBR.

 

[KoldKase]

BBM....The key to the answer of your question lies in the chronic sexual abuse of JBR.

IDI know this. And if I may, I've posted with, and read the posts of, Anti-K for many years and he/she also knows this.

But IDI always either dismiss the evidence of prior molestation with various arguments that conclude either the child did it to herself, it was the result of some innocent circumstances like a bubble bath or riding a bike, or they even argue just because someone else molested her doesn't mean the killer is the same person and can't be a different person.

The reason for this determined denial is that accepting that the autopsy evidence, along with other evidence many of us can see is related to the prior sexual assault and violent death of the child, would mean acknowledging the third prong of the 3 elements of the case all lead back to someone very close in the inner circle: the Ramsey family.

Motive.

The three people in the home had means and opportunity, by their own admission and indicated with circumstantial, physical evidence, as well.

Give them "motive"--the one thing so many can't figure out and which keep them from the inevitable conclusion--and it's a done deal.

If you don't want the Ramseys to be guilty, you have to deny the prior sexual abuse. IDI know this.

Just so you know you're applying reason in a case in which some simply do not want to see reason.

 

[otg]

You’re absolutely right, KoldKase, about the significance of IDI and RST (and sometimes they are one in the same) denial of the sexual aspects of this. The details of the AR are undeniable. The conclusions can be argued, but not effectively. I don’t know if you read it, but I addressed the particulars of the evidence of prior abuse in a post [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10022675#post10022675"]here[/ame]. The reason past abuse has to be denied is that it suggests it was someone who had regular access to JonBenet (which contradicts the idea that it was an intruder who acted only on the night she died). IOW, past abuse almost completely disproves the IDI theory. The only way around this paradox for an IDI (IMO) is to qualify the “intruder” as someone known to the Ramseys who had regular access to JonBenet.

This concept presents the Ramseys with a dilemma. Do they act outraged that someone would violate and kill their daughter, or do they deny the possibility that she was sexually abused? This delicate balancing act was demonstrated on Larry King Live on March 3, 2000 (bbm and my comments in blue):

KING: Did you ever think -- of course, what can you think at a time like this -- why would someone send a ransom note to kidnap someone and then kill them and leave them in the same house if the purpose is to get money?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Larry, this person is a madman, is a monster, they don't think logically.
KING: Pedophile?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
[otg: What are the “several key pieces of evidence” that makes him think it was a pedophile? Was it the fact that she was molested?]
We think a stun gun was involved, so this person either had a stun gun or had access to one. The number 118 has significance to this person, $118,000 was the amount in the ransom note. That was picked for a purpose, we don't know what the purpose is.
SBTC meant something to this killer. That was how the ransom note was signed. And this person was in Boulder, Colorado on December 25th. We're not looking for a needle in the haystack.
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
[otg: “(T)he police have not talked to us at all,” but yet somehow, “They have questioned us extensively.” How does that happen?]
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
[otg: Seems to me John was pretty quick to cut Patsy off before she said something he had no control over.]
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.
​

(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html)

Okay, why do they think it was a pedophile if they “don’t know if any sexual activity took place” -- and even further, they “don’t want to know the answer”? This interview was better than three years after JonBenet’s death, and yet they are still trying to discount that she was even sexually assaulted. Unbelievable (IMO).

 

[TroyinTX]

What's interesting is that JR says that 118 has to have some significance to to "killer" because of the amount in the ransom note, of course not mentioning that it also just "happened" to the the amount of his bonus.

 

[Chelly]

IDI know this. And if I may, I've posted with, and read the posts of, Anti-K for many years and he/she also knows this.

But IDI always either dismiss the evidence of prior molestation with various arguments that conclude either the child did it to herself, it was the result of some innocent circumstances like a bubble bath or riding a bike, or they even argue just because someone else molested her doesn't mean the killer is the same person and can't be a different person.

The reason for this determined denial is that accepting that the autopsy evidence, along with other evidence many of us can see is related to the prior sexual assault and violent death of the child, would mean acknowledging the third prong of the 3 elements of the case all lead back to someone very close in the inner circle: the Ramsey family.

Motive.

The three people in the home had means and opportunity, by their own admission and indicated with circumstantial, physical evidence, as well.

Give them "motive"--the one thing so many can't figure out and which keep them from the inevitable conclusion--and it's a done deal.

If you don't want the Ramseys to be guilty, you have to deny the prior sexual abuse. IDI know this.

Just so you know you're applying reason in a case in which some simply do not want to see reason.

Thank you KoldKase for pointing out the obvious. I must say: It is wonderful to see you posting here.:loveyou:

A mentor of mine once told me "Do not waste your words using reason with unreasonable people and forget attempting logic with illogical people"