RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[THE BUNK]

It sounds like you're implying something negative about women in general. I hope not!

Absolutely not. There are several women that have been ideal conspirators in criminal activity.
Many terrorist groups like the IRA, Hamas, Red Brigades etc... have used females in operations and even had them in high ranks.

But Patsy Ramsey is not the type of person that I would hire to do a bank robbery with.

But your comment made me think of yet another factor that further muddies this case: the Ramseys evoke familiar stereotypes and so everyone feels like they know what they must be like. John was successful in business so therefore he must be a genius. Patsy's a pageant mom so she must be a crazy bimbo. We are all susceptible to these sorts of assumptions and they flavor the theories we generate about this case, which is kind of scary.

Keep in mind that it isn't just written bios that we have on these people. We also have their own spoken words as well as written words. It isn't that hard to get an idea of their relationship and personalities are IMHO.

For the record I don't think John Ramsey is any great genius or anything. But I do believe that under circumstances like this he would be the calmer person and be better than Patsy at this coverup. But that isn't saying much. Personally I think both were amateurs at criminal activity.

 

[bettybaby00]

Thank you. So after reading all this it just seems one big lie and john and patsy cant get their stories straight. He moved the note, patsy cant remember if she touched the note or not. French said the note was on the floor john said first he handed him the note then he showed him the note. I think that the note was removed from the pad wearing gloves and placed on the hallway floor. The note was never on the stairs because she wrote it. So if john had nothing to do with it maybe she waited for him to shower then yelled for him took him to the note told him not to touch cause cops would check for FP. John read it told her to call 911. Burke heard everything came down john (really thinking at first it was a kidnapping was uoset and hollered at burke were not talking to you cause he's scared outta his wits. They send him back to his room to wait and i think john was becoming suspicious of patsy as the morning went on and decided then to look around. He finds JB like he told Stewart Long at 11 am and he cant say anything to patsy because people all around. So I think LA gave him his chance to "find her" when she told him to look around. Then after all that he decided to cover for patsy and that is why there stories arent together. Moo

What I find interesting about ALL their interviews is the "whatever" attitude they convey with their answers. In fact patsy actually uses that phrase a few times!

I would think they would express more concern about remembering. But
that's just me I guess

 

[bettybaby00]

It sounds like you're implying something negative about women in general. I hope not!

But your comment made me think of yet another factor that further muddies this case: the Ramseys evoke familiar stereotypes and so everyone feels like they know what they must be like. John was successful in business so therefore he must be a genius. Patsy's a pageant mom so she must be a crazy bimbo. We are all susceptible to these sorts of assumptions and they flavor the theories we generate about this case, which is kind of scary.

For me I dont agree with the stereotype flavors my theory concept. I thought the Rs were innocent for years. And even though I thought the pageant stuff was distasteful I never held it against them. Many accuse RDI of believing what we do b/c we harbor some sort of unfounded hatred or jealousy. Not true at all for me. If my posts ever come across as me harboring negative feelings toward the Rs, well the fact is I do have those feeling b/c I believe they were involved in the murder of their daughter. Nothing more nothing less.

I read a post the other day which seemed an attempt at admonishing RDIs with the idea that "how much worse it would be if RDI is false." I'd have to say no to such a thought, b/c for me it would be far worse if she were killed by someone she loved, and the role of money and corruption held no one responsible.

MOO & IMO etc

 

[elannia]

I have been reading up on some older threads and had once posted about someone else being in the house that night. I noticed on a thread about the Ramseys dropping off gifts after the party and that when they stopped by the stines maybe they picked up Doug so he could got on the trips as planned. I was always curious as to why SS sent the police away at the party on the 23 (it wasnt her house) and they werent called over the morning of the kidnapping. Someone had posted that they may have came to pick up DS in the wee hours of the morning on the 26th. Just kinda weird that they didnt call them over. MOO

 

[questfortrue]

It sounds like you're implying something negative about women in general. I hope not!

But your comment made me think of yet another factor that further muddies this case: the Ramseys evoke familiar stereotypes and so everyone feels like they know what they must be like. John was successful in business so therefore he must be a genius. Patsy's a pageant mom so she must be a crazy bimbo. We are all susceptible to these sorts of assumptions and they flavor the theories we generate about this case, which is kind of scary.

~RSBM~
Agree we all bring biases. However in regards to whether we know much about them, I'd add the following thoughts.

Guessing most of us here have never met the R family. But many of those who were “friends” with them said something to the effect that they don’t feel like they really knew them. Yet we may have more information about who they are/were, than various family friends who went to the ‘Kidnapping Party’ that unholy morning.

Actually years and years of background stories are available. Books, newspapers, tales from former friends of the Rs begin to build a storyline. As one has watched Rs' explanations and stories evolve, so it seems their behavior is also evolving. The behavior of entitlement, mentioned up thread by DD249, is documented by their expectation that they should be treated differently, their statements simply believed, that they can avoid the traditional police interviews for months because of their stature.

We have witnessed the evolving explanations to police and attorney interviewers. Another piece in this case is evolving “moxie.”

One small vignette about PR and moxie was from her participation on a jury in Boulder. It occurred in the fall of 1996. From the Rocky Mountain News article:
PR served as one of six jurors in a trial last fall of a man accused of punching another man in the mouth during a pickup basketball game. The man who was struck needed extensive dental work. Jurors acquitted the defendant. But later, during a meeting with prosecuting city attorney Claire Largesse and defense attorney Steve Louth, PR criticized Louth's presentation of the case. Neither Largesse nor Louth said they would comment about the case, or what was said in the jury room. But PR complained in harsh tones that she hadn't heard testimony from a dentist, nor had she heard any evidence about damages, according to a source familiar with the case.
"It was just bizarre to both of (the attorneys), because it wasn't the defense attorney's job to do that,'' the source said.

It seems PR would take on anyone, in spite of lack of lawyerly trial knowledge, solely on the basis of inordinate moxie. And with her Southern charm, it was frequently a winning combo. JR followed her lead and joined in well. His portrayal of the “cordial sufferer” (imo/my take) was believed by so many. That stood them in good stead during what they called “persecution by the press."

Another consideration of moxie might be viewed in the staging. In my theory that all 3 Rs had some role, imagine the chutzpah/brass neck to write 1 or 2 practice RNs in addition to the real RN, place a call to 911, go on TV telling folks to “keep their babies close”, establish that it was an unfair persecution by Boulder authorities and the press, which caused your family to become victims, announce to the world a political campaign. One might also add here their credentials as Christian “Believers”. Can’t phrase it any other way except Exoneration by Public Relations, to describe what we’ve witnessed. Desperate moxie.

But then, when they aren’t believed by everyone, moxie evolves into a defiance of sorts, manifested by the actions of throwing others under the bus and suing.

TY, Moab, at FFJ for this:
October 2000 when the Rs were invited to appear before some journalism students at PR's old Alma Mater in Arlington, Va., PR used the occasion to repeat Gov. Owens' remark before asking the students "Why wasn't the media all over Gov. Owens? Even if we are guilty, he shouldn't be the Justice Department."

(BTW, as Koldkase and others at FFJ immediately caught on, the subjunctive mood form of the verb to be would have been expressed, “even if we were guilty.” Perhaps sometimes it’s just hard to remember to use the correct form of the verb for the “innocence avowal,” especially after so many statements of non-involvement in the death of their daughter. Moo)

Lastly, after all this, another behavior seems pertinent. Defiance evolves into an attitude best described as “whatever”. They decide it will be God who will judge them, not others.

In an 2000 interview with a Christian interviewer (Scott Ross of the 700 Club) the Rs respond to a question about being welcome in a church:
JR: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
PR: That's the people who need to be there. Aren't we "preaching to the choir" as they say.

Repeating Prendergast opinion 2013
The DA's office certainly felt it didn't have enough unequivocal evidence to convict in 1999, but the indictments suggest that there was a critical threshold of forensic material -- not just speculations, suspicious behavior and probabilities of handwriting analysis, but actual stuff, arguably sufficient to merit a trial.

All JMHO.

 

[gramcracker]

I watched a Law & Order ep from 1993 tonight. the initial supposition was that the victim heard breaking glass, went to investigate, and was killed in the alley by a burglar caught in the act. but a neighbor reported hearing loud voices and then, 30 minutes later, breaking glass. so the PD had the crime lab tech check it out and he determined that the window was broken from the inside. something about glass being tensile, it microscopically warps (?) at the pressure point, yadda yadda, over my head. it turned out that the victim was killed by his son, who staged the scene by breaking the window from the inside and moving the broken glass from outdoors to indoors

so, because probably 90% of the evidence is held back, I wonder if BPD knows that the Ramsey basement window was broken from the inside

 

[bettybaby00]

I watched a Law & Order ep from 1993 tonight. the initial supposition was that the victim heard breaking glass, went to investigate, and was killed in the alley by a burglar caught in the act. but a neighbor reported hearing loud voices and then, 30 minutes later, breaking glass. so the PD had the crime lab tech check it out and he determined that the window was broken from the inside. something about glass being tensile, it microscopically warps (?) at the pressure point, yadda yadda, over my head. it turned out that the victim was killed by his son, who staged the scene by breaking the window from the inside and moving the broken glass from outdoors to indoors

so, because probably 90% of the evidence is held back, I wonder if BPD knows that the Ramsey basement window was broken from the inside

Many a L&E episode has sparked new discussion in this case!

I've often wondered about how the glass/window was forensically analyzed. It had to have been in some way. If broken that night/morning what happened to all the glass? According to PR, she had " scoured the place," as there was "a ton of glass everywhere" after John's earlier break in.

Once again we're confronted with question(s) of where did all that glass go? Why would an intruder clean it up? Why would an R? Was it removed from the scene/house? Or Was it simply shoved in some random place in the basement that was never checked?

Even without those pieces, the window could have provided many clues.

*was any testing done regarding the "tensile stress" of the glass in the window? If so, what was revealed?

*Did the edges of the the broken window that remained inplace look fresh? Or were they dirty from the elements?

*was there evidence that the floor had been recently swept up?

*were brooms and vacuums from the house examined?

If nothing consistent with a broken window cleanup turned up, should we assume an intruder brought along a DustBuster? Or is more indicative that there wasn't any cleanup that night?

And lastly, yet not forensic driven, who else was questioned about the broken window besides the Rs, FW, and LHP? Was Burke? Any other friends, ie, Fernies, Stines, etc., or how about recent workmen?



There is so much we don't know.

ETA:

Every time we raise these sorts of "new" questions, I'm outraged by the new police chief's "we have no plans to reignite the investigation" stance!

Why....WHY???

 

[CherCher]

Something has been bugging the heck outta me.... Why no fingerprints at all on the RN except for the CSI guy? Even if the killers (Ramseys's) wore gloves the condition was perfect no wrinkles etc.. so if john or patsy had moved it to the hallway did they do it with gloves on? I think not. someone please enlighten me

Well, for one thing the only things a Ramsey would have to work with (At TOD) would be what was in their own home. The sharpie used was placed back in the spot it would normally be found. And as unaccustomed to staging a crime as I assume the R's would be, they would know that the RN would be examined for fingerprints.
Plus, I think the Ramseys truly believed that they were too far up the civic ladder to even be suspected in the death of their daughter.

 

[chlban]

I watched a Law & Order ep from 1993 tonight. the initial supposition was that the victim heard breaking glass, went to investigate, and was killed in the alley by a burglar caught in the act. but a neighbor reported hearing loud voices and then, 30 minutes later, breaking glass. so the PD had the crime lab tech check it out and he determined that the window was broken from the inside. something about glass being tensile, it microscopically warps (?) at the pressure point, yadda yadda, over my head. it turned out that the victim was killed by his son, who staged the scene by breaking the window from the inside and moving the broken glass from outdoors to indoors

so, because probably 90% of the evidence is held back, I wonder if BPD knows that the Ramsey basement window was broken from the inside

So I am a little confused. If the window was broken from the inside that would obviously have been part of the staging, but if they broke the window to stage an intruder, why would John offer up that he had broken months previously?

I am totally RDI, I just always assumed John was telling the truth on that particular issue because what would be the point of saying
he had broken it?

 

[Tawny]

It's one of the few things I feel he did tell the truth about, because it then became a point of entry for an Intruder. JMO

 

[Anti-K]

According to at least one theory, the window was opened and then broken from the exterior side so that it would appear as if broken from the outside. This theory is not supported by any evidence and is contradicted by the (possibly three) pieces of glass found inside the window well (there was also a piece found in the wine cellar).

There was debris from the window well found on the floor, so the floor could not have been swept or vacuumed.

There is no reason for the Ramseys to break the window (they can simply say the doors were unlocked), clean up the glass and then claim that they did break it, only months earlier.

Docg claims that the cleanup was done because Mr Ramsey needed to un-stage his incomplete staging. As part of his incomplete staging, Mr Ramsey supposedly scooped some debris out of the window well and scattered it on the floor. This disturbance created in the window well is something that could not be undone. This means that the incomplete staging could not be undone (and, no attempt was made to clean up the debris). So, it would have been easier and faster and more convincing to simply complete the staging (grab a cpl webs; reach up through grate with something (broom, golf club, etc) and lift the grate an inch and let it drop) than it would be to undo it.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I think the broken window happened in some other instance. I think it COULD have happened the way JR said- he didn't have his key and had to climb in the window. But Patsy had said she used to hide a spare key under a statue in the yard. And there were other people, according to her, who had keys. LHP for one and I believe neighbor Joe Barnhill, JR could have always called one of them for a key.
When FW pointed out the broken window that morning, JR seemed to say without hesitation that he broke it himself the previous summer. It's no surprise that there wasn't much glass. FW said he picked up a shard and placed it on the suitcase I believe. If you have actually seen a picture of that window with the break- the hole is fairly small. Doesn't seem to be too near the latch either and certainly way to small for a person to fit through.
One thing I do believe- it wasn't until Lou Smit jumped all over that broken window like white on rice that the Rs and their "team" jumped on the "intruder broke the window" bandwagon. The streak on the window that Lou Smit made such a big deal of also cannot be time dated to the night of the crime- and I do not believe any prior photos of that room were shown to see when the wall was last smudge-free. And I am pretty sure no one tested that smudge on the wall to see of it could have come from a shoe. If JR really did slide down that wall, it may have been made by one of his shoes and would have been on that wall since the previous summer.

 

[Anti-K]

The hole is located as if someone had sat on the edge of the window well, and kicked forward with his foot.

The hole is certainly large enough to stick an arm through and open the latch, and the pieces of glass found inside the window well could have been dislodged from the frame when Mr Ramsey (and/or an intruder) pulled his arm back through the window after undoing it.
.

I know some like to criticize Mr Ramsay for not calling someone – a neighbor, a locksmith, etc – but, so what if he didn’t? He was locked out, he chose to break in. Maybe he was drunk (the wife was out of town, ya know), maybe he didn’t want to disturb, or worse, wait around for anyone. Supposedly, he had entered the house in the same manner on one or more previous occasions, so, why not this time?
.

Smit said, in his deposition: “...a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.”

I agree with this. Because of the disturbance in the window well. Because of the spider webs. Because of the shard of glass sitting on the outer sill.

If you go to the two minute mark of the dailybeast video ( http://tinyurl.com/8x5cp5a ) and freeze the frame you can see a shard of glass on the outside of the window sill. This piece of glass could not have been placed there by White (or, anyone) unless the window was wide open when they did it. But, it could have been dislodged by someone pulling their arm back through the hole after reaching in to open the latch.

If you look at the sill and to either side of the shard you should notice a splotched pattern which is visible beneath the glass.

Presumably, there is a layer of dust on the sill and the splotches almost appear as areas where the dust has been disturbed (wiped?). If the shard of glass had been on the sill for an extended period of time – months since Mr Ramsey’s entry – then it should also be covered in a layer of dust and we would not see the splotchy pattern beneath it.
...

AK

 

[CherCher]

It's one of the few things I feel he did tell the truth about, because it then became a point of entry for an Intruder. JMO

Yup. A rather slim intruder who probably didn't strip down to his underpants as JR said he did. And the intruder didn't disturb the cobweb either.

 

[chlban]

It's one of the few things I feel he did tell the truth about, because it then became a point of entry for an Intruder. JMO

Then why did he volunteer the info that he broke it? I always thought it was the truth, about his breaking it, and since I tend to believe John was not involved in the original crime and staging, my assumption has always been it was true. Only later when he knew what had really happened did he try to make it seem like a possible point of entry.

However, the one thing that throws me off that theory is that everyone seems to say that John always entered the house through the garage, via the alley.

So one wonders how he locked himself out, unless the garage door opener wasn't working? Always wondered about that.

 

[otg]

Yup. A rather slim intruder who probably didn't strip down to his underpants as JR said he did. And the intruder didn't disturb the cobweb either.

Very slim, indeed. Here's Smit trying to demonstrate how a person could have gone through that window (Notice how his butt fills the whole width of the opening, from corner to corner.). Next to that photo is a screen capture of the police video showing the cobweb (indicated with a black line) in one of those corners just hours after this supposed intruder had slid his butt through:

​

 

[CherCher]

If I remember correctly, JR had witnesses with him on the day he broke the window.

 

[CherCher]

Poo, I forgot to reply with quote, but the above was in response to chlban.

 

[questfortrue]

Then why did he volunteer the info that he broke it? I always thought it was the truth, about his breaking it, and since I tend to believe John was not involved in the original crime and staging, my assumption has always been it was true. Only later when he knew what had really happened did he try to make it seem like a possible point of entry.

However, the one thing that throws me off that theory is that everyone seems to say that John always entered the house through the garage, via the alley.

So one wonders how he locked himself out, unless the garage door opener wasn't working? Always wondered about that.

So, just for discussion sake, say we don’t really have proof as to when or how the broken window happened. I’m more interested in what was in JR’s mind on December 26, 1996, since he did not bring it up with detectives then, and he had already given two detectives information that the doors were locked. (BTB, babysitter S. Savage corroborated that the Rs were careful to lock their doors at night) ST also wondered why he didn’t bring it up until April 1997, especially if he were trying to lead others to look at it as an entry point for an intruder.

I know, trying to figure out what JR was thinking could lead me down a rabbit hole, but anyway. . .JR does point out the suitcase and broken window to FW when they go off to search for JB, but apparently doesn’t have much of any reaction to it other than one of a casual thought about its relevance. He does not mention it to police that morning.

On the intruder, after interviews of 4/97: This was the DA’s Intruder Theory, although it contradicted the events of December 26, when Fleet White said Ramsey shrugged off the open window. Now it had become very important, for the open window pointed toward their intruder. And we knew that Fleet White said he had moved the suitcase, so the intruder had not done that. (IMRI p. 172 Kindle)

It seemed to me there were at least 4 possibilities to consider (and I don't have answers!).

• Was it his intention to have a back-up plan in case the intruder with key set-up didn’t work? The comments coming upstairs with JB’s body were that it was “an inside job”, insinuating that he believed it was an intruder with a key.
• Was it a prior staging which he abandoned for the intruder with a key scenario?
• Was it even considered to be an entry for an intruder at that moment in time or simply a distraction for FW, so that JR could rush off to the wc to find JB? Some kind of intentional misdirection? He perhaps does use the window and suitcase to “plant something” in FW’s mind, not knowing that FW had moved the suitcase very early in the morning.

Given both Rs several explanations as to BR having been asleep, having had no contact with JB who was put to bed first, JR and BR up assembling a toy which was later found partially unwrapped in the basement, here’s possibility #4:

• Was the whole story of how the window ‘got broken’ a cover for how it really was broken, in an angry scene with JB being struck?

:twocents: jmho

 

[bettybaby00]

Then why did he volunteer the info that he broke it? I always thought it was the truth, about his breaking it, and since I tend to believe John was not involved in the original crime and staging, my assumption has always been it was true. Only later when he knew what had really happened did he try to make it seem like a possible point of entry.

However, the one thing that throws me off that theory is that everyone seems to say that John always entered the house through the garage, via the alley.

So one wonders how he locked himself out, unless the garage door opener wasn't working? Always wondered about that.

BBM

Good point. Also begs the question, how does one have their car keys, but not their house key?