RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[DeeDee249]

You do realize this thread is for RDI posters and discussions, only, right? There is also a dedicated thread for IDI. All other threads are open to everyone.

 

[DeDee]

Ouch. That's a little harsh considering reedus23 's post was, unbeknownst to them, being dropped here from the IDI thread.

 

[Tawny]

With no disrespect intended, it's no harsher than the treatment RDI's have received in the IDI thread. It was quite respectful.

 

[gramcracker]

You do realize this thread is for RDI posters and discussions, only, right? There is also a dedicated thread for IDI. All other threads are open to everyone.

Ouch. That's a little harsh considering reedus23 's post was, unbeknownst to them, being dropped here from the IDI thread.

this is my fault and I am so sorry. I forgot that I was in the IDI thread a few days ago and I responded to Reedus there against IDI theory. then I imported Reedus' post here to repond to it after I was reminded that I was in IDI. I am very sorry for doing that, and for leading others astray

but I agree with this:

With no disrespect intended, it's no harsher than the treatment RDI's have received in the IDI thread. It was quite respectful.

 

[THE BUNK]

With no disrespect intended, it's no harsher than the treatment RDI's have received in the IDI thread. It was quite respectful.

The IDI's anger to RDI's has always puzzle me to a great deal. Especially since you don't need to anti RDI to look into the IDI theory?

 

[reedus23]

this is my fault and I am so sorry. I forgot that I was in the IDI thread a few days ago and I responded to Reedus there against IDI theory. then I imported Reedus' post here to repond to it after I was reminded that I was in IDI. I am very sorry for doing that, and for leading others astray

but I agree with this:

No need to apologize. It was disrespectful, but it's hardly the worst thing that will ever be directed at me. And for the record, I am not an RDI or IDI or Anything ElseDI. And I would like to think that regardless of any other name calling that has gone on over the years, I have treated others opinions with respect, whether I agree or not. What is a shame is that there is even a need for separate threads, depending on where you fall. I said it before, in my short time here, it reminds me of the WM3 case in that you are either one side or the other and it makes discourse between the 2 nearly impossible.

Regardless, no need to apologize gram. You were just looking to discuss the issues and did so reasonably and rationally (and I learned from it). Unfortunately, there's just not a good place to have a legitimate discussion here.

ETA - And by that last comment, I meant I would just as soon have one place where I could throw out a theory and have it analyzed for holes, regardless of whether it points to RDI or IDI, but I understand why it is the way it is.

 

[chlban]

No need to apologize. It was disrespectful, but it's hardly the worst thing that will ever be directed at me. And for the record, I am not an RDI or IDI or Anything ElseDI. And I would like to think that regardless of any other name calling that has gone on over the years, I have treated others opinions with respect, whether I agree or not. What is a shame is that there is even a need for separate threads, depending on where you fall. I said it before, in my short time here, it reminds me of the WM3 case in that you are either one side or the other and it makes discourse between the 2 nearly impossible.

Regardless, no need to apologize gram. You were just looking to discuss the issues and did so reasonably and rationally (and I learned from it). Unfortunately, there's just not a good place to have a legitimate discussion here.

ETA - And by that last comment, I meant I would just as soon have one place where I could throw out a theory and have it analyzed for holes, regardless of whether it points to RDI or IDI, but I understand why it is the way it is.

I have always found your posts not only respectful but intelligent. It beats the never ending "TDNA" and "I just don't believe it" that some IDI's specialize in.

I think we should all keep in mind that people can change their minds, or can be legitimately undecided and have questions that the RDI's can answer. Perhaps running them off to the IDI thread isn't the best course of action?

I am sorry you were treated rudely here. As far as I am concerned you are quite welcome.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think anyone was treated rudely. There is a thread that is for IDI only and blatantly says "RDI NOT ALLOWED". That, to me, is rude. The RDI ONLY thread makes no such comment. All are welcome to read, but comments are supposed to be from the RDI perspective only on the RDI Only thread.
But there was a reason why the Mods made two (and ONLY two) dedicated threads for posts that are exclusively one or the other. EVERY other thread welcomes opinions from both sides. Anyone can read any threads, but posts are supposed to be only from the position of the dedicated thread. Sorry if anyone was offended.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Reedus, just don't use the 2 threads titled RDI only or IDI only. Everything else is fair game. Start a new thread if you want.

 

[chlban]

There are plenty of RDI's posting regularly on the IDI thread. I think we also need to consider that there are people that are honestly uncertain and would like to explore BOTH theories. As long as they do so respectfully it shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately for Reedus23 I realize many of us are just sick to death of some IDI"s who rarely have anyting to offer besides "I just don't believe the Ramsey's did it" over and over and over, while it is blatantly clear that the only intent is to disrupt the discussion.

Reedus23, I think that is the real reason for the need for two threads. You just got caught in the crossfire.

I myself decided to take another look at this case by re-reading PMPT - the most unbiased of the books I already own-and trying to give the R's the benefit of the doubt on their utterly bizarre behavior.

However, for me, it always comes back the the Ransom Note. I am convinced that Patsy wrote it and, obviously, there is no way she wrote it to cover for an Intruder.

So much for my "second look".

 

[THE BUNK]

From the ransom note.

"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. "

When you get home. Not when you get back to your house. Interesting choice of phrase

Especially when you consider that "your daughter" appears in the same paragraph.

 

[gramcracker]

nice catch, Bunk!

that goes hand in hand with the FFJ poster who noticed that JR said the RN addressed Mr/Mrs R ... but it was the practice note which began that way. the *real* RN addressed only Mr R

it's all there, when you're willing to see it. otherwise, not so much :notgood:

 

[bettybaby00]

nice catch, Bunk!

that goes hand in hand with the FFJ poster who noticed that JR said the RN addressed Mr/Mrs R ... but it was the practice note which began that way. the *real* RN addressed only Mr R

it's all there, when you're willing to see it. otherwise, not so much :notgood:

BBM.

oh. Never picked up on that! Kinda like the "I found her @ 11" instead of saying 1:00.

 

[gramcracker]

and PR saying she saw the heart in JB's palm "that morning"

 

[questfortrue]

This morning it must be the first time I’ve heard on some other threads that Kolar (who saw evidence and spoke to people in Boulder) made stuff up. We could bring in references from ST, or look at the True Bill, but that’s been done. So just for variety, and to support the FBI comments that the parents should be looked at, here’s the take of another bloke who was on the ground in Boulder in 1996 and living in Colorado when the TBs were released.

It is, imo, the number of “head scratcher” occurrences which lead some people to conclusions about the case. Even if one doesn’t reach the same deductions as this author, who’s an editor of a small local newspaper (it’s just his opinion), he seems to have a certain raw understanding about the overall picture of the JBR case. Not endorsing his thoughts, one way or the other. He was simply part of the general public, seeing the case from up close. (http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2013/10/editorial-i-know-who-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/)

“Let’s try to figure this out. The Ramsey’s say it was an intruder, but Patsy Ramsey wrote a note indicating that someone was trying to get ransom for JonBenet, who lay dead in their basement while this writing was going on. They couldn’t find their own daughter in their own house?

“JR supposedly came upon the scene by accident. `SNIP~ BR (the older brother) was hiding in his room and claiming he heard nothing.

“If you believe that someone came into the Ramsey household (no footsteps in the snow), and killed the only girl in the house instead of everybody and then left, leaving no evidence, then you are a fool.

“The crazy thing about this case is that the Boulder police and prosecutor became involved in the cover-up to clear the killer.”

Kolar wrote as a professional who saw evidence, redacting some information which is not available to the general public. The writer of this article just felt like throwing his conclusions out there, in a certain style of “opinionated glory.” Can’t fault him for that, can we? The sources RDI have long relied on – ST, Schiller, Kolar, the interviews with the Rs – just seem to be seen as so “dubious” by some, I thought a strictly opinion piece would offer some variety and might be appreciated here.
All jmho.

 

[THE BUNK]

Me and my better half have been actually attempting to try to write the Ransom note using the same type of pad and pen.

Some things I have noticed

1. How did the writer manage not to leave any finger or palm prints of any sort? Using what is practically a magic marker leaves pen marks for even the most careful writer. It also makes me wonder if Patsy or John were checked to see if she had pen marks on her hand. This all leads to one hypothesis that has probably already been mentioned here: The writer used gloves while writing the letter. Specifically surgical style gloves.

2. Writing in the particular print style takes a long time and really cramps your hands. You almost have to write in a style similar to calligraphy. It's even harder to do when you don't have a hard surface to write on. Writing in this style on your knee with the pad is damn near uncomfortable. Which leads to the question of why you would do it this way if you didn't have too. What I am getting it is that the letter was most likely written on a hard surface like a desk or a counter. This probably explains why this particular pad and pen was chosen in the house. It was close to a convenient writing surface.

3. Maybe it's me or my wife, but women have better handwriting than men. My examples were only legible when I really made a concentrated effort to make it legible. My wife on the other hand could dish out pages really easy.

4. It takes time to get used to writing a letter with a sharpie. First couple of examples were not legible but after some practice I got better at it. Both my wife and I are used to writing with a pen or a pencil. But the thicker point of the sharpie really takes time to get used to. Whoever wrote the ransom note had to have had experience writing long notes with a sharpie and pad.

 

[gramcracker]

:goodpost:

 

[chlban]

Me and my better half have been actually attempting to try to write the Ransom note using the same type of pad and pen.

the house. It was close to a convenient writing surface.

4. It takes time to get used to writing a letter with a sharpie. First couple of examples were not legible but after some practice I got better at it. Both my wife and I are used to writing with a pen or a pencil. But the thicker point of the sharpie really takes time to get used to. Whoever wrote the ransom note had to have had experience writing long notes with a sharpie and pad.[/QUOTE]

BBM. You know this is a very good point that I had never thought of before. I hate writing with Sharpies. I have one in my garage, office, kitchen, etc. but I only really use them for labeling. Freezing meat in smaller portions, or boxing up something and storing it in the garage. I would never write a letter or note with a Sharpie.

However, it appears that was the standard writing implement for Patsy. Excellent point that I have never seen made before.

 

[Chelly]

Me and my better half have been actually attempting to try to write the Ransom note using the same type of pad and pen.

Some things I have noticed

1. How did the writer manage not to leave any finger or palm prints of any sort? Using what is practically a magic marker leaves pen marks for even the most careful writer. It also makes me wonder if Patsy or John were checked to see if she had pen marks on her hand. This all leads to one hypothesis that has probably already been mentioned here: The writer used gloves while writing the letter. Specifically surgical style gloves.

2. Writing in the particular print style takes a long time and really cramps your hands. You almost have to write in a style similar to calligraphy. It's even harder to do when you don't have a hard surface to write on. Writing in this style on your knee with the pad is damn near uncomfortable. Which leads to the question of why you would do it this way if you didn't have too. What I am getting it is that the letter was most likely written on a hard surface like a desk or a counter. This probably explains why this particular pad and pen was chosen in the house. It was close to a convenient writing surface.

3. Maybe it's me or my wife, but women have better handwriting than men. My examples were only legible when I really made a concentrated effort to make it legible. My wife on the other hand could dish out pages really easy.

4. It takes time to get used to writing a letter with a sharpie. First couple of examples were not legible but after some practice I got better at it. Both my wife and I are used to writing with a pen or a pencil. But the thicker point of the sharpie really takes time to get used to. Whoever wrote the ransom note had to have had experience writing long notes with a sharpie and pad.

BBM
Excellent conclusion!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Me and my better half have been actually attempting to try to write the Ransom note using the same type of pad and pen.

Some things I have noticed

1. How did the writer manage not to leave any finger or palm prints of any sort? Using what is practically a magic marker leaves pen marks for even the most careful writer. It also makes me wonder if Patsy or John were checked to see if she had pen marks on her hand. This all leads to one hypothesis that has probably already been mentioned here: The writer used gloves while writing the letter. Specifically surgical style gloves.

2. Writing in the particular print style takes a long time and really cramps your hands. You almost have to write in a style similar to calligraphy. It's even harder to do when you don't have a hard surface to write on. Writing in this style on your knee with the pad is damn near uncomfortable. Which leads to the question of why you would do it this way if you didn't have too. What I am getting it is that the letter was most likely written on a hard surface like a desk or a counter. This probably explains why this particular pad and pen was chosen in the house. It was close to a convenient writing surface.

3. Maybe it's me or my wife, but women have better handwriting than men. My examples were only legible when I really made a concentrated effort to make it legible. My wife on the other hand could dish out pages really easy.

4. It takes time to get used to writing a letter with a sharpie. First couple of examples were not legible but after some practice I got better at it. Both my wife and I are used to writing with a pen or a pencil. But the thicker point of the sharpie really takes time to get used to. Whoever wrote the ransom note had to have had experience writing long notes with a sharpie and pad.

This is an absolutely BRILLIANT experiment, conclusion and post!!!

WELL DONE!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk