RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[lawstudent]

Ah, I apologize - if it was Pasty's mother, I don't find it as weird. I've noticed that older people make some strange statements about that kind of thing because it wasn't talked about when they were growing up. They would be more likely to minimize or excuse it, in my experience and as a broad generalization - not trying to say that most would be okay with it or anything. And she may have had less information on it because she wasn't the one being grilled.

However, as to Patsy focusing on the access, I don't find it that weird. Some parents would immediately believe it, but I think it depends on the situation. The age of the child, the amount of people he or she could have been alone with, whether they were the type to ask their child about that type of thing, etc. The way I was raised, my mom knew everyone I was around and definitely would notice if my behavior/statements seemed off or I seemed to have been physically suffering. She would never have let any little oddity go. If I was a child and police had just brought it up to her, she would definitely have asked for evidence and not just believed it. I would be the same way. And I think a lot of people realize that if the police ask them about the possibility, "my husband could never" is not going to suffice - some people think child molesters are easily identifiable, but some know that police are never going to take that as an answer. If I knew my mother had been staying over, I would definitely say that. If they kept pushing it, I would defend my husband unless I had some clear reason to doubt him, but I don't think it's weird to deny that it could have happened. I don't mean to imply that most parents of sexually abused kids should have known and that it can't be hidden, but I do think that parents can reasonably know the opportunity was not there for chronic abuse if their child's interactions are limited and they are the primary caretaker.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Of course, the autopsy proved that JB never struggled nor fought. The tape on her mouth showed no evidence of movement or struggle. The ligature furrow was completely circumferential, with no movement up or down, and there was no skin or blood under her fingernails (despite the misinformation STILL out there on the Web). The facts are that JB was rendered unconscious by the head blow and thankfully was unaware of being strangled.

Apparently, Burke didn't know she was strangled either...IMO

 

[Anti-K]

Are you kidding me? Reasonable? In whose world would it be reasonable to downplay the fact that their child had been sexually assaulted before or during her brutal murder?

She WAS sexually assaulted- do you at least agree to that?

Because, if this is a case of an intruder- this aspect of the crime ties closely to the MO of the perp- there is a sadistic sexual murderer on the loose, after all... to this very day I might add.

Ah, but Frigga, I didn’t say it would “be reasonable to downplay the fact that their child had been sexually assaulted before or during her brutal murder.”

First, I was talking about the prior molestation, not the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death. And, I said that the Ramsey’ denial of the prior abuse could be more reasonably EXPLAINED if the Ramseys were not aware of it, and simply did not accept that it had occurred.

And, I certainly didn’t say it would be reasonable to downplay the sexual assault. In fact, I said that “I don’t know what is meant when people say that the Ramseys ‘played down’ the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death.” So, if I’m admitting to not knowing what is meant by it, then how can I turn around and say that it was reasonable?
.

The evidence clearly shows that Jonbenet was sexually assaulted at or near point of death. So, of course I accept it. Obviously, this aspect of the crime should tell us something about the person who committed this crime. I’m just not sure what that something is.
...

AK

 

[kjpaw]

I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming house from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

 

[Teresa]

I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming ho
use from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

Wonderful post!

 

[chlban]

It was Nedra Paugh, PR’s mother, who made a statement to Geraldo. When Nedra mentioned the crime, it was in a string of half-completed thoughts and seeming nonsequiturs: “I didn’t know that she had been mole…molested to some extent and hit on the head. I didn’t know that. And somehow I hoped that she had died very quickly, and I think that she did. I…I really do believe that whoever has done this strangled her, because I’m sure that she put up a tremendous fight. Although she had tape on her mouth, she couldn’t scream. But I knew she had fought. PMPT

More telling, imo, are the interviews with JR and PR regarding her molestation.
PR’s reaction and statement to her interviewer pertaining to the evidence of chronic molestation. Keep in mind he had to prod her: I want to see the evidence. Not, what a grieving mother might say, such as, in my words: How could I have missed this. Her doctor missed this. My heartache over her death is enough, this evidence I can’t comprehend. PR showed no outrage, just show me the evidence.JR said he could not read the autopsy or think about her molestation. He was not going to talk about it. Similarly, he downplayed her bedwetting as having any connection to anything.

When asked whether JR might be responsible for JB’s molestation while PR was receiving medical treatment, she responds, that it was impossible because her mother slept in the other twin bed in JB’s room. Note, that she doesn’t give JR a moral pass, just that access was too difficult. Strange.Lastly, the family closed off access to medical records. LE tried to get permission to review records in which JB was receiving counsel from a psychologist. Those records were blocked.
MHO

Sections BBM. I just finished re-reading PMPT and the first section I bolded reminded me that what I was struck by quite often with the R's was their overall lack of outrage at being considered the prime suspects. Yes, they did everything they could to protect themselves legally, but I was somewhat struck by how matter of fact they seemed to take the fact that they were being accused. They whined alot, particularly Patsy of course, but I am pretty sure that while I would probably accept at first that I had to be investigated, all parents are, but after a while I would be furious. How dare they waste their time on me when they should be locating the real killers. Of course I would also be demanding to be Polygraphed, interviewed, examined or whatever they needed to do to make that possible. So never mind.

Also on the second point, althlough I have never believed that John molested JB, and still don't, I agree that is a very odd response. If someone told me that my now ex-husband had molested a child, any child, I would tell them they were insane, he is incapable of such a thing.
Pretty sad she didn't seem to feel that strongly about her husband.

 

[elannia]

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

 

[Charterhouse]

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

I have said all along that there are fingerprints on the ransom note. There must be. In the end, if it ever gets to court, I think it will be said that the families were there but we expected them to be there.

I know everyone said there were no fingerprints but I have never believed this.

Remember we have only a small amount of the information. I still think we just have a small amount of the information.

 

[THE BUNK]

I have said all along that there are fingerprints on the ransom note. There must be. In the end, if it ever gets to court, I think it will be said that the families were there but we expected them to be there.

I know everyone said there were no fingerprints but I have never believed this.

Remember we have only a small amount of the information. I still think we just have a small amount of the information.

In my experience in attempting to write the ransom note, I believe the writer wore gloves when composing it.

 

[THE BUNK]

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

No wrinkles, OR FOLD LINES.

The paper is almost like it was just ripped off the pad, which is what I think actually happened.

Remember that the pad, would be what was moved from place to place. The pages only need to be ripped off until the police arrival was assured. The pad could be left on the table indefinitely while the Ramsey's did whatever else was necessary.

 

[elannia]

No wrinkles, OR FOLD LINES.

The paper is almost like it was just ripped off the pad, which is what I think actually happened.

Remember that the pad, would be what was moved from place to place. The pages only need to be ripped off until the police arrival was assured. The pad could be left on the table indefinitely while the Ramsey's did whatever else was necessary.

Exactly... duh me. There would be no fingerprints on the note because they took special care of it while waiting for the police to arrive. Like taking it off the pad with gloves on.

 

[THE BUNK]

Exactly... duh me. There would be no fingerprints on the note because they took special care of it while waiting for the police to arrive. Like taking it off the pad with gloves on.

No, prob. It took me a while to realize that!!

Despite all the mistakes the Ramseys made in this case, they made sure they had their gloves on. They used them for the garrote the note and everything else that needed to be done. It was an obvious move and an easy one to do.

You could also make an argument that the note didn't really need to be moved anywhere. It was probably on a kitchen table and was touched by Patsy alone. You can easily do a quick flip through the pages without touching it all that much.

The intruder does not have that luxury, he has to transport these three pages and the pad back and forth. How and why he did this without folding them in two is bizarre to me.

 

[elannia]

No, prob. It took me a while to realize that!!

Despite all the mistakes the Ramseys made in this case, they made sure they had their gloves on. They used them for the garrote the note and everything else that needed to be done. It was an obvious move and an easy one to do.

You could also make an argument that the note didn't really need to be moved anywhere. It was probably on a kitchen table and was touched by Patsy alone. You can easily do a quick flip through the pages without touching it all that much.

The intruder does not have that luxury, he has to transport these three pages and the pad back and forth. How and why he did this without folding them in two is bizarre to me.

Me too. He sure was clever huh...

 

[2 percent]

I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming house from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

Yes, very suspicious behavior on the part of the Ramseys.
Take your time and read all you can. If you have questions, there's a great braintrust on this site.

Whenever I ramble or give tmi my husband stops me and says "is there an off ramp to this conversation" har har, right?

Anyway...welcome to our little corner of the world :slapfight:

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

No, prob. It took me a while to realize that!!

Despite all the mistakes the Ramseys made in this case, they made sure they had their gloves on. They used them for the garrote the note and everything else that needed to be done. It was an obvious move and an easy one to do.

You could also make an argument that the note didn't really need to be moved anywhere. It was probably on a kitchen table and was touched by Patsy alone. You can easily do a quick flip through the pages without touching it all that much.

The intruder does not have that luxury, he has to transport these three pages and the pad back and forth. How and why he did this without folding them in two is bizarre to me.

Not true. An intruder who used the notepad could have done so in the exact same fashion as the Ramseys or anyone else. And, anyone can wear gloves.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

BBM

Not true. An intruder who used the notepad could have done so in the exact same fashion as the Ramseys or anyone else. And, anyone can wear gloves.

Think about the whole process from start to finish from picking up the notepad to finally leaving it sans the the four pages (including the practice note). When thinking about...also consider that unlike the Ramsey situation, the entire trip of the ransom note happens before or "in between" JonBenet's murder. Where as in the Ramsey's situation it can only happen 'after" JonBenet is dead (or at least after the killer has assumed she is dead)

 

[chlban]

Exactly... duh me. There would be no fingerprints on the note because they took special care of it while waiting for the police to arrive. Like taking it off the pad with gloves on.

OK, I am RDI, but devil's advocate and all. Why would she put on gloves to write it, but use her own tablet and her own sharpie? That doesn't make sense even to me.

 

[THE BUNK]

OK, I am RDI, but devil's advocate and all. Why would she put on gloves to write it, but use her own tablet and her own sharpie? That doesn't make sense even to me.

1. Most likely because she was comfortable writing using it to disguise her handwriting. The zodiac killer used a marker as well to write several letters presumably for the same reason. Fortunately many people still don't realize that your handwriting can still be determined even if you try to hide it. You write with a ballpoint pen or pencil, there is the perception that your handwriting.

2. Would it have been better if they used John's computer paper and his business pen? One of John Benet's crayons and carbon paper? Anything used in the house can be traced to someone in the Ramsey household.

3. It may never have been John's idea to use the pad and pen in the first place. John's greatest drawback in this cover up is that Patsy is his conspirator. I love my wife dearly, but if I had to plan a bank robbery...she is the last person I would want by my side.

4. I've never believed this crime was done by an experienced criminal, whether IDI or RDI. This crime was done by a amateurs who had never committed a crime before nor after. The same arguments as o "why didn't the Ramsey's do this" could also be applied to the IDI "why didn't the intruder do this." This was a crime that was executed poorly and the killer(s) has only remained free due to blind luck.

 

[THE BUNK]

OK, I am RDI, but devil's advocate and all. Why would she put on gloves to write it, but use her own tablet and her own sharpie? That doesn't make sense even to me.

1. Most likely because she was comfortable writing using it to disguise her handwriting. The zodiac killer used a marker as well to write several letters presumably for the same reason. Fortunately many people still don't realize that your handwriting can still be determined even if you try to hide it. You write with a ballpoint pen or pencil, there is the perception that your handwriting.

2. Would it have been better if they used John's computer paper and his business pen? One of John Benet's crayons and carbon paper? Anything used in the house can be traced to someone in the Ramsey household.

3. It may never have been John's idea to use the pad and pen in the first place. John's greatest drawback in this cover up is that Patsy is his conspirator. I love my wife dearly, but if I had to plan a bank robbery...she is the last person I would want by my side.

4. I've never believed this crime was done by an experienced criminal, whether IDI or RDI. This crime was done by a amateurs who had never committed a crime before nor after. The same arguments as o "why didn't the Ramsey's do this" could also be applied to the IDI "why didn't the intruder do this." This was a crime that was executed poorly and the killer(s) has only remained free due to blind luck.

5. Or then again....maybe it was just the first writing implement saw available and used it. That area of the house would be the most obvious place for the

6. Or.....perhaps this was only supposed to be a practice note..and the final ransom note never got produced. Would explain why this version was so poor are careless. It never was supposed to be the final note.

 

[elannia]

OK, I am RDI, but devil's advocate and all. Why would she put on gloves to write it, but use her own tablet and her own sharpie? That doesn't make sense even to me.

Did they check for FP on the tablet and sharpie. I know the ramseys prints should be on there but hey the flashlight was wiped down so.. and does anything in this case make sense. IOW if it was premeditated she probably would have not used her own tablet and sharpie. Since this was an accident I guess she put gloves on to write it but had to use her own tablet and sharpie since she probably couldnt rush to the store to get them