RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[BoldBear]

LadyTudorRose,

Very well thought out observations. I'm also relatively new and have gone through everything you describe. This is a hard puzzle to understand and I don't have any of the answers.

I will say that I find the issue of Jonbenet's possible prior sexual abuse hard to believe but not out of the question. There are many arguments here about whether or not a panel of experts can determine sexual abuse from photographs and the autopsy description. Some believe the abuse happened and others do not. To me the whole argument remains unresolved; although, (for my sanity) I lean towards not. I haven't seen enough evidence to make a full decision. There also may never be enough evidence to reach a conclusion.

All of this was disturbing for me to talk about as well. It takes time. The only thing that doesn't get easier is the unrealistic urge to go back in time and stop this from happening--if only wishing could make it true.

Welcome to websleuths. There are some really good people here even if we do tend to bicker.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi! I've been looking a little at this thread. I'm new to this case as I was very young when it happened but when I started reading about it it was just absolutely fascinated.

Most of the media I've seen on it is very much IDI, and my mom felt strongly (and still feels strongly) it had to have been IDI because of the general lack of motive and the old issue about whether a mother could do something like this (or conspire with others to cover up something like this having been done) to her child. The main scenario I always heard in the media that was RDI was that PR attacked JB for wetting the bed, which is what my mom found absolutely ridiculous, and I completely agree with her on that.

I, for the life of me, can't imagine a parent killing a child over bedwetting, but seeing all the other RDI theories and the amount of evidence supporting their involvement, has made me rethink their possible role. I still think IDI is certainly possible, but at the very least I feel like the Ramsays were hiding something. The main thing that really got my interest was the Reddit AMA with Mark Beckner.

A couple of things I am curious if long-time RDI people would like to weigh in on.

Beckner said of JB's death:




I'm wondering if this is generally taken as fact or if there are alternate possible causes of death? The reason I ask is so many theories seem to regard this not as a planned murder but as physical or sexual abuse taken too far or fighting between siblings taken too far. I guess I just have a hard time imagining that being the case with a strong blow to the head like that and strangulation occurring independently of each other. Like I just feel like the intention had to have been to either kill or or harm her in a sadistic way. It's honestly so sick and disturbing I can't bear to think about it, and goes to a much darker place than any other case I've ever read about.

Another thing that really sickens me is the sexual abuse JB seems to have suffered. I feel like the evidence seems to point really strongly to sexual abuse having occurred prior to the murder, both in regards to the evidence found during the autopsy, the serious bedwetting problem, the medical issues JB seems to have had with that general area, and the lack of clean underwear in the house. I am really surprised that no effort was made to investigate that and prosecute someone on that alone. Even if her murderer was someone outside the family and their identity is never uncovered, the molester could have been someone different and that person should have been punished. I've read pedophiles are more likely to reoffend than murderers and it frightens me that that person, whoever it was, may still be out there. Am I wrong about either the evidence I've read about or my interpretation of it? Is her being molested in dispute? Because it really shocks me that this wasn't taken more seriously and I'm curious what people think about it.

You're not the only one, LadyTudorRose. JB's being molested has been proven as much as it can be, disputed or not.

I wouldn't even say this if I didn't know the accusation had been made a thousand times before (because it is a terrible thing to accuse someone of on the off chance they're innocent) but I feel like the issue of sexual abuse strongly implicates JR. I suppose there are women who sexually abuse children, but it's not very common and most kids are molested by an older male relative. If BR was capable of something like that (is that even possible?) it still in my mind goes back to JR because psychologists say that children who molest other children have usually been molested themselves, so if BR abused JB than JR perhaps abused BR or even BR AND JB.

I share your feelings.

Also, this is pretty disturbing to even talk about, but I feel like if the scene was staged the paintbrush actually does point to prior sexual abuse. If we assume the kidnapping was staged to cover up a murder by a member of the family, the ransom note points strongly in the direction of a ransom kidnapping by someone with connections to and a grudge against JR, not a pedophile. The paintbrush is unnecessary if that's the angle you're going with, and for a parent who is not a pedophile it would be insanely disturbing and sickening to have to stage that aspect of the crime. I don't think anyone in the family would have had a lot of insight into what the ME would look for when examining the body, but it might occur to them that she would be checked to see if her hymen was intact and if they knew it wasn't, they might feel the need to stage a sexual assault to explain that.

Agreed!

I'm also a little disturbed by PR's completely dismissive attitude to this evidence when it was brought up in her interview with LE. (x) Perhaps 1996 was a more innocent time, but nowadays parents are aware of the threats pedophiles pose and are very aware as to which adult males are alone with their kids. She says she's shocked when it's first mentioned, which suggests she believes it, but makes to effort to suggest someone outside the family (teacher, coach, doctor, etc.) or to ask LE who they think was responsible. Later she completely brushes it off as though i's impossible. If any child in my family was molested I would want to know who was responsible and if LE wasn't making the effort to find out I would try and find out myself. I understand reluctance to be cooperative if you think the police are accusing you of something you didn't do, but this question is one that doesn't seem to implicate or accuse PR and if they really believed their little girl was killed by an intruder, finding out who molested her would likely be the key to bringing her killer to justice and clearing the family.

BBM. You're not kidding.

And then there's the whole ransom note situation. I've looked at the evidence for PR and I can see how a lot points to her, but I'm not completely convinced. First of all I think she would have tried harder to conceal her handwriting and second the letter is so much about JR and not at all about her. And JR is the sort of man who named two different children after himself, he's exactly the sort of person to make the note all about himself. The person who wrote it seems like it could almost be the president of the JR fan club. Maybe PR worshipped her husband to that extent but I doubt it. The fact that the paper and pen used came from the home strongly implicates the family but weirdly enough I've thought some of the contents could implicate an intruder. Like, for instance, if JR was involved with the mob or something and the purpose of the letter was to covertly let him know who did this and why, knowing full well he couldn't expose the perpetrator without exposing his own sins. Obviously that means nothing in an RDI scenario but I'm still really unclear about what the killer was trying to accomplish with this note. If it was to cast blame away from the parents, it failed miserably because IMHO it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for their involvement.

Yes, it was a failure, as far as it goes. But it helps to remember: the Ramseys didn't need to fool the police, the FBI, the GJ, the experts or the DA. They had to fool ONE person out of TWELVE. Apparently, that's not hard.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

You're not the only one, LadyTudorRose. JB's being molested has been proven as much as it can be, disputed or not.



I share your feelings.



Agreed!



BBM. You're not kidding.



Yes, it was a failure, as far as it goes. But it helps to remember: the Ramseys didn't need to fool the police, the FBI, the GJ, the experts or the DA. They had to fool ONE person out of TWELVE. Apparently, that's not hard.

Fooling one person out of twelve just gets you a hung jury, and then you go on trial again. I also think when 11 other people are pressuring you to vote a certain way, it can be difficult to stand your ground. Anyway, I have no doubt that there would be more than one juror who would vote "not-guilty" if the case ever went to trial. They would have quite the dream team, but for those who don't, getting away with murder when you're on a trial is not that easy.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~
I'm also a little disturbed by PR's completely dismissive attitude to this evidence when it was brought up in her interview with LE. (x) Perhaps 1996 was a more innocent time, but nowadays parents are aware of the threats pedophiles pose and are very aware as to which adult males are alone with their kids. She says she's shocked when it's first mentioned, which suggests she believes it, but makes to effort to suggest someone outside the family (teacher, coach, doctor, etc.) or to ask LE who they think was responsible. Later she completely brushes it off as though i's impossible. If any child in my family was molested I would want to know who was responsible and if LE wasn't making the effort to find out I would try and find out myself. I understand reluctance to be cooperative if you think the police are accusing you of something you didn't do, but this question is one that doesn't seem to implicate or accuse PR and if they really believed their little girl was killed by an intruder, finding out who molested her would likely be the key to bringing her killer to justice and clearing the family.

~RSBM~

I believe most of us have felt the same anguish looking at this case, seeing the shocking autopsy photos, and having to accept that whatever unfolded will never be explained, let alone taken into a court of law.

If you have interest as to how a family is impacted by abuse, and how such sad dynamics are enabled, I’d recommend the books, Miss America by Day by Marilyn Van Derbur Atler and Fire of the Five Hearts by Holly Smith. Of the two books Miss America by Day is filled with insights only a woman who was abused can provide. These books won’t provide a revelation as to who had been molesting JonBenet. But in reading them, I did understand more about this family and also see that molestation can happen in the very best of families as well as in lower social strata.

Another help was reading this lengthy thread discussing Marilyn’s book. http://forums.delphiforums.com/PurgatoryII/messages?msg=1262.1 (You may have to register to read it.) One of the important findings is the lengths folks will travel to deny and hide the horrific situation of incest. And just because denial is the overreaching reaction to what can not be acknowledged (either consciously or unconsciously) doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a major impact within the family unit. There still exist undertows which can pull someone (any of ‘em) down into a situation of turbulent, uncontrollable rage. Rage towards self or others. Someone was filled with anger before the head blow.

My take on Patsy’s bizarre reaction when told about the prior abuse - a controlled, defiant, prove it attitude – is that it is a clue as to what was of concern: not the fact that her baby had been previously molested, but that someone would believe it. This echos exactly the reaction of Van Derbur’s mother that no one can ever hear of the abuse.

 

[LadyTudorRose]

I might have to read that book. I have seen a lot of people (here and elsewhere) argue for parallels between the Ramsey family dynamics and the dynamics some incest survivors describe.

I feel like, at the very least, there was something horrible going on in that house. I've been wondering a lot about the 911 call made a few days before the murder that no one seemed to remember or know anything about that. I've also wondered if there was a guidance counselor or someone (I heard JB saw the school nurse a lot) who picked up on signs of abuse against JB and/or BR.

A different thing I've come back to is the line in the ransom note that if JB were killed by the kidnappers her remains would be denied to her parents for burial. I honestly think there's some significance there, and I'm picturing perhaps an argument between JR and PR where JR advocated for taking the body and hiding it in some remote area but PR insisted that she wanted to keep her child's body so she could dress her up and bury her. It doesn't necessarily jive with the state she was in when she was found but I'm really thinking that was on PR's mind if she was the one who wrote the note. Otherwise it's a very strange thing to mention what with her little body being in the wine cellar. I almost wonder if PR insisted on calling 911 (despite their later insistence JR was the one who told her to) to prevent JR from removing JB's body. Even if PR or BR was the one who killed her, JR seems more like the cunning one in that family and he would have to have realized how bad it would look for them if she was found dead in the house. But I think PR, the pageant mom and beauty queen, would feel very strongly about her beautiful little girl decomposing in the woods.

 

[InstantProof]

LadyTudorRose,

I also believe "a proper burial" is very much on the mind of the RN writer and also some other things, like getting sleep ("advise you to be well rested"). I can't figure out the well rested part. The person writing it would assume John would be reading this in the morning after sleeping, I would think. In reading the letter yet again, I also notice the first part of the letter ends with "you must follow our instructions to the letter". The next paragraph doesn't really give very specific instructions, except for the money stuff. Everything else has a weird "we might call you early" nonchalant vibe to it. Then the next paragraph starts "any deviation of my instructions..." There's more focus on trying to sound serious, than having any real serious instructions.
I'm starting to lean towards Patsy writing the note without John's involvement, and with that thought in mind, the last bits about "use your common sense/ don't grow a brain" sounds like she is telling him to go along with this even if he can see through it. "It is up to you now John!"

 

[LadyTudorRose]

InstantProof,

That also got to me! I don't think any kidnapper is really going to care what condition the parent of the person they kidnapped is in. I can't imagine anyone getting a good night's sleep after someone's broken into your home, even if all your kids are safe.

I was also really confused by the supposed call time of 8-10am tomorrow. Does tomorrow mean the 26th? Or the 27th? If it's the 26th, why not say this morning or in the morning? And 8-10am is a weird time given it's the day after Christmas and no one has work or school. If you know they're planning on getting up early for a flight it might make sense, or if you know one of more of them have issues sleeping through the night, but otherwise who doesn't sleep in the day after Christmas? Especially when you've been to a party the night before; I probably wouldn't be up until 10:30 or even 11! So "well-rested" is a really strange request; if one were to follow the instructions of the note and be up and ready for the call there would be no time for rest at all, even if you were able to sleep.

I mean obviously we know it's not a real ransom note, and the Ramseys didn't make much of a pretense of believing it was, but there definitely seems to be some coded messaging going on that confuses me.

Maybe PR had some original plan where they would do a "drop off" with someone else being roped into the plan and they would pretend the find the body at that location. She concocted that plan by herself and used it to write the note whereas JR just wanted to fake a disappearence and dump the body where it wouldn't be found. They couldn't agree as to what to do; JR convinced PR that the fake drop-off would be implausible and extremely risky but PR still refused to let go of her little girl's body. Instead they decided to stage it as a murder by an intruder and PR insisted on using the note anyway since she'd already written it and thought it was really brilliant and would totally throw off the police.

In that situation, the "use your common sense" and similar comments are trying to rope JR into believing that they're so much smarter than anyone else and no one could possibly see through this wonderful plan PR has made. It will all work perfectly, she's saying, if you just go along with it!

 

[InstantProof]

InstantProof,

That also got to me! I don't think any kidnapper is really going to care what condition the parent of the person they kidnapped is in. I can't imagine anyone getting a good night's sleep after someone's broken into your home, even if all your kids are safe.

I was also really confused by the supposed call time of 8-10am tomorrow. Does tomorrow mean the 26th? Or the 27th? If it's the 26th, why not say this morning or in the morning? And 8-10am is a weird time given it's the day after Christmas and no one has work or school. If you know they're planning on getting up early for a flight it might make sense, or if you know one of more of them have issues sleeping through the night, but otherwise who doesn't sleep in the day after Christmas? Especially when you've been to a party the night before; I probably wouldn't be up until 10:30 or even 11! So "well-rested" is a really strange request; if one were to follow the instructions of the note and be up and ready for the call there would be no time for rest at all, even if you were able to sleep.

I mean obviously we know it's not a real ransom note, and the Ramseys didn't make much of a pretense of believing it was, but there definitely seems to be some coded messaging going on that confuses me.

Maybe PR had some original plan where they would do a "drop off" with someone else being roped into the plan and they would pretend the find the body at that location. She concocted that plan by herself and used it to write the note whereas JR just wanted to fake a disappearence and dump the body where it wouldn't be found. They couldn't agree as to what to do; JR convinced PR that the fake drop-off would be implausible and extremely risky but PR still refused to let go of her little girl's body. Instead they decided to stage it as a murder by an intruder and PR insisted on using the note anyway since she'd already written it and thought it was really brilliant and would totally throw off the police.

In that situation, the "use your common sense" and similar comments are trying to rope JR into believing that they're so much smarter than anyone else and no one could possibly see through this wonderful plan PR has made. It will all work perfectly, she's saying, if you just go along with it!

Good call on the 8-10am time frame- someone assumes (or knows) he will be up early.
I don't believe John would think that ransom note would do the trick, though.
Originally I thought maybe Patsy called 911 to prevent JB from being removed, but for some reason I do believe them when they say John told Patsy to call 911. Whatever her reason, if Patsy decided to call 911, later saying John told her to doesn't do anything for their story that I can see.

 

[LadyTudorRose]

Good call on the 8-10am time frame- someone assumes (or knows) he will be up early.
I don't believe John would think that ransom note would do the trick, though.
Originally I thought maybe Patsy called 911 to prevent JB from being removed, but for some reason I do believe them when they say John told Patsy to call 911. Whatever her reason, if Patsy decided to call 911, later saying John told her to doesn't do anything for their story that I can see.

I actually think it could benefit their story; if PR alone called 911 that could implicate JR, especially since most murderers tend to be men anyway. But if it was a mutual decision, or something he decided but she freely went along with, that makes both of them look more innocent.

That said, it still could have been his decision or a mutual decision if he realized there was no way he was going to talk her into dumping the body. Also if they did dump her, there was always the chance PR would get cold feet and reveal the location at some point and in that case they'd both look even worse than if she was found in the house.

 

[DeDee]

May I ask the forum members to, please, not write that JonBenet's body was/wasn't "dumped". Some of us here have developed deep feelings for this 6yo innocent little girl. It hurts to see that word used. My apologies if I may be overly sensitive. Perhaps writing something similar to: she could have been placed in a secluded mountainous region et al would be easier on the heart. Thank you for understanding.

LadyTudorRose, please know that I want to respond to some of your thoughts without editing in such a way that changes your intent.

RSBM
The main scenario I always heard in the media that was RDI was that PR attacked JB for wetting the bed, which is what my mom found absolutely ridiculous, and I completely agree with her on that.
I agree the murder was not due to bed-wetting.

RSBM
I still think IDI is certainly possible, but at the very least I feel like the Ramsays were hiding something. The main thing that really got my interest was the Reddit AMA with Mark Beckner.
I agree the Ramsey's were hiding and had help hiding something. Something very vile.

RSBM
Beckner said of JB's death:

We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad. I have avoided saying who I believe is responsible and let the facts speak for themselves. There are several viable theories.

RSBM
.... sexual abuse taken too far RSBM. I guess I just have a hard time imagining that being the case with a strong blow to the head like that and strangulation occurring independently of each other. RSBM ...kill or or harm her in a sadistic way. It's honestly so sick and disturbing I can't bear to think about it, and goes to a much darker place RSBM.
You may be closer to the truth than you realize. Perhaps the two deadly events that occurred independently of each other is due to having two separate crime scenes. JonBenet was at a party before she arrived home. Recall that Patsy stated the JonBenet was sound asleep during the car ride and that JR said he carried her upstairs. If she was harmed being arriving home, the parents may have told Burke not to disturb her because she was asleep. It may be true that Burke said JonBenet was awake and walked to her room. It is conflicting, to be sure. I feel it is the former and not the latter.

Another thing that really sickens me is the sexual abuse JB seems to have suffered. I feel like the evidence seems to point really strongly to sexual abuse having occurred prior to the murder, both in regards to the evidence found during the autopsy, the serious bedwetting problem, the medical issues JB seems to have had with that general area, and the lack of clean underwear in the house. I am really surprised that no effort was made to investigate that and prosecute someone on that alone.
RSBM
Maybe it wasn't a pedophile but more of a sex addict or sexual pervert(s). It's possible there are many of them still out there. JonBenet was sexually molested according to the evidence. She visited pediatrician Dr. Beuf over 20 times in three years. This indicates to me that her parents were complicit.

RSBM so if BR abused JB than JR perhaps abused BR or even BR AND JB.
I believe both children were molested. We may not agree on it being only JR for I feel there are others involved due to the lack of investigation into the sexual abuse at the time of the murder.

Also, this is pretty disturbing to even talk about, but I feel like if the scene was staged the paintbrush actually does point to prior sexual abuse. RSBM ... it might occur to them that she would be checked to see if her hymen was intact and if they knew it wasn't, they might feel the need to stage a sexual assault to explain that.
JMHO They knew JonBenet had repeatedly been sexually abused. Using a garrote was the KGB assassins' method of choice. It is a military style of killing because it is quick, silent and effective. The victim cannot scream because they are choking. I believe the scream heard by the neighbor was Patsy's anguish as she tightened the garrote.

RSBM finding out who molested her would likely be the key to bringing her killer to justice and clearing the family. They knew who molested their daughter. Most everyone agrees it was a botched CS. One of the first calls made was to order LEO to handle the parents as victims. That tells me someone important wanted this quiet from the beginning.

And then there's the whole ransom note situation. RSBM If it was to cast blame away from the parents, it failed miserably because IMHO it's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for their involvement.
It's been a while since I read the RN. The references to "Fat Cat" stood out to me; as well as, the warning about killing being easy. That's how assassins think. Perhaps the part 2 of the killing was not emotionally easy and neither was writing the RN. However, I feel the time after death and until 911 was called, or about five hours, was time spent writing the RN. After visiting the Ramsey home in Boulder, I'm willing to state my opinion that Fernie was there most of that time.

What about the RN sig: SBTC ? My best guess, and probably others, has been: scarf, bracelet, tiara, cat or the beloved items that were buried with her in the small casket.

 

[BOESP]

Statistics show that bed-wetting rage is one of the most highly attributable causes of child abuse. A moment of uncontrolled anger in the middle of the night directed toward a small child can create grievous harm to that child.

Please, don't believe for a second that just because your parents didn't act in such a manner means that all parents act like your parents did. We've discussed the statistics here in the past even presenting DOJ data on the subject. A Google search will provide a wealth of information on this subject from reputable sources.

 

[InstantProof]

Speaking of bed wetting, I thought this quote from The Enquirer article I quoted in another thread was a little odd;
"This bed-wetting is nonsense stuff...a red herring," said John.

 

[otg]

Statistics show that bed-wetting rage is one of the most highly attributable causes of child abuse. A moment of uncontrolled anger in the middle of the night directed toward a small child can create grievous harm to that child.

Please, don't believe for a second that just because your parents didn't act in such a manner means that all parents act like your parents did. We've discussed the statistics here in the past even presenting DOJ data on the subject. A Google search will provide a wealth of information on this subject from reputable sources.

I'm not a proponent of the toilet rage theory, but I recognize it as something we have to consider. Steve Thomas completely bought into it and offered it in his book as the catalyst in JonBenet's death after he heard the theory expressed by Dr. Richard Krugman. Krugman was well-known prior to JonBenet's death as one who was warning about the dangers of "toilet rage". In an article published in 1993 (3-years prior to JonBenet's death), Krugman is quoted as saying:

Factors such as stress and parents' poor control of their impulses usually play a role in abuse cases. But they require a trigger to produce an explosion.

In serious abuse cases involving children over the age of 1, the most common trigger is a toileting mishap, said Richard D. Krugman, a pediatrician and former director of the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect in Denver.

In babies under 1, inconsolable crying by the child is the most common trigger in abuse.

At Kempe, Krugman analyzed 12 fatal abuse cases involving children older than 1 and found that nine were clearly linked to a toilet-training accident or a messy diaper change. While head injuries caused most of those deaths, three children died from scalding burns after being immersed in bathtubs.
​

Is it any wonder then that when Dr. Krugman was consulted, he expressed the idea that "in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance"? Krugman further stated to investigators that, "The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage."

Just because I don't agree that this is the cause here, I still agree with BOESP that the possibility (or other possibilities as well) shouldn't be minimized simply because we as individuals haven't experienced it. As BOESP states, there IS "a wealth of information on this subject from reputable sources." Several of them can be found within the same article as Dr. Krugman's quotes:

http://articles.philly.com/1993-11-...ses-toilet-training-accidents-toilet-training

 

[BOESP]

I'm not a proponent of the toilet rage theory, but I recognize it as something we have to consider. Steve Thomas completely bought into it and offered it in his book as the catalyst in JonBenet's death after he heard the theory expressed by Dr. Richard Krugman. Krugman was well-known prior to JonBenet's death as one who was warning about the dangers of "toilet rage". In an article published in 1993 (3-years prior to JonBenet's death), Krugman is quoted as saying:

Factors such as stress and parents' poor control of their impulses usually play a role in abuse cases. But they require a trigger to produce an explosion.

In serious abuse cases involving children over the age of 1, the most common trigger is a toileting mishap, said Richard D. Krugman, a pediatrician and former director of the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect in Denver.

In babies under 1, inconsolable crying by the child is the most common trigger in abuse.

At Kempe, Krugman analyzed 12 fatal abuse cases involving children older than 1 and found that nine were clearly linked to a toilet-training accident or a messy diaper change. While head injuries caused most of those deaths, three children died from scalding burns after being immersed in bathtubs.
​

Is it any wonder then that when Dr. Krugman was consulted, he expressed the idea that "in considering the past and present injuries to the hymen that the bedwetting/soiling took on enormous significance"? Krugman further stated to investigators that, "The JonBenet case is a text book example of toileting abuse rage."

Just because I don't agree that this is the cause here, I still agree with BOESP that the possibility (or other possibilities as well) shouldn't be minimized simply because we as individuals haven't experienced it. As BOESP states, there IS "a wealth of information on this subject from reputable sources." Several of them can be found within the same article as Dr. Krugman's quotes:

http://articles.philly.com/1993-11-...ses-toilet-training-accidents-toilet-training

otg, I still firmly believe Patsy is the responsible, but after reading Kolar's book, it seems Burke's actions could have been the precipitating factor.

I am still firmly convinced that JonBenet's head injury was a low velocity/high pressure wound but I understand there are exceptions. I know you disagree but I so highly respect your opinions in this case.

Steve Thomas may have very well withheld opinion on some things but he stated he saw Burke as just a confused little boy (which could mean several things, imo). If there was evidence of Burke's involvement that evidence would have been there in 1996 and 1997. On the other hand, Burke's possible involvement would explain Linda Arndt's statement that Patsy was imprisoned by secrets.

The one thing that keeps me from buying into the BDI theory is Patsy and John's publicity campaigns. You don't shout from the mountain tops when trying to protect your son. I can only fit all of what is publicly known by saying Patsy did it and Burke and JonBenet's actions were precipitating factors. I don't buy into the BDI theory although I see that he may have had problems that caused Patsy to lose control. I can see John Ramsey, who I do not personally know, going along to keep both son and wife protected and he then becomes guilty by association.

The bottom line in all this is the gross waste of time and resources to protect someone who is guilty of killing a six-year-old. Whoever did it should have been responsible for their actions and paid the consequences, whether 39 years old or 9 years old and the Ramseys should have been instructed to keep their mouths shut because their arrogant blatherings only made them look guilty and smug imo.

 

[UKGuy]

If the case were truly PDI and associated with bedwetting, Steve Thomas would not have been allowed to publish his book. His publishers would have ran it through their legal editor, and BPD would have vetted it for anything that might impede any future prosecution. Consider Kolar he is tight lipped over evidence he knows is not for public consumption.

Also if the case was PDI or JDI how come either are only cited in the true bill as Accessory to a Crime, etc?

ETA:

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (or alternately, Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

.

 

[BOESP]

If the case were truly PDI and associated with bedwetting, Steve Thomas would not have been allowed to publish his book. His publishers would have ran it through their legal editor, and BPD would have vetted it for anything that might impede any future prosecution. Consider Kolar he is tight lipped over evidence he knows is not for public consumption.

Also if the case was PDI or JDI how come either are only cited in the true bill as Accessory to a Crime, etc?

ETA:


.

UkGuy, I can only give opinion, but I can't conclude from my reading of the true bill that both John and Patsy were accessories. I see it as one of them aided the other as a possible explanation.

I'm not sure about what you are saying about Steve Thomas not being able to publish his book if PDI because as far as I know there is no law to prevent publishing a book making claims as long as the claims are factual.

I think Kolar's main point was proving there was no Foreign Faction or Intruder. Honestly, I thought some of what he wrote was so convoluted and veiled that his information could be taken in several ways, one of which, imo, is that Burke's actions could have been a precipitating factor in what caused JonBenet's death by someone else's hand and not necessarily that Burke killed JonBenet.

Regardless, without seeing all available evidence there's no way to come to a final conclusion for me.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy, I can only give opinion, but I can't conclude from my reading of the true bill that both John and Patsy were accessories. I see it as one of them aided the other as a possible explanation.

I'm not sure about what you are saying about Steve Thomas not being able to publish his book if PDI because as far as I know there is no law to prevent publishing a book making claims as long as the claims are factual.

I think Kolar's main point was proving there was no Foreign Faction or Intruder. Honestly, I thought some of what he wrote was so convoluted and veiled that his information could be taken in several ways, one of which, imo, is that Burke's actions could have been a precipitating factor in what caused JonBenet's death by someone else's hand and not necessarily that Burke killed JonBenet.

Regardless, without seeing all available evidence there's no way to come to a final conclusion for me.

BOESP,
Sure without all the evidence we cannot settle on a RDI theory. Kolar suggests his opaque theory is such because of legal reasons, Lin Wood not withstanding.

Patently Kolar is holding something back since he suggests it all started in the breakfast bar, so how we get from there to the wine-cellar is curious.

Steve Thomas has been and is currently unable to divulge whatever BPD has deemed not for public consumption, when interviewed by Tricia he cited this whenever he declined to answer her question. There is always forensic evidence in a homicide case that is held back, so investigators can use it to confirm or disconfirm if a suspect is the prime suspect.

So Steve Thomas can construct any RDI theory that does not release unknown evidence thereby weakening the prosecution process. His book publishers' legal department had to vet his book accordingly otherwise they might be on the wrong end of litigation from LW and the BPD.

From this we can conclude one of Thomas' and Kolar's theories is invalid. From which I reckon someone knows they were inventing a theory to author a book.

Although the case could be PDI with JR assisting PR with a revised staging, its interesting that the most consistent explanation is BDI, arrived at analytically, but backed up by the hiding of the contents of the true bill, along with Kolar's reticence to state explicitly he is promoting a BDI theory.

In the future people will talk, there will be another documentary and we will find out who did it, even if there will not be anyone prosecuted.

.

 

[carolbell]

Speaking of bed wetting, I thought this quote from The Enquirer article I quoted in another thread was a little odd;
"This bed-wetting is nonsense stuff...a red herring," said John.

L.H.P. said at first that the bedwetting was no big deal. John said all his kids wet the bed and outgrew it and so will she. Yet Patsy would get up at midnight to put her on toilet to help keep her from wetting the bed. She also said that diapers would absorb liquid and it wouldn't wake her up so no more diapers at night, so it sounds like it was becoming a big deal. John also told help to change her sheets she wet the bed again.grandma took her to bathroom at midnight, when she was there and stated that J.B. didn't like it and carried on.

 

[topcop]

I'm in the middle of James Kolars book. I feel priveleged to have access to the thoughts of someone so close to the case. It's a good read. Despite everything I have read on this case (a lot) I am still at a loss for certain explanations about the case. If there are avid followers of this case with opinions regarding the following questions, I'd like to hear them.

1) Why did the Ramseys call the police with their child's body still in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

2) Why did John Ramsey "find" his daughter's body in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

3) Why do at least 3 legitimate investigators support the IDI theory? I am speaking of Lou Smit (now deceased), John Douglas (FBI profiler), Lawrence Schiller. It would seem to me that one of the family members murdered the child (either one of the parents or the brother) and staged the scene to cover it up. From everything I read so far in so many books on the case, that much seems clear.
So I wonder what would cause credible professionals to draw different conclusions. In my opinion it must be one of the following reasons: 1) their reputations aren't deserved and they are mis-assessing the evidence. 2) They are biased toward the Ramseys for some reason (probably a financial one.)

Comments please.

 

[andreww]

I'm in the middle of James Kolars book. I feel priveleged to have access to the thoughts of someone so close to the case. It's a good read. Despite everything I have read on this case (a lot) I am still at a loss for certain explanations about the case. If there are avid followers of this case with opinions regarding the following questions, I'd like to hear them.

1) Why did the Ramseys call the police with their child's body still in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

2) Why did John Ramsey "find" his daughter's body in the house if the plan was to stage a kidnapping?

3) Why do at least 3 legitimate investigators support the IDI theory? I am speaking of Lou Smit (now deceased), John Douglas (FBI profiler), Lawrence Schiller. It would seem to me that one of the family members murdered the child (either one of the parents or the brother) and staged the scene to cover it up. From everything I read so far in so many books on the case, that much seems clear.
So I wonder what would cause credible professionals to draw different conclusions. In my opinion it must be one of the following reasons: 1) their reputations aren't deserved and they are mis-assessing the evidence. 2) They are biased toward the Ramseys for some reason (probably a financial one.)

Comments please.

1) The Ramsey's never intended this to be a kidnapping. The note was simply a ploy to get the police to consider them as victims from the onset. Their only other options were to call LE saying their daughter had been murdered (they surely would have been the prime suspects) or to try and dispose of the body (to much risk of being seen by a witness or security camera). Their plan was simple, there was an an attempted kidnapping, the girl ended up dead, and all of us were sleeping the entire time. By doing this they minimized the risk of conflicting stories by each of them.

2) I think the answer to the first question answers this one as well. But there are some that feel that John was kind of making his plan up as he went. Some feel he may have hidden the body in the crawl space for later disposal, but had a change of heart and moved it to the wine cellar.

3) in the case of Lou Smit I think it was a case of him trying to relive past glories. He was most famous for cracking a similar case that seemed to point to a father as the murderer of his own child. Smit caught the actual perp and it was the defining moment of his career. I think he was the exact type of guy Alex Hunter was looking for and Smit thought he could find magic in a bottle one more time.

As for the other guys, there are always people that want to swim against the current simply to differentiate themselves from the masses. There are people like that here as well. Plenty of people were lining up to go on the big talk shows and bash the Ramsey's, but the lineup of Ramsey supporters was much shorter. Perhaps these guys were simply using this case as a vehicle for media attention, truth be damned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk