"Question to those who believe IDI, Would you have a different view if there was no DNA evidence that was unidentified ? ie take out the DNA evidence , what have you got?"
In my opinion here is what I've got (although none of it is proof which is why no one has solved this case yet!):
1. I can't see a motive for either of the parents to kill the child. I know there are theories about motives, but none of them seem to be any more than that, to me.
When do you ever see a clear motive for parents to kill their child?
In general, aren't most parent killings of children horrific and don't seem to have a clear motive?
If you're not sure, here are some sad statistics for ya -
what's the motive for any of this?:
http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics
Child Abuse in America
Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Over 3 million reports of child abuse are made every year in the United States; however, those reports can include multiple children. In 2009, approximately 3.3 million child abuse reports and allegations were made involving an estimated 6 million children.
Almost five children die every day as a result of child abuse. Approximately 80% are under the age of 4.
Child abuse occurs at every socioeconomic level, across ethnic and cultural lines, within all religions and at all levels of education.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/statistics/stat_fatalities.cfm
Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. During 2008, an estimated 1,740 children died from abuse or neglect in the United Statesa rate of 2.33 deaths per 100,000 children.
http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm#sa5
The most commonly reported perpetrators are fathers and stepfathers. Brothers, sisters, mothers, baby-sitters, and uncles, are also among the most common abusers. Who abuses is an important piece in the question, "why do people abuse?" We dont necessarily know why, but we do know most abusers were abused themselves. With incest perpetration being a family based sexual abuse, it can repeat itself from family member to family member, generation before generation, and those thereafter. But despite this, we know from statistics that overwhelmingly, most children who have been abused, dont go on to abuse others.
"Ninety percent of sexual abuse victims never tell." --Susan Forward, Ph.D., 1989. Innocence and Betrayal Overcoming the Legacy of Sexual Abuse.
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-136.htm
Abuse of and Violence against Children -
- The US Government's 1997 report Child Maltreatment found 62.3% of perpetrators were women.
- The Heritage Foundation study, The Child Abuse Crisis, found that of the approximately 2,000 children killed each year, 55% were killed by mothers, 25.7% by live-in boyfriends, 12.5% by stepfathers and 6.8% by biological fathers.
- The 1995 report US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect found that where maltreatment led to death, 78% of perpetrators were female. Boys were four times more likely to be fatally abused and 24% more likely to be seriously abused than girls.
2. The type of head injury does not suggest an accident to me. If there wasn't an accident, there is no need to cover it up by staging.
Accident or murder - staging does not have to be ruled out, if there is need to make the scenario look like something it is not.
3. It's a leap to assume that if there was an accident there would be staging. Why wouldn't the parents call 911? I know people have theories about that, but there isn't enough evidence to convince me that they again are any more than theories.
It's not a leap to assume there would be staging if it's an accident, if you said above that if it WASN'T an accident, there would be no need for staging. By those definitions, murder means no need for staging, and accident means a leap for staging. Then why is there EVER staging? When do you deem it necessary and not a leap for staging? Staging (or a cover up) is required in whatever situation happened in order to make the scenario look like something it is not - to deflect blame and change the story, whether accident or on purpose: Murder - I shot two people but I need to be out of the picture...I put the gun in one of the victim's hands to make it look like he shot the other guy then shot himself. Lots of murders are 'staged' (covered up) to look like an accident or that someone else did it.
...Accident staged to look like murder - where someone else has to be to blame, so as not to find out that the accident was due to something that could still get the perpetrator in trouble. Like what you ask? Oh, like for instance, say abuse/neglect, perhaps? After all, who wants to be charged with criminally negligent homicide? Is that even a real thing? I mean, why is there such a thing as criminally negligent homicide if it was just an accident, right?
Hmm, let's see:
Criminally Negligent Homicide - often the charge brought in cases where there is an unintended death resulting from abuse or neglect:
http://gothamist.com/2011/03/24/two_acs_workers_and_grandmother_cha.php
"Last year, severely malnourished four-year-old Marcella Pierce died in her Bedford-Stuyvesant apartment weighing a scant 18 pounds and showing signs of other traumas. Her mother, Carlotta Brett-Pierce, was arrested and charged with murder, manslaughter and assault, but yesterday prosecutors charged three more people, including two Administration for Children's Services case workers and the girl's own grandmother, with contributing to her death....
Two former ACS employees were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide......."
http://www.crimemagazine.com/solving-jonbenet-case-0
...."The final feature of the accident/cover-up theory that's helpful to prosecutors is that it allows them to leave unresolved the question of who caused JonBenet's head wound and why. This question is central in a murder case. In an accident/cover-up case it doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if the blow to the head were delivered by a sibling jealous of the attention JonBenet was getting, angry about JonBenet bringing her soiled self into his bed (she had a bed-wetting problem), or enraged by his sister's declaration that she was going to tell their parents she was upset about his "playing doctor" with her privates, or by a distraught Mom or Dad angered by more bed-wetting, or by discovery of some instance of sibling rivalry run amok. Take your pick. Craft your own scenario. They're all variations of an accident.
It's not possible from the evidence to tell what happened.
It is possible to realize that from a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter. Under any variation, what happened wasn't murder because the only people in the house at the time she died had no reason to kill her or were too young to have the requisite intent. The evidence can be read to suggest one hypothesis of what happened that night: JonBenet's death was an accident the result of, at worst, negligence, a tragedy compounded by a deliberate and premeditated decision to cover-up, and hang on tight, together, all for one and one for all to protect what remained of the family".
4. If there was staging, I can't get my imagination, which is very vivid, to accept parents staging it the way they did, unless there is evidence that they were very sick people who were into very sick things of a sexual and sadistic nature and I'm not aware of anything that suggests that's the case. What I'm trying to say is, to even think of staging that way you have to be pretty bent to start with. Otherwise how would you think of it?
I'll redirect you to the realities of life in my above responses....
And, as I usually repeat, 'We Only See What We Know'. - von Goethe.
Well of course if you can't conceive of it, then your brain will not allow the possibilities...if it's too horrific for you, that's your lack of imagination. Sounds familiar - like Lou Smit once he prayed with the Ramseys - they can't possibly be guilty, right?...... All these other parents and family members can't be guilty of all this abuse going on either, can they? All those statistics must be fake... Why would they do that? I mean, I sure wouldn't do that after all, so...? It's faulty reasoning and narrow-mindedness. Just cuz you are pure doesn't mean others are.
5. They were pretty lax about security in the house and were somewhat high-profile in the community - an easy target.
Doesn't mean they are innocent.
6. A lot of things I assumed to be true from earlier media reports (such as no footprints outside in snow: turns out there was not snow in the critical spots to leave footprints in - another example - audio on 911 tape of Ramseys saying incriminating things turned out to be noise of the tape machine starting up and not human words at all) turned out to be false, so that made me rethink everything I thought I knew..
I rethought everything I knew too...that's why I'm on this side of the fence now. And yeah, there are lots of inconsistencies and red herrings in this case. Those things you noted though, are not blatant changes to any facts.
7. A lot of people think the Ramsey's behavior shows guilt, I see much of their behavior as consciousness of innocence, not guilt. I think they behaved like people who had a rude shock and reached out for help and after they found out that LE was after them instead of helping them and someone who knew them might have done it, they got suspicious and withdrew, which is what I would have done in their situation.
Uh, no. Not how it happened. Lawyers were obtained immediately... But they got their 'story' out in the media in several ways.
8. Ramseys' memory lapses are no worse than mine even in non-traumatic situations, and I know what my Mom was like after chemo - she was never really the same again. So I don't see memory lapses as consciousness of guilt necessarily.
Okay, but when weighing all their statements in which they remembered specific details when it served them, and nothing at all when it would have hurt them, to the absurd nth degree - the picture becomes clear. Specific examples of this are noted in numerous threads.
9. When given the opportunity to make up a lie to make them sound better, like explaining the pineapple, they did not - making me think they are trying to be truthful.
How does stating that you don't recognize your own bowl from your own kitchen with your fingerprints on it, and the pineapple from your own fridge in that bowl as completely not yours sound like they are trying to be truthful. It's not that they said they don't recognize getting the bowl or snack out of the fridge for one of their kids, their own bowl was supposedly not recognized. I guess the intruder brought his own bowl of pineapple with him - with Patsy's prints on it, in her same dishware style. Really? Rather than consciousness of innocence, a need to distance themselves with anything in the home related to the events of the night.
10. A lot of the people who want to promote the Ramsey's having done it DO have a motive that I can understand.
What's my motive? I don't have a motive to want the parents guilty. I'd rather it be an intruder. I'd rather all parents and family members and caregivers responsible for loved ones never hurt or kill their family members or children. Doesn't make it so.
Putting little kids in beauty pageants with lots of makeup and fancy costumes is very weird to me, that's something I would want no part of, but I don't think it rises to the level of weirdness and sickness that the killer(s) had. I'm not sticking up for the Ramsey's because I think they're great and I've thought then innocent from the start - I thought they did it at first. Then I got some more information and realized that reality was NOT very much like what was presented in the media.
Okay. Your opinion. Food for thought though - just because she was in beauty pageants does not mean that's why they killed her either..... Lots of parents abuse, neglect, and do otherwise sick and twisted things to their own children, including killing them... and their children were never in beauty pageants.
