To those of you sitting on the fence....

[slug]

i've been reading about this case for awhile and i can see why some people say RDI and also why some say IDI. There are points for both sides, I feel the RN is a fake for either side if an IDI that planned a kidnapping they would have a plan to take her out of the house either dead or alive, and if a RDI then i think the note was a way to explain her death.
There are lots that don't make sense about the evidence and seems to be a combination betwen the perpertrater and LE mistakes IMO

 

[Chrishope]

For our two fence sitters, let me offer my advice. I'm RDI, but I don't want to try to persuade you on that matter. Make up your own mind. My advice is this -

1. Don't get too hung up on motive. One cannot always figure out the motive until the crime has been solved, and sometimes motive simply comes down to insanity. If you won't move until there is a motive, you probably won't move. Do a google search of "child murder". Often you'll find that it was just anger or insanity. Sometimes people just don't know how to handle pressure w/o lashing out at someone. Why does a mother slash the throat of her 2 year old and 7 year old? Why does a mother drive into a river killing the children in the back seat of the car? Why does a father shake an infant to death? Why do parents sexually abuse their children? We can go on and on, but often the motive really makes no sense, or only makes sense after the crime is solved.

2. Don't get too hung up on "forensics". I'm using forensics loosely here. Lot's of cop shows on tv resolve the crime by finding some bit of DNA, or a shoe print, or a certain type of insect that lives only in a certain area, etc. Don't make the mistake of thinking the case turns on the shape of a particular letter in the RN, or on as yet (still, after all these years) unidentified DNA.

The legal standard, in murder cases, is "beyond a reasonable doubt". But if you really want to solve the case, as opposed to getting a conviction, go with the "preponderance of the evidence".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If asked, my advice (as an IDI, in case you didn't already know), would be to stay on the fence because you're higher up there and can see farther.

I just read the LIFE magazine issue THE GREATEST UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF ALL TIME. It includes the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. It is a fencesitting article. Starts with how the investigators had RDI on the brain at the early stages of the investigation, and how they might have missed something. Points out how the DNA was used by the DA to include/exclude suspects. Highlights BPD taking back the investigation from the DA. Ends with PR buried next to JBR.

I'd further note this for fencesitters:

The body, the murder weapon, and 2 1/2 pages of handwritten ransom note that was left at the crime scene represent an unusually large amount of evidence for investigators. Despite the plethora of evidence, no unequivocal link has yet been found between it and anybody who lived in the proximity. This is despite a focus on those who lived in the proximity throughout the early years of the investigation.

And, the crime scene continues to hold many mysteries even to this day.

The expression SBTC has not yet been decoded. Nobody knows what it means or doesn't mean. Nobody knows why the paintbrush was broken at BOTH ends. Nobody knows why a 2nd ligature was found loose, apparently never used. Nobody knows where the cord came from. Nobody knows what struck JBR in the head. Nobody knows why the amount 118,000 was chosen, when its clear especially to JR and PR they could've afforded 250,000 or more. Nobody knows where, how, or under what circumstances JBR would've eaten pineapple near the time of her death. Nobody knows how or why JBR was sexually assaulted.

 

[BBB167893]

A Howitzer would be who?

I was thinking Epstein, for one. I can't find anyone, even those who have gone against him, who has ever denied that his skill is top-of-the-heap.

What happened to 'prior abuse'? Why was JBR sexually assaulted that night? In a vicious way no less?

I'll wait for cynic to get back before I jump in, IF I jump in.

 

[BBB167893]

For me,

To move to the RDI camp, I would like a motive. Sudden rage killing just doesn't seem to fit in my mind. Even in cases where you see a rage killing, the parent often has a history of violent outburst or other history of mental illness.

Depends on who you ask, KariKae. Many people have wondered if PR was not suffering from undiagnosed mental illness.

Moreover, I strongly urge you to examine the Jeffrey MacDonald case vis-a-vis this one. You might find it interesting. In fact, I'm sure you will.

 

[BBB167893]

My advice to the fencesitters, in a nutshell is this:

Don't focus on one thing, two things, or even three things. Take the entire case as a whole.

I would also recommend that you learn to very quickly differentiate between Hollywood crime solving and real-life crime solving. Chrishope has it absolutely right. If every case hinged on the kind of things that some people claim, we'd have to scrap the entire legal system, because nobody would ever be arrested, much less convicted.

Also, you'd do well to keep in mind of how money and politicking are absolutely cancerous in criminal investigations and this case is the best example I can think of.

 

[BOESP]

If asked, my advice ... would be ... I just read the LIFE magazine issue THE GREATEST UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF ALL TIME. It includes the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey. ...

My advice would be to remember that the object of LIFE magazine is to make money selling magazines to the broadest audience possible.

 

[redeemed]

i've been reading about this case for awhile and i can see why some people say RDI and also why some say IDI. There are points for both sides, I feel the RN is a fake for either side if an IDI that planned a kidnapping they would have a plan to take her out of the house either dead or alive, and if a RDI then i think the note was a way to explain her death.
There are lots that don't make sense about the evidence and seems to be a combination betwen the perpertrater and LE mistakes IMO

I like your comment " I feel the RN is a fake for either side"...
I am a RDI (big time)...
Some IDI like to argue that JB was never meant to be killed in her home-that infact, it was a kiddnapping gone wrong...why would a kiddnapper, who was supposedly ever so scrupulous in removing her from her bed, travelling in the house freely without attracting attention, leaving hardly any evidence behind, why would he find it so diificult in silencing JB WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL HER ON THE SPOT?? Surely, if he was intelligent enough to do all the above, then he must have anticipated that JB would most likely resist him, scream etc ....so why didnt he ensure that JB is carried out of her home without having to be put in a postion where he had no choice but to silence her by bashing her in the head???!!!
RN quote:
"be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics"
Ok..so the intruder is familiar with something as high and mighty as law enforcement countermeasures and states he kept all this in mind and will know how to deal with it if need be....yet, he didnt anticipate that JB could possibly scream , retaliate etc??? so he was put in a situation where he simply had to kill her on the spot and leave the body there...therefore all his efforts in planning this extraordinary kidnapping were gone with the wind..
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!!

 

[IrishMist]

I guess I'm a fence sitter. If I had to make a judgment based only on the known evidence, I'd have to lean more toward RDI. Maybe I just have a hard time believing that Patsy could do that to JonBenet.

I have tried, several times, to think through or envision an IDI scenario. I've never been able to come up with one that was believable to myself. The pineapple is one of the problems for me to overcome when I'm attempting this. It would also have to be someone that wouldn't be missed on Christmas Day/Night.

I do feel that the Ramsey's acted guilty. I feel like if they didn't do it, then they know who did. But John Andrew is the only one I can think of that they'd do that for, and he has an (apparently) good alibi. (Would they protect Burke? Grandpa?)

I have a hard time believing that an intruder spent that much time in the house without leaving more evidence. Or that they even had the nerve to spend that much time there. I could see a friend of John Andrew's, maybe, who had been there before and knew that they couldn't be heard from upstairs. I could see this working with both the pineapple and the secret visit from Santa.

The most likely, IMO, is that Patsy did it. I saw a show years ago that had moms that had accidentally killed their children. One of them was angry with their child, and got so mad that she threw down the metal curtain rod that was in her hand. The rod took a bad bounce and struck the child (in the eye?) killing them. Point being, things can happen when a parent loses it. And I personally believe every parent loses it at some point.

It seems that either way I go, my decision doesn't "fit" for me, I can never decide with certainty. I've always admired people like Tricia that are so sure. When the John Mark Karr fiasco hit, I cried. I so wanted the person responsible to be caught that I just believed. Not Tricia! She came right out and plainly said that it wouldn't be him. I forgot her exact words, but I used them as my signature for the longest time. I just can't seem to get there, be it IDI or RDI. Probably why this case still haunts me, all these years later.

 

[tragco]

I am a fence sitter.

IDI: I lean toward this MAINLY because of the letter written by Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy on July 9, 2008 that stated in part:

The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by
the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an
unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent
explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on
these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was
wearing at the time of her murder.

If 2 different items of clothing produced the same unknown male DNA, that rules out to me the possibility that the underwear may have been contaminated by a worker. The SAME male DNA on 2 different items of clothing is telling to me.

RDI: 2 things: but MAINLY the ransom note. I've viewed so many samples and really think there's a good chance Patsy wrote it. I would hope that anyone who knew John Ramsey's bonus amount would have been tested for DNA, but have no faith in that because of the way the case was mishandled. The second thing is the 911 call... the Ramseys say Burke was asleep but he can be heard on the 911 tapes. A flat-out lie by the Ramseys.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It would also have to be someone that wouldn't be missed on Christmas Day/Night.

You mean, like someone from a SFF?

 

[cynic]

What happened to 'prior abuse'? Why was JBR sexually assaulted that night? In a vicious way no less?

I’m a bit puzzled as to why my generic post brought about those specific questions? If you want my opinion on those issues, however, here they are.

Why was JBR sexually assaulted that night? In a vicious way no less?

Primarily in an attempt to cover prior ongoing abuse of JBR.

What happened to 'prior abuse'?

“Dr. Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic pathologist, has no doubt that the 45-pound child was molested. "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested," he has said. The vaginal opening, according to Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department, was twice the normal size for six-yr.-olds. "The genital injuries indicate penetration," he says, "but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." There were also blood and urine stains on her underpants. A considerable obstacle to investigators, according to one well-placed source in the D.A.'s office, was the fact that "the crime scene and the body were cleaned up, although not sterilized." Adding to the mishaps, the coroner didn't examine the body until seven hours after it was discovered, and then spent only 10 minutes at the crime scene.”
-Vanity Fair Article,
Who Killed JonBenet?
September 16, 1997
by Ann Louise Bardach

 

[DeeDee249]

In a perfect world, every crime against a child would be solved and justice served. But this is not a perfect world, and when things like this happen, there sometimes IS no motive. There does not always have to be a motive in a murder case, and many murders of children particularly, have no motive and are the result of a parent losing control. Motive is rare in child murders. Most are the result of abuse or the sudden loss of control.
Sadly, this kind of thing crosses racial and socioeconomic lines, but this case had the world's attention because the victim was a pretty little blonde beauty queen with wealthy parents. You might not like it, but that it why it held the attention of the country for so long.
It is hard for most parents to believe this was committed by JB's own parent(s) - but that is not reason enough to eliminate them as suspects. The Grand Jury erroneously felt that way, too.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But this is not a perfect world, and when things like this happen, there sometimes IS no motive.

IMO you might be overcomplicating a simpler concept. Motive simply means something that caused someone to do something. There was a motive, no matter what.

Something caused someone to break both ends of the paintbrush. An idea that was brought to fruition the moment they broke the paintbrush. A goal they attained. Someone was motivated to break the paintbrush at a particular moment for a reason.

The classical motives of lust, revenge, and hatred are represented in the crime. Hatred, rage, and brutal violence are clearly present in both word and deed. RDI is blind to the motives because they can neither read the RN nor see the injuries to JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

The classical motives of lust, revenge, and hatred are represented in the crime.

I would agree with that, but NOT in the manner you suggest!

RDI is blind to the motives because they can neither read the RN nor see the injuries to JBR.

WE'RE the blind ones? That's freakin' rich. More honestly, I used to believe that. But then I realized exactly who couldn't see the RN or injuries for what they were.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I would agree with that, but NOT in the manner you suggest!



WE'RE the blind ones? That's freakin' rich. More honestly, I used to believe that. But then I realized exactly who couldn't see the RN or injuries for what they were.

I'm siding with what prima facie says:

Deep furrow + petechial hemorrhaging = MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

Any other conclusion is frankly ridiculous. After we consider the 'totality' of evidence, the big picture, its still MURDER BY STRANGULATION. IOW, whoever did this is going to face murder charges because a strangulation weapon was constructed and there is evidence it was used for that purpose. Whether it be RDI or IDI, it is a MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

You can take that to the bank.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm siding with what prima facie says:

Deep furrow + petechial hemorrhaging = MURDER BY STRANGULATION. Any other conclusion is frankly ridiculous. After we consider the 'totality' of evidence, the big picture, its still MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

HOTYH, for the thousandth time, I'm agreeing with you. I'm not aware that anyone has disagreed with the method of death. The question, as I see it, is not one of motive but one of intent.

IOW, whoever did this is going to face murder charges because a strangulation weapon was constructed and there is evidence it was used for that purpose.

I get what you're saying, HOTYH. I usually do. But I don't think you understand me.

Whether it be RDI or IDI, it is a MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

You can take that to the bank.

For all I know, you could be right.

 

[Sophie]

DoI and the LKL encounter with ST separated me from the fence. I'd been RDI before then but nowhere near as militantly.

Wrt motive, in family murders, it's often a fool's errand to try to find a clear motive - we've discussed this before at length. In any event, people always seem to want an obvious motive that had been building up for months before the crime. In fact, a motive can present itself in the seconds and minutes before a crime. The same is true of pre-meditation.

 

[redeemed]

I'm siding with what prima facie says:

Deep furrow + petechial hemorrhaging = MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

Any other conclusion is frankly ridiculous. After we consider the 'totality' of evidence, the big picture, its still MURDER BY STRANGULATION. IOW, whoever did this is going to face murder charges because a strangulation weapon was constructed and there is evidence it was used for that purpose. Whether it be RDI or IDI, it is a MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

You can take that to the bank.

Hi HOTYH...ok..can you pls answer me one question....let's ASSUME that NO DNA whatsoever was found at the crime seen but everything else was as it is (RN, fibres etc )...would you still HONESTLY think that an intruder did it? if so-why?
If that would make you think RDI-then pls, I'd like to know why as well....

 

[madeleine]

I'm siding with what prima facie says:

Deep furrow + petechial hemorrhaging = MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

Any other conclusion is frankly ridiculous. After we consider the 'totality' of evidence, the big picture, its still MURDER BY STRANGULATION. IOW, whoever did this is going to face murder charges because a strangulation weapon was constructed and there is evidence it was used for that purpose. Whether it be RDI or IDI, it is a MURDER BY STRANGULATION.

You can take that to the bank.

So he took everything else that incriminated him out of the house (including all those practice pages!!!!!!) but he forgot the neck ligature.....

The neck ligature is THE piece of evidence that screams most loudly STAGING.IMO
She was strangled/injured with something else that night.And not by an intruder.