KoldKase
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 30
Don't forget the no longer politically correct "RST", but some old timers like me will use it occasionally:
RST = Ramsey spin team.
What does Kolar say about
- Thread starter Maureen92
- Start date
-
Flight to London Gatwick crashes at airport in India .June 12 th 2025
- Latest: indicolite22
Don't forget the no longer politically correct "RST", but some old timers like me will use it occasionally:
RST = Ramsey spin team.
KoldKase
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 30
At the very least she was an excellent red herring, if that was the case.
I hate to say it, but I think her sisters and mother fall into the same category: boundaries seem to be something they don't understand.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Not so hard to believe at all.... it just doesn't have to be one or the other...
but a contributing reason to choose such an elaborate coverup if it was Burke, since their reputation was so important to them....
That's what I kept trying to explain to ChrisHope - for ALL those reasons... it makes covering up for Burke that much more important - if it was him, that is.
Because they cannot have this very public family with their:
- holiday tour open houses
- public family newsletters
- Billionaire-company owning
- Pageant-winning
- Yacht-cruising
- Fat Cat-living
....lifestyle be tainted, now can we? Especially by their son who may have assaulted and/or murdered their daughter.
They have vested reasons to stage either way:
- if only the parents did it - reason to stage
- if only the son did it - reason to stage
- combination of the above - reason to stage
- one of the other family members - reason to stage
Because the situation itself affects the way they look and the consequences they deal with - no matter WHICH family member, or members, did it.
Ultimately, they valued their livelihood, and protecting it, themselves, and their children from blame, at all costs....the risk of staging, if they could get away with it, was worth what they were protecting... and includes ALL of the above.
We know it includes ALL of the above, because:
1) The ransom note alludes to concern and respect for John's business
2) Patsy lied and covered for Burke about opening the gifts in the basement
3) The parents did everything to separate Burke from the crime scene: he did not hear/see/know anything... but their statements contradicted his, and they had to admit to it/change their story...
4) They wanted the other children cleared as well, before they would cooperate (they stated it)
5) They went on TV / public interviews before they did police interviews to cooperate: protecting their name rather than protecting their family from an 'intruder'
All the above. Not one or the other.
P.S. - And as I've stated previously, they still might have staged for Burke if they didn't have all that to 'lose' either, just because they wouldn't want Burke to live with the consequences of, or the shaming and difficult life, of having to deal with what he may have done to his sister -- as numerous other parents attested they would do for their own children, no matter what their child did, like Cindy Anthony for Casey Anthony. Depends on the parents themselves. Personal choice, personal value. Rich with reputation or not, being a parent (depending on the parent), may be enough reason for a parent to stage for a child. So, either way, staging for Burke is a big possibility - but all other factors added, even more possibility.
I understand your theory. I just don't think it's all that likely. Often people have a harder time with non-acceptance than with actual misunderstanding.
I personally know people who's homes are on the local home tour. I personally know people who used to send out those horrible holiday letters. Means absolutely zip.
If they staged to cover for Burke, they ran a huge risk of being sent up for murder. That's quite taint on their lifestyle. Plus staging a kidnaping/pedo/murder is bound to generate more publicity -negative publicity- than an accidental killing by a minor.
If there is any other RDI scenario you'd accept as even remotely possible, then you'd also have to accept, within the context of that scenario, that they (or one) killed their daughter, and staged in order to avoid prison. Yet when we consider BDI, suddenly they are the type who'd be delighted to go to prison to save Burke from absolutely no legal consequences whatever, and a level public embarrassment far far below what they endured by making themselves look like murderers.
Believe me, I understand your theory. I just don't think it adds up all that well.
LW comments in DB article:
Jul 18, 2012
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html
"Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood said he had not read Kolars book and declined to comment on the detectives theories. "I firmly believe this murder will be solved by the DNA evidence, he says. It was the DNA evidence that led to the public exoneration of the Ramsey family by the district attorney's office, and it will be DNA that one day identifies the killer of this child."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html
"Ramsey family lawyer Lin Wood says, The Ramseys had no knowledge of any such abuse. John and Patsy Ramsey thought that this was another example of the Boulder police departments prejudice in trying to make accusations against the family.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Just FYI - it's not my chosen theory - I haven't given a decided RDI theory... I'm just countering with why it would also make sense for them to stage for Burke. I didn't say that they did for sure, or that's the ONLY reason. I'm countering to your belief that the ONLY reason they would stage is for themselves... Once again, I'm saying they would stage either way.
To you; not to Patsy. They were important enough to her to write every year...
They ran a huge risk anyway because they still staged, even if it was only for themselves, and they look no less guilty.
They still got tons of bad publicity this way. And, you downplay the importance of the 'accidental killing by a minor' to them - especially when there is cover up of sexual abuse.
Plus, say if Burke did all the physical stuff to JonBenet, including the strangulation (the angry stuff that ended up killing her-accident or not), and they choose to call 911, it's going to be hard to explain that it was just an accident by a minor. And it may not have been ...if it was him, he also could have done it out of anger.
...stopping you right there -- I accept a lot of other RDI scenario as even remotely possible. I never said that was the only scenario. BDI is not my theory. I have no decided theory. I have been merely trying to explain to you why they would ALSO stage for Burke, not that they ONLY would stage for Burke. YOU are the one who said they would ONLY stage for themselves -- YOU actually are the one needing convincing of more than one possible scenario - not me.
Yep, and I do. I am not arguing that they would only stage for Burke, like you are arguing that they would only stage for themselves. If you read my post above closely that you quoted, you would see that I listed all the reasons they would stage. So, once again, yes I totally believe that they would also stage, simply to avoid prison, even if it is only for themselves, as self-preservation - even if Burke was totally not involved. I've just NOT eliminated either scenario like you have.
Just because I said they would stage in one scenario, does not mean that I said that they would NOT stage in the other. You are the one saying that.
Again, that's your perception of it. You don't put the same value on why they would stage for certain reasons. I do.
Actually, you don't... because it's not 'my theory'. I never said they only staged to cover Burke. I said they would stage to cover Burke or themselves either way. Which they did, and we don't know for sure who did it, and so the outcome worked. I am not a BDI only, which keeps getting misconstrued in the message. This is not a PDI/RDI vs. BDI argument. My argument is all-inclusive and I do NOT have decided stated theory on which RDI. Although I did come off the IDI fence last year, but I go back and forth on which RDI.
You don't seem to understand that I absolutely agree with you that they would also stage just to avoid going to prison themselves, if it turns out that it was only an adult RDI. I'm saying they would stage even if it is/was BDI, but I am NOT saying that means I think it WAS definitively BDI. ...whereas you are saying you believe it was ONLY PDI and/or JDI (parents only), based on your values of why you think they would stage.
That's fine if you want to believe that.
But since we know based on people's own statements and actions, and that people are different, and some will cover for others, and some won't, and we've seen it and heard it firsthand, that it depends on the person - so it would not be wise to assume, or eliminate the staging scenario if BDI, just because you personally would not do it.
Because, you would think, that if based on that, that I would believe like you do - since I personally would not cover up for a crime my own son committed, as well, wouldn't you? You would think that I would believe the Ramseys would not do that either, because logically it might seem like less risky - child is underage, makes sense that they would understand it's an accident or poor judgement call...yadda yadda. But just because I wouldn't do it, does not mean I presume someone else wouldn't.
I am not going to presume my own values are the same as someone else's. Therefore, I will not be naive enough as to assume that if it was BDI, that they wouldn't stage for him...
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
First of all, staging did not pose NO risk at all. Ransom Note is a dead giveaway.
They are still under great suspicion. They just had enough defense money to get out of jail.
Plus, if staging posed NO risk at all, we wouldn't be here, because the plan would have worked perfectly and there would be no debate because we all would believe that there was an intruder on the loose. The very fact that there is IDI vs. RDI at all, is because the staging is ridiculous and not foolproof, therefore a lot of us DON'T BELIEVE It. And so, no, it did NOT pose no risk at all...
Don't believe me, ask the murderer of Zhara Baker. She wrote a ransom note too. Although she didn't have enough money to buy her defense..and each case is different....
And yes, the point of staging IS to TRY and lower the risk. Or why even attempt it all? In ANY case?
But really are we talking about whether the staging REALLY lowered their risk, because it seems pretty obvious to an RDI, of who is guilty, or are we muddying the waters - because it depends on why you feel they aren't in jail or not, doesn't it?
Each case is different, but in this case, we have a crime scene that was changed - evidence destroyed and crime scene actively changing: including the staging itself, plus the people who came in the next morning and contaminated the crime scene, as well as the defense (bought with money) the Ramseys had, and the way the investigation was handled.
So we can't say the staging alone was not the only factor as to whether they would get caught, not once again assume it was the only thing they thought or knew they had going for them.... factoring in all they had on their side, and for their situation, it was their best choice - to them.
You presume the staging raised the risk if it was BDI. But since you don't know who killed her anyway, how do you know it didn't work? But it did, didn't it - but not necessarily because they staged - but because of all the other things going for them as listed above.
You assume they would only go through all this to keep themselves out of jail only, because in your mind, you think it would be simple if it had been Burke - they would just call 911 and all would be well.
It's not so simple.
And round and round and round we go, don't we?
Chrishope,
It was RDI, collectively, John, Patsy, and Burke were all on board prior to the 911 call. They all knew the version of events that was going to be given to the police, and they all knew what not to say. Burke in accordance with his RDI role, dutifully returned to bed and faked being asleep, then shortly after he was relocated out of the house.
BDI is more consistent than either JDI or PDI. The latter two theories suffer the same flaws you attribute to BDI, e.g. each parent can be found guilty of homicide.
BDI offers the best explanation as to why the parents might stage at all.
.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I think BDI is unlikely given that they staged.
In JDI or PDI (or combined) each parent can be found guilty anyway, because that's what the unstagged evidence would point to, so staging lowers the risk. In BDI, W/o staging, the parents aren't going to be found guilty, and neither is Burke.
It depends on the theory. In BDI, staging greatly increased the risk. In RDI, it lowered the risk. The RN is silly on the face of it, but w/o staging, in an RDI scenario, there is a dead girl in the basement of her own home and only her parents and brother to blame. With the staging, there is at least some small chance that someone will believe the intruder theory. AS SD has pointed out in the past, you only have to fool one person out of 12.
Staging in a RDI scenario poses no additional risk at all, and may slightly lower risk. Staging in a BDI scenario greatly increases the risk to the Rs.
So we have staging. They either staged under an RDI scenario, in which case they did it to lower their risk, or they did it under a BDI scenario, in which they greatly increased their risk to protect Burke (from nothing) and/or to protect their "image".
Now if you want to believe that they ran that big a risk to protect their image, that's fine. I can't prove it's not the case. Any of us can be wrong. All I'm saying is it seems unlikely to me that they'd stage in a BDI situation. The risk was very high to the Rs, very low to Burke, and I don't see how their public image has been "saved" or mitigated by having half the world think they killed their daughter.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Right, I know you do.
And of course, I will not eliminate him just because they staged.
Different ideals.
That's fine, though.
Chrishope,
Well relatives of those dying from AEA are perfectly happy to take the risk and stage a suicide.
You have PR and JR forensic evidence all over the staged crime-scene. But no BR forensic evidence.
You also have one of the parents willing to accept the risk of a homicide charge since one of them asphyxiated JonBenet, this assumes BR was not involved in the wine-cellar staging.
So it looks to me, as if the risk, regardless of which RDI theory you propose, is much the same for the parents whether its JDI, PDI, or BDI.
.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
But their public image hasn't been saved... And maybe this is why you are missing the significance of my point when I say 'they staged anyway'. Yet they still have all these repercussions.
So did the staging really get them out of jail, or was it something else?
To anyone who looks at the evidence and the situation in all its entirety, the overwhelming picture starts to become clear that it's a RDI rather than an Intruder, right... IN SPITE OF the staging.. Because the RN still makes them look guilty, the behaviors, etc. still make them look guilty, etc.
This is why you have to consider what THEY may have perceived, or been thinking, or thought would work, or was worth risking what they chose to do anyway.
So, did the staging help keep them out of jail, or did the defense, the contaminated and changed crime scene, the tainted police/morgue procedures, etc. have any contribution to that...?
How did the staging pose NO risk at all? There would only be ONE theory, if the staging was completely effective. There would be NO suspicion of the Ramseys at all, no forums after all these years with any RDI at all. Just a forum of Whodunnit for IDIs. Because even though the RN is staged as a red herring, it is one huge implication for them due to everything about it.
For you to believe the staging poses no risk at all, and actually lowers their risk, then you need to explain HOW it lowers the risk - if they still look guilty due to the staging after all these years....unless you believe the staging is the primary reason they are not in jail, and has nothing to do with the other factors listed above.
Let's be clear here. If it's AEA say of a teenage son, who has accidentally killed himself, it basically is a suicide. They are just staging to hide the AEA. Which leaves them vulnerable to obstruction of justice, but not murder.
But perhaps you had a different scenario in mind?
Right, so BR didn't help with the staging no matter what scenario you prefer.
Right, so most likely they were trying to lower their risk by introducing the intruder theory ?
[/quote]
No. If it's BDI, one option they had was to call 911, let the ambulance crew do what they could (probably nothing that would actually save her). The ambulance crew or the hospital staff would call the police (unless the 911 call included the info that BR did it, then police would arrive about the same time as the ambulance) then they take whatever "tarnishment" might occur to their public image. From the standpoint of legal trouble, this is a very low risk situation for all 3. No one is going to prison. So, staging, which makes the Rs appear that they might be the murderers increases their risk.
Exactly.
I've explained it several times. W/o the staging there is nothing pointing to an intruder. So it's definitely RDI. With the staging someone (e.g. the all important 12th juror) might buy the intruder theory.
How many IDIs have joined the discussion and their sole reason for being IDI is they can't believe parents would do this and they have a very flimsy IDI theory to settle on so that they don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of parents doing these things? An intruder theory, no matter how unrealistic to most of us, might save them from prison. In RDI there is nothing to loose staging. It can't increase their risk, because they would look guilty w/o the staging. With staging they get to bring up the intruder boogey man. That clearly lowers their risk. It gives the 12th juror a reason to doubt the parents did it.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Staging TRIES to lower the risk, yes, the whole reason it is done, ever, anyway.
This is a total assumption based on your simple beliefs about the crime scene, what you believe they believed or knew about the law, and that the only thing to worry about is whether neither of them would be found guilty.
Right, you HAVE to minimize and simplify/eliminate the other factors, in order to believe as you do.
It is not prudent though, to elminate those factors, especially with all we know about this case..... all I'm saying.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 140
If the R's were so concerned about protecting their reputation, why did they go on CNN?
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Uh, I don't disagree as to the point of staging to point to an intruder, thereby them HOPING, ASSUMING, that the risk of guilt is less. Yes. Again, that's not what I was asking. I was asking why staging only for THEMSELVES was less risky. Not the point of staging at all.
You just assume the risk is HIGHER if they stage for Burke, because you think there is no need to, because all is well if they do NOT stage for Burke...
But staging potentially lowers risk no matter which Ramsey you are covering for. Yes, I know you don't believe this - or we would not be discussing...
This is not what I'm arguing against - I'm not arguing why they STAGED at all.
It's like, you change what you are arguing with me on, if you don't like my answer..(except it's clear that it's not as simple as 'no risk at all' if they stage. I mean, obstruction of justice law, for one. It's not like you have 'nothing to lose' if you stage. So, I don't know why you keep saying that.
And,
- I was not arguing BDI only
- I am not arguing no reason to stage either.
- I know why IDIs believe what they believe; yes, it's definitely hard for them to get past any parents doing this. And I've sent many a thread response on how horrible some parents can be.... but I've also sent responses like that on siblings as well.
I've eliminated NO Ramsey. They are all capable, they all had opportunity (the 3 that were there - that we know of). They all also provided a potential reason to stage.
wonderllama
Registered Snoozer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 351
Eileen, 'Attack is the best form of defence'?
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 225
- Guests online
- 577
- Total visitors
- 802