Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Anti-K]

Ya, I've read that tripe before and it certainly does not constitute a theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re welcome.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

It would be helpful if you started your theory by telling us what time the intruder entered the house and how he got it. Then give us a step by step accounting of everything he did while he was in there. Be specific as possible.

My guess is that you can't and won't take me up on this. Your previous insinuations that this crime was perpetrated by someone playing a psychotic game of Clue is preposterous. There is absolutely no evidence to support it, as you conveniently omit any specific details and rely solely on your own imagination.

Sorry, but as far as theories go, yours is with little doubt the weakest I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

It would be helpful if you started your theory by telling us what time the intruder entered the house and how he got it. Then give us a step by step accounting of everything he did while he was in there. Be specific as possible.

My guess is that you can't and won't take me up on this. Your previous insinuations that this crime was perpetrated by someone playing a psychotic game of Clue is preposterous. There is absolutely no evidence to support it, as you conveniently omit any specific details and rely solely on your own imagination.

Sorry, but as far as theories go, yours is with little doubt the weakest I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find your demands to be ridiculous. You’re a funny guy, Andreww.

The “theory” that I offered is a Theory Of Intent. Think about what that means for a while and it should become clear to you why your demands are ridiculous.

However, I’ll take a stab at them anyway. Cuz I like you, Andreww (and, you’re funny).

IMO, the killer entered the home after the Ramseys retired for the night. Of course I could be wrong and he may have entered while the Ramseys were absent, as many other IDI seem to believe, but I’m not fond of this idea. So, after the Ramseys retired for the night.

IMO, there is not sufficient evidence to favor any specific entry point. However, there are several options which I personally have written about and posted, here, on this forum several times, most recently while discussing this topic with Bold Bear. Do I really need to keep answering this question over and over and over because after a while one get the impression that you either aren’t paying attention or are just trying to annoy. Anyway, here’s ONE of those options. The intruder used an electronic devise to raise the garage door far enough that he could slide under, lowering it behind him and then entered the house through the door (usually left unlocked) leading from the garage. Don’t like this one? That’s fine, options abound but like I said, there is no evidence that favors any of them.

As you are well aware, it is not possible for anyone – RDI included – to provide a step-by-step. And, I know that you know this, too. No one – RDI or IDI – can say when the head blow occurred, or in what room, etc – so, obviously, I’m not going to describe that, either. Some people have opinions on this, but I don’t.

The aspects of the crime that I have some certainty on – enough to form an opinion – are things like the ransom note being put on the stairs as a final act before exiting via the butler door. The head blow occurring before the asphyxiation. The sexual assault occurring during the asphyxiation. The garrote being tied on the victim, and the handle being tied to the garrote, after the victim had been rendered incapable of moving (possibly, unconscious), and after being brought to the basement.

Etc and so on...
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I find your demands to be ridiculous. You’re a funny guy, Andreww.

The “theory” that I offered is a Theory Of Intent. Think about what that means for a while and it should become clear to you why your demands are ridiculous.

However, I’ll take a stab at them anyway. Cuz I like you, Andreww (and, you’re funny).

IMO, the killer entered the home after the Ramseys retired for the night. Of course I could be wrong and he may have entered while the Ramseys were absent, as many other IDI seem to believe, but I’m not fond of this idea. So, after the Ramseys retired for the night.

IMO, there is not sufficient evidence to favor any specific entry point. However, there are several options which I personally have written about and posted, here, on this forum several times, most recently while discussing this topic with Bold Bear. Do I really need to keep answering this question over and over and over because after a while one get the impression that you either aren’t paying attention or are just trying to annoy. Anyway, here’s ONE of those options. The intruder used an electronic devise to raise the garage door far enough that he could slide under, lowering it behind him and then entered the house through the door (usually left unlocked) leading from the garage. Don’t like this one? That’s fine, options abound but like I said, there is no evidence that favors any of them.

As you are well aware, it is not possible for anyone – RDI included – to provide a step-by-step. And, I know that you know this, too. No one – RDI or IDI – can say when the head blow occurred, or in what room, etc – so, obviously, I’m not going to describe that, either. Some people have opinions on this, but I don’t.

The aspects of the crime that I have some certainty on – enough to form an opinion – are things like the ransom note being put on the stairs as a final act before exiting via the butler door. The head blow occurring before the asphyxiation. The sexual assault occurring during the asphyxiation. The garrote being tied on the victim, and the handle being tied to the garrote, after the victim had been rendered incapable of moving (possibly, unconscious), and after being brought to the basement.

Etc and so on...
...

AK

Again, not much of an effort and basically no evidence to support any of it.

Lets just think about this, One of the first questions John was asked was whether the doors were locked. He responded that he had checked them all, even going out to the garage to check that door you refer to. According to him they were all locked. All this happened in an extremely short time frame, less than ten minute if I'm not mistaken between the 911 call and the arrival of the first officer. I know John later changed his story about this, but it is very difficult to believe that there was any way he could have misunderstood the officers question. If he had simply answered yes or no, it could be argued that if he misunderstood the question, his answer could mean exactly the opposite of what he really did. However, the fact that he went in to detail last to how he DID check the door from the garage makes it quite evident that he understood the question and the officer understood that his response matched the question that he asked.

I think the fact that Smit was adamant about the window entry and exit despite the web, and despite the chair in front of the door, was because he knew like the rest of us know that John checked those doors, or at least he claimed he did. If John was to be believed, there was only one possible entry point or exit point.

So the million dollar question is, if John had anything to do with this, why wouldn't he allow for an entry or exit point? Why not just say he found the front door unlocked? Then ask yourself why his story would change? Why would he now say he didn't think he checked any doors? Why would it suddenly dawn on him months later that he had found that window unlatched, and he locked it himself without notifying anybody about it?

These actions speak louder than any physical evidence in this case. I believe John was under the impression that this actually was a kidnapping, and was telling the truth to LE, doing his best to help in any way he could. At some point something changed for Johnny boy and he stopped being so helpful. Can you guess what happened?

 

[Anti-K]

Again, not much of an effort and basically no evidence to support any of it.

Lets just think about this, One of the first questions John was asked was whether the doors were locked. He responded that he had checked them all, even going out to the garage to check that door you refer to. According to him they were all locked. All this happened in an extremely short time frame, less than ten minute if I'm not mistaken between the 911 call and the arrival of the first officer. I know John later changed his story about this, but it is very difficult to believe that there was any way he could have misunderstood the officers question. If he had simply answered yes or no, it could be argued that if he misunderstood the question, his answer could mean exactly the opposite of what he really did. However, the fact that he went in to detail last to how he DID check the door from the garage makes it quite evident that he understood the question and the officer understood that his response matched the question that he asked.

I think the fact that Smit was adamant about the window entry and exit despite the web, and despite the chair in front of the door, was because he knew like the rest of us know that John checked those doors, or at least he claimed he did. If John was to be believed, there was only one possible entry point or exit point.

So the million dollar question is, if John had anything to do with this, why wouldn't he allow for an entry or exit point? Why not just say he found the front door unlocked? Then ask yourself why his story would change? Why would he now say he didn't think he checked any doors? Why would it suddenly dawn on him months later that he had found that window unlatched, and he locked it himself without notifying anybody about it?

These actions speak louder than any physical evidence in this case. I believe John was under the impression that this actually was a kidnapping, and was telling the truth to LE, doing his best to help in any way he could. At some point something changed for Johnny boy and he stopped being so helpful. Can you guess what happened?

Mr Ramsey went outside and checked the garage door that was on the same side of the house as the door that Fernie looked through when he read the note on the floor. This is a door much like any other door – a person door - and it is NOT the door that I’m talking about. I was talking about the door that goes up so that you can drive a car into the garage.

As for Smit, I don’t think he was quite adamant as is usually portrayed (quote to follow).

Also, I think you have some of your facts mixed up regarding when things were said and exactly what was said. I’ll add a few quotes at the end of this to show you what I mean, but I think you are right in saying that “John was under the impression that this actually was a kidnapping, and was telling the truth to LE, doing his best to help in any way he could.”
..

In his deposition Smit presents evidence to support his argument for an entry via the basement window. Smit, said, “... a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.”

Let’s read that again: “I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.”
’97 interview

ST: OK. Sir, I have a question regarding the security of the home on the night of the 25th, which led to the morning of the 26th, and I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you.
JR: I scanned them.

ST: Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?
JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early.

<snip>
JR: Yeah. And when I went down and looked around the house that morning, and I think I’d made a statement or at least I read, I know I said this, that all the doors were locked and I had checked, I believe, every door on the first floor. And they were, appeared to be locked.

ST: So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?
JR: I believed I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked because there’s a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldn’t get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did in fact go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute.

ST: And that was from where to where?
JR: I went out the side door around to the back of the garage to see if that garage door into the garage was locked.
.

Let’s say all the doors were indeed locked. A killer who wanted to manipulate investigators might walk out a door and lock it behind him. A killer who wanted to create an enduring and maddeningly unsolvable mystery may do the same thing. Or, if IDI, the killer may have wanted to direct suspicion towards those inside the house.

But, what if he simply walked out the front door?

“...the police soon learned that the front door locked automatically when it was closed. PMPT; p. 632 this is also in one of the interviews, but I can’t recall which one.

Last quote, for now: Police found no signs of forced entry, which led to speculation that no outsider could have gotten in. In fact, law-enforcement officials told NEWSWEEK that the police knew several windows and a door had been unlocked that night.
http://classes.colgate.edu/rbowman/core145/jonbenet_newsweek.html
...

AK

 

[andreww]

In his deposition Smit presents evidence to support his argument for an entry via the basement window. Smit, said, &#8220;... a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.&#8221;

Let&#8217;s read that again: &#8220;I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent.&#8221;
&#8217;97 interview

I guess Smit is a forensic specialist too. What exactly is "very recent"? Let me put it this way to you; Take a window ledge that hasn't been touched in maybe ten years or more, then have a person climb through it in August or September. Then examine that window in December and I will guarantee that it would look like someone just climbed through it. And how long after the murder did Smit actually examine that window with his own two eyes?

ST: Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?
JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn&#8217;t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don&#8217;t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early.

Again, I don't understand the change of opinion. LE obviously asked him if he checked the doors the previous night and he answered affirmative. This would have been recorded in the officers notes. It would have been fresh in John's mind. Why the discrepancy? And why do you think John when asked if he'd read the statement, went straight to the entry/exit question? The answer is his lawyers new he had locked himself in to a story (yes a pun) that did not fit an intruder theory.

Let&#8217;s say all the doors were indeed locked. A killer who wanted to manipulate investigators might walk out a door and lock it behind him. A killer who wanted to create an enduring and maddeningly unsolvable mystery may do the same thing. Or, if IDI, the killer may have wanted to direct suspicion towards those inside the house.

Easier said than done.

&#8220;...the police soon learned that the front door locked automatically when it was closed. PMPT; p. 632 this is also in one of the interviews, but I can&#8217;t recall which one.

That would be the oddest front door setup i've ever seen. But okay, lets say it did lock somehow, I guarantee that door had a deadbolt that would have or should have been on. In fact the photo below clearly shows a standard latch and separate deadbolt system.

 

[Annapurna]

It's ridiculous to portray this 'intruder' as some criminal mastermind, so suave, 6 steps ahead of everyone. It sounds so hollywood, where was James Bond 12/25/96? It is borderline impossible for an intruder to have done all of the things he supposedly had to do that night, without a care in the world as for time too.

The IDI is frustrating because you can conjure up some nebulous bad guy and mold him to fit whatever evidence you please.

Not trying to attack, simply frustrated with the logic of it.

 

[Anti-K]

I guess Smit is a forensic specialist too. What exactly is "very recent"? Let me put it this way to you; Take a window ledge that hasn't been touched in maybe ten years or more, then have a person climb through it in August or September. Then examine that window in December and I will guarantee that it would look like someone just climbed through it. And how long after the murder did Smit actually examine that window with his own two eyes?



Again, I don't understand the change of opinion. LE obviously asked him if he checked the doors the previous night and he answered affirmative. This would have been recorded in the officers notes. It would have been fresh in John's mind. Why the discrepancy? And why do you think John when asked if he'd read the statement, went straight to the entry/exit question? The answer is his lawyers new he had locked himself in to a story (yes a pun) that did not fit an intruder theory.



Easier said than done.



That would be the oddest front door setup i've ever seen. But okay, lets say it did lock somehow, I guarantee that door had a deadbolt that would have or should have been on. In fact the photo below clearly shows a standard latch and separate deadbolt system.

View attachment 83861

I&#8217;m really not interested in debating Smit on the basement window. I&#8217;m not a big fan of the Smit theory. But, his deposition on the windows is pretty interesting and it does answer some of your questions.

I&#8217;ve also considered that the recent entry could have been Mr Ramsey&#8217;s entry earlier in the year. But, Smit does a credible job of describing conditions found as possibly being more recent than that. However, I remain skeptical.

I&#8217;m not bothered with the change as I see nothing nefarious about it. You might be right about the lawyers.

All I know about the front door is that it supposedly locked automatically. If IDI, IMO, the door wasn&#8217;t used, but it isn&#8217;t outside the realm of possibility.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's ridiculous to portray this 'intruder' as some criminal mastermind, so suave, 6 steps ahead of everyone. It sounds so hollywood, where was James Bond 12/25/96? It is borderline impossible for an intruder to have done all of the things he supposedly had to do that night, without a care in the world as for time too.

The IDI is frustrating because you can conjure up some nebulous bad guy and mold him to fit whatever evidence you please.

Not trying to attack, simply frustrated with the logic of it.

1) Why is it ridiculous to portray him as a criminal mastermind? Do you not believe that such persons exist? Do you think there is something special about the Ramseys that would prevent such a person from targeting them?

2) This IDI is NOT proposing a criminal mastermind. IMO, if IDI, this could have been someone of average intelligence with no more awareness of &#8220;police countermeasures and tactics&#8221; than that gathered from books, and movies.

3) It should not be frustrating that IDI can conjure up some nebulous bad guy, but frustrating that such persons exist. It is frustrating to not know who he is, and to not know his motive, and to not know his intent, but this is real life and objections to these unknowns are meaningless. We&#8217;ll likely never know the identity of the Zodiac, we&#8217;ll never know his motive or his intent, he will forever remain this nebulous figure, but he still exists and our frustration or incomprehension is no objection to his existence.
...

AK

 

[Annapurna]

Anti-K, I appreciate the response but I will not debate about this "intruder". No offense intended (in fact its an admirable trait) but you seem to be very persistent & insistent in your arguments. I have read through many, many threads on this forum and I have read countless of your posts, so I doubt we will ever agree. I simply cannot see any evidence of an intruder that cannot be more easily explained by someone in the house being the perp. Agree to disagree though. I appreciate your dedication to the case, in that we agree.

Keep up the good work though!

 

[andreww]

1) Why is it ridiculous to portray him as a criminal mastermind? Do you not believe that such persons exist? Do you think there is something special about the Ramseys that would prevent such a person from targeting them?

Why do you find it so hard to believe that the people in that house, the people that have repeatedly lied about the events of that night, the people that couldn't be eliminated as the authors of the note, the people who refused to talk to police for three months, etc. could not be the ones that did this crime? Instead you choose to believe some invisible, motiveless bogeyman was responsible.

It doesn't bother me so much when someone believes in an intruder theory, because in most cases they are simply uneducated or have been drinking too much of the Ramsey's Kool Aid. But when someone is well aware of all the facts and is still oblivious to them, it just gets annoying.

 

[perdedorita]

A little bit of a detour question here - but ultimately related to the thread topic of "Who Killed JBR"...

Has anyone here read "My Sister, My Love" by Joyce Carol Oates? It's a fictional reimagining of the JBR case. While it is a work of fiction for sure, it was helpful to see someone storytell the family dynamics here - particularly for the parts of us that can't comprehend how a parent could harm a child. And it was a good exercise for me to take myself out of my own thoughts, theories and biases and invest myself and my imagination into an alternate vision of not only the crime, but the collective psychology/dysfunction of the family organism. For those who haven't read it, it may lead to asking some new questions, or asking the same old questions a different way. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has read it and if so, what your thoughts were. It got decent-ish reviews on the whole, although the NY Times critic was not in love with it.

http://www.amazon.com/My-Sister-Love-Intimate-Rampike/dp/0061547492

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K, I appreciate the response but I will not debate about this "intruder". No offense intended (in fact its an admirable trait) but you seem to be very persistent & insistent in your arguments. I have read through many, many threads on this forum and I have read countless of your posts, so I doubt we will ever agree. I simply cannot see any evidence of an intruder that cannot be more easily explained by someone in the house being the perp. Agree to disagree though. I appreciate your dedication to the case, in that we agree.

Keep up the good work though!

I&#8217;m no more &#8220;persistent & insistent&#8221; than anyone else who discusses this case. But, thank you for your remarks.

...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why do you find it so hard to believe that the people in that house, the people that have repeatedly lied about the events of that night, the people that couldn't be eliminated as the authors of the note, the people who refused to talk to police for three months, etc. could not be the ones that did this crime? Instead you choose to believe some invisible, motiveless bogeyman was responsible.

It doesn't bother me so much when someone believes in an intruder theory, because in most cases they are simply uneducated or have been drinking too much of the Ramsey's Kool Aid. But when someone is well aware of all the facts and is still oblivious to them, it just gets annoying.

It&#8217;s pretty simple, actually, the evidence, the facts and reason does not support RDI. I think the case against them is extraordinarily weak, heavily flawed and to some large extent built on fantasy (see Kolar for an example of this).

It may be a surprise to you, but there are many people, including amongst those associated with the investigation, who agree with IDI. However, when you spend all your time on one side of the fence, you tend to lose sight of these things and a process of communal reinforcement takes hold and before you know it, you think everyone agrees with you (and, worse, that there is something wrong with those who don&#8217;t).

But, I know what you mean about it being annoying when someone ignores the facts. IMO, this is a defining feature of RDI (see Kolar for endless examples of this).
...

AK

 

[andreww]

There is a difference between what may or may not be fact and what is or isn't known. I'll be the first person to admit that the
Ramsey's should not be charged due to lack of evidence, but I am smart enough to realize that what little evidence is there points squarely at the people in that house. I realize that the Ramsey's have been caught on numerous occasions lying through their teeth. I realize that any parent not willing to assist police in the murder of their child probably had something to do with it.

This case will never be settled in a court of law, but in the court of common sense this is an open and shut case, not to the extent that we could say which one of them did it, but in the end all three are guilty by remaining silent about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It would be helpful if you started your theory by telling us what time the intruder entered the house and how he got it. Then give us a step by step accounting of everything he did while he was in there. Be specific as possible.

My guess is that you can't and won't take me up on this. Your previous insinuations that this crime was perpetrated by someone playing a psychotic game of Clue is preposterous. There is absolutely no evidence to support it, as you conveniently omit any specific details and rely solely on your own imagination.

Sorry, but as far as theories go, yours is with little doubt the weakest I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may be the most interesting post ever.
You want a play by play of what the murderer did that day in the house?
You want his shirt size and underwear preference too?
The reason that IDI makes the most sense is because IDI does not assume evidence or make up things to bridge the gaps. We take the evidence for what it is and recognize the reality and facts.
The fact is there is DNA that is Not from a Ramsey on her in more than one place.
Fact is the Ramseys have all been cleared.
Fact is that no one who has any credibility in the Law enforcement community believes it was the Ramseys.

It just gets crazier and crazier.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is a difference between what may or may not be fact and what is or isn't known. I'll be the first person to admit that the
Ramsey's should not be charged due to lack of evidence, but I am smart enough to realize that what little evidence is there points squarely at the people in that house. I realize that the Ramsey's have been caught on numerous occasions lying through their teeth. I realize that any parent not willing to assist police in the murder of their child probably had something to do with it.

This case will never be settled in a court of law, but in the court of common sense this is an open and shut case, not to the extent that we could say which one of them did it, but in the end all three are guilty by remaining silent about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What evidence? What about the DNA? Where did that come from? Bangladesh???

 

[BOESP]

A Grand Jury, who heard from Lou Smit as well as other believers of an IDI, concluded there still was enough evidence to indict both Patsy and John Ramsey.

Two detectives and others involved in the investigation believed one or more family members were involved.

 

[BBB167893]

I’m still amazed, after all these years, by the number of people who put up their hands and say, I can’t think of a reason why an intruder would do this; must have been the Ramseys.
...

AK

Exact opposite for me.

 

[BBB167893]

Well duh.



The time between the head blow and strangulation was longer than that. Add in the practice note and real note, wipe down, re-dress, fake bindings, etc and you are well over that time. Try again.



Patsy's handwriting, Patsy's hair, Patsy's fibers..... Yeh, we're well aware of what was found.

And I'm aware that you've never said there wasn't a motive, but in all these years that you've been playing pretend detective you've never come up with one to fit your theory. In fact I've yet to see an actual theory from you either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Damn, you got there before me again!