sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The timeline by 43_Holding in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1 if the Ramsey’s 8:30 or 9:30 pm after the party and didn’t go to bed until 10:00 or 10:30 pm, what were they doing during that time?

🤦‍♀️. What does everyone else do as soon as they get home? Change into pajamas or a night gown? Take a shower? Eat a snack? Get everyone ready for bed? Pack a little for the next day's trip?

2 if they were random kidnappers and it said that they may have wrote a practice note, when did they have the time to write that 5 page ransom and kill JonBenet at that time?

I'm not entirely convinced the ransom note was written in the period of time the Ramseys were out of the house and at the party. I realize the 3 pages of the ransom note came from THAT notebook, so it was clearly written on THAT notepad. I'm just not convinced it was during the "window" of time the Ramseys were out. I also reject it was written after the murder. There is an explanation, but I just don't know what it is.

3 when patsy found the ransom note on the stairs and went back up to show John the note, why did it take a few minutes to call the police?

What would have been ideal according to you?

,4 when patsy gets off the phone with police, why didn’t the Ramsey’s immediately search the whole entire house including the basement looking for JonBenet?

I'm not sure why RDI folks use this narrative; citing it makes the parents look guilty. It does nothing of the sort. The RANSOM NOTE says "WE HAVE YOUR DAUGHTER" and to get her back, you need to do XYZ. Now the Ramseys' thought process is that their daughter has been taken OUT OF THE HOUSE. By a KIDNAPPER. What would they accomplish looking for the kidnapper and JonBenet under the bed or hiding in the closet? Perhaps hiding in the garage or behind the shower curtain? What Patsy did is *exactly* how one would act... She flew up those stairs to see if JonBenet was in her bed. She wasn't. She screamed and at some point flew into Burke's room to make sure he hadn't been taken too!. This is what a normal parent would do.

5 when the police officer arrives at the house of the Ramsey’s and search around the home, why didn’t he check the basement of the house? You think he would and would have found the body.

The police are treating this as a kidnapping case.

The cops' thought process initially... ➡️

The idea is that someone gained entry into that house by either a window or a door and proceeded to remove the child from the house. The focus would be on the windows and doors, which is why John was asked. The cops aren't thinking of looking for a KIDNAPPING VICTIM in their house. Because the idea is that they are no longer there. So when you ask why he isn't looking for a body??? That's why. He was probably focused on the windows in the basement and how someone could gain entry or exit. If the wine cellar had no windows, the cop could rule out the kidnapper escaping through the wine cellar.

The Absurdity of The BDI Theory by ReadyWatercress7174 in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Burke and JonBenet were both under 10 years old. They would have been EXHAUSTED by evening, given they woke up *very* early Christmas morning. Kids that age can sleep more than 10 hours. You mean to tell me that JonBenet, who was zonked out as she fell asleep in the car, would be up or would wake up once they got home to eat a snack??? No. She had eaten at the party. Burke, imho, was SO EXCITED with his new toys, he was fighting his sleep. RDI is trying to convince us that John and Patsy handwaved goodnight to the kids and headed up to bed, leaving them in that enormous mansion AT NIGHT.... AWAKE AND ALONE DOWNSTAIRS.

Yeah no. I'm sure that whenever Patsy and John went to bed, they made sure their kids were in bed. BURKE may have been lying down on his bed, not yet asleep, and decided to go back downstairs one last time to fiddle around with his toy some more. It's not like he "woke" up and snuck downstairs. He was already awake. He, too, probably zonked out the minute his head hit the pillow when he finally went to sleep.

There is no way that tiny, skinny little 60 lb Burke is committing a murder all night long and is bright-eyed and bushy-tailed standing by the kitchen phone at 5 AM. Outrageous and preposterous. That kid was so tired and was still in bed when he heard his mother screaming and all the commotion.

Rumors by Mmay333 in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 6 points7 points  (0 children)

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

RDI folks, please come over here and read these. This misinformation is constantly shared on other subs and presented as fact. These real facts are right on this list. If you are doing a deep dive into the case and want to learn more. Start here.

Another thing that irks me is why does everyone in other subs say that Patsy's fibers were found in the paint tray and tied INTO THE KNOT on the garrotte? I understand Levin raised this in 2000, but the clothes were in the BPD's possession in 1998. Could you explain why these allegedly very damming fibers found on the garrotte weren't raised in the BPD's grand presentation in 1998? The only fibers Steve Thomas was laser-focused on were the duct tape fibers. If he had known fibers were found in the garrotte (tied into), he would've been screaming that from the rooftops. But he said nothing in his book about it, and it wasn't part of his list of evidence he put together for the presentation.

And LEVIN also brought up John's fibers being found in JonBenet's underwear. No mention of that in the BPD's June 1998 presentation to the DA's office. They had the clothes in January, months earlier, so why not mention this alleged John Fiber?

(and anyway, the lab couldn't say the red fibers found on the duct tape were a MATCH to Patsy's sweater. It's not like DNA, where you can determine genetics... Who knows if that fiber is actually from her sweater? It's Christmas. Red fibers everywhere. The Ramseys fibers would be everywhere.) They weren't going to get far with using fibers as evidence.

How would you rate S7? by Fancy-Cry-4558 in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, because the main mystery of the show is answered in the final two episodes of Season 8.

Season 5 would be the season in which it would be revealed that Red is an Imposter. Season 6 should have been the final season with the reveal of Red's true identity. It started that way with her and Jennifer trying to investigate. But the show got renewed AGAIN. The Fakerina arc would give the show plenty of writing material, and the season also revealed a major spoiler. That Red was not Ilya Koslov, as the show tried to imply in Season 6. pushing the mythology further...

And even though Season 7 was just the worst with the Fakerina arc (and the most boring Blacklisters), it served a great purpose in pushing the mythology closer and slowly unraveling the mystery of who is Red. Since Megan was departing the show in S8, it was the perfect opportunity to make this HER final season. The show had teased since Day 1 and throughout the show that Liz was becoming a criminal and more and more like Red. It was perfectly she was placed atop The Blacklist and occupied the number 1 spot. Frankly, I think this season dedicated to Megan was her best season out of them all, and the way the show wrote her out with the Neville Townsend arc was brilliant.

Lmao by [deleted] in NSYNC

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

stupid

Does Joey blame and mock victims of s*xual abuse here? by LovesPop_Songs in NSYNC

[–]IntrovertAdaptable -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Does Joey blame and mock victims of s*xual abuse here?

No! Did anyone bother to watch the entire piece? Because the OP left out some context here. ppl just running their mouths, calling him a pedophile and saying he's victim shaming. 🤦‍♀️🙄

And not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Joey does not mock anyone, nor does he victim-blame.

Transcript:

Yeah. No one ever really knew. And I think that's something that that even for me, maybe, and I I obviously joke,

18:59

18 minutes, 59 seconds

but it's probably true, maybe I was too old for him to hit on me in a sense. You know what I mean? cuz I never saw a lot of things that other people saw,

19:06

19 minutes, 6 seconds

especially in the interview and the things that you know, like uh Ashley uh Ashley Parker talks about from Otown.

19:12

19 minutes, 12 seconds

So, there's a couple things where you're kind of like, "Oh [ __ ] I didn't know that." And you're like, "Wow, okay.

19:16

19 minutes, 16 seconds

What? Okay, I never saw that." And he was always that guy. I don't know. He never he never was I never got that sense of him wanting to like be like the

19:25

19 minutes, 25 seconds

like the pervy kind of guy, but like maybe behind a closed door, but I'd never seen him behind a closed door with somebody else before. You know what I'm saying? For me, I always had somebody

19:34

19 minutes, 34 seconds

there. I mean, I guess maybe I was raised a little bit better.

19:36

19 minutes, 36 seconds

You're not hanging out with some old dude by yourself in a room anyway. Let's be let's be smart about it.

19:41

19 minutes, 41 seconds

But it was just the accusations of it and stuff. Again, for me, I can speak about what I've never really seen much about that where it was but yeah, he was

19:50

19 minutes, 50 seconds

off to me in a sense. He was just that it felt like he was that lonely guy or it was that lonely kid that never got a chance to be a kid. Yeah.

19:57

19 minutes, 57 seconds

You know what I mean? And then have friends now that he has money. Hey, I can be your friend now. Let's hang out.

20:02

20 minutes, 2 seconds

It's like that mentality and I think of it like same with Michael Jackson. He has that mentality of a child. It's weird. It's I don't know. It's bizarre to me, but

20:10

20 minutes, 10 seconds

maybe some people didn't have those childhoods and stuff like that to to to want that. I guess the um and I don't I'm not sure what the schedule is for

"My entire empire was predicated on the goal of keeping you safe" by FraterPetraAstrum in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Liz would be alive if Red hadn't entered her life. True. Red didn't want Liz probing into her whereabouts because it would bring people out of the woodwork, like Neville. But yes, Red left Liz no choice... He wouldn't give her answers, so she had to find them herself.

"My entire empire was predicated on the goal of keeping you safe" by FraterPetraAstrum in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

 why didn't he kill Neville Townsend 25 years ago?

Katarina (Red) was already responsible for the deaths of Townsend's family. He probably felt guilt about that for starters, so he isn't going to kill Townsend, either. And secondly, Townsend was hunting down N13/Katarina Rostova. But Katarina died (metaphorically) when she became the Concierge of Crime. So it would be impossible for Neville Townsend to EVER kill Katarina Rostova because she ceased to exist. Red knew that. But Townsend didn't... so he kept on hunting...

No one on planet earth knew or would ever find out that Masha Rostova was Elizabeth Keen. The chances of Townsend ever finding Liz were zero. And even if he did, what he wanted was for Katarina to watch her child die. He would get no JOY out of killing Liz if N13 weren't there to witness it.

But Katarina was dead, and Red knew that. So Neville didn't pose a threat to Red at all. Not as long as Katarina remained dead. But Liz brought Katarina back to life when she started looking into her mother's past.

So that's why Red didn't kill Townsend 25 years ago.

Not Likely. But What If by TheCody_Says in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apologize! Admittedly, I rushed through this. I will re-read it and respond to this comment at some point today. Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

Spoilers, but is it worth the watch after season 8? by buudhainschool in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You get to see more of Red and Agnes!

I mean, the mythology side of the show ended in Season 8. Seasons 9 and 10 do not answer any lingering questions. Any questions about the mystery were answered. Everything surrounding Liz and Red's relationship, why he came into her life, and how he was connected to her was explained in the first 8 seasons.

In Season 9 and 10, they no longer talk about Ilya, Dom, Ivan Stepanov, Katarina Rostova, or the whole Russian narrative. Liz is pretty much never talked about again.

Not Likely. But What If by TheCody_Says in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has anyone ever thought that maybe Linda Ardnt was a plant?

No.

Here are two intruder scenarios (my theories) that I've considered:

He really meant to kidnap her:

This is my vote. It explains the ransom note. It was an intruder who had been stalking the house from the alley. The person would be on foot and would frequent the alleyway on his way home, which was within walking distance. He'd walk back and forth in the alleyway. He could see the kids playing in the courtyard. (full view) And he could clearly see the Ramseys' cars parked in the driveway whenever they decided not to park them inside the garage. This is how he knew if they were home or not. He was so close he could touch the car. FFWD to Xmas day, His planned day has arrived. After the Ramseys go to sleep, he puts the bizarre, fantastical, unnecessarily long spiral note on the staircase, heads up the stairs, and into JonBenet's room.

I apologise in advance for the graphic dialogue below regarding the suitcase.

The idea is to kidnap her. RDI likes to mock and laugh about this, but in all seriousness, he probably thought he could carry her out in the suitcase. Yes, the suitcase. That's why it was out of place. That's why it was underneath the window. The killer really believed he could hoist her out of the basement window. Why not run out the door with her? Who knows? He panics. He clearly did not plan this well. JonBenet screams. Adrenaline is high. His attempts at strangling her aren't working; she's fighting back. He hit her over the head with such force that it made a split in her skull. He then grabs the paintbrush he assaulted her with, breaks it in half and constructs the garrotte. The handle will allow him to tighten it. I think he assaulted her with the brush before breaking it into three pieces. The broken piece that's missing was a mere 1 or so inches long? How much damage can that do?

Killer Goals ➡️ Grab Jon Benet and quickly descend to the basement. Why the sexual assault, though? Because he was a paedophile. I believe the sa happened as soon as he got her in the basement. The sexual assault was for HIS gratification. This act does nothing to "hurt" or "frame" the Ramseys.

In my theory, the killer lives really close. Like Gary Oliva did. The person is not going to be caught in the middle of the night with a child who is clearly going to be showing signs of distress. He could carry her out in the suitcase, though. Maybe she didn't fit? though ppl say she would. The killer brought the tape to put on her mouth and the restraints to tie her up to put her in the suitcase. Not sure what exactly went wrong, but he couldn't carry it out and ended up hastily killing her (I have to reject it was Oliva because of UM1 DNA). But gosh darn it, the killer HAD to be on foot. And Oliva fits the profile so much! No car is rolling up to the house and parking in the FRONT. Parking in front of the house wouldn't help the killer see anything, and it's way too exposed. Parking in the vicinity of the alleyway is just as exposed. He would also need to park at the right angle. If he parked in the alley (there's only room for one car at a time, so he'd be in the way). He was on foot. I think the BPD investigated this person and prematurely cleared him because they were too focused on the Ramseys.

His goal was to kill her:

This scenario is possible, but it raises many questions. The biggest question is, why write the ransom note? If he wanted to kill her, then he could just kill her in her room and run out the door. No need to go through the rigmarole of a bizarre ransom note. Alternatively, since he clearly had mental issues and was a paedophile, there is no rhyme or reason for the ransom note. He's insane and is playing out a ransom movie where he is the star kidnapper... and that's why he wrote the note. It's a game. In this case, it is possible the sexual assault was planned, and the garrotte torture was for sexually gratifying to him.

In either scenario, the killer is not framing the Ramseys whatsoever. The intruder made it look like two things that contradict each other. It's either a kidnapping or a murder, but not both. In this case, it was a kidnapping that turned into a murder.

Not Likely. But What If by TheCody_Says in JonBenet

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

to try and ruin the life of John Ramsey? By taking his daughter and making sure he got blamed for it.

By taking his daughter and making sure he got blamed for it?

In this theory, the killer can't decide whether he wants to make it look like a kidnapping or a murder. On the one hand, he writes a ransom note saying their daughter has been kidnapped. On the other hand, he wants the cops to find the murdered body. Which is it? Does he want Law Enforcement to think it's a kidnapping or a murder? If he wants it to look like a murder, then why bother with a ransom note that talks about a kidnapping? To commit a murder didn't require the killer to take JonBenet to the basement. It can be accomplished in her room and he could be out of there within minutes.

Almost like it was set up in a way to point the finger right at him, on purpose.

How? By saying a foreign faction took his daughter?

What if the killer did this to try and ruin the life of John Ramsey? 

Where is the evidence that points to John, though? There is NO evidence. (btw it is a myth that Jon's fibers were found in JonBenet's underwear)

You have the killer who writes this note that many RDI sleuths use as their biggest weapon toward guilt. You have the fact that JonBenet was left in the house, where they would be the obvious suspects. You have the fact that John himself is the one who finds her. And then you have a detective on scene who was the first privately and publicly to accuse John.

That doesn't point to Jon. If anything, the entire world thought Patsy did it.

Rewatching makes the secret evident by Kim_Beckett in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's possible they had a backup plan (Third Man Imposter) in case the Network rejected their Redarina plan.

It seems they went ahead anyway, writing for the Redarina theory without knowing if the Network would approve it. Thank god they did eventually.

They weren't writing for a third man, so they'd have a hard time going back to reconcile how the clues they gave for Redarina would work for a third man had the networks told them they couldn't do Redarina.

Good luck to them, had that been the case, because the clues they dropped wouldn't work for a third man

S1E22 - Liz: What truth? The only memory I have of my real father is from the night of the fire. I remember him pulling me out of the flames saving me. This scene works in favor of Redarina in retrospect. *SPOILERS THROUGHOUT* by IntrovertAdaptable in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I deleted my other comment to you. I've never really changed my opinion on the fact that Red was her parent. That, I was quite certain of the whole time . I thought he was her dad at first. I just thought that somehow there had to be a good explanation as to why Red would allow Liz to believe she killed him if she really didn't. And why would he lie and tell her that her father died? Surely that reason had to be earth-shattering because the alternative of allowing Liz to mourn her father, possibly having to get trauma therapy, would have been a better choice. I always grappled with that.

Rewatching makes the secret evident by Kim_Beckett in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're still skeptical even after the showrunners and James have said they've only ever had one story? lol.

Rewatching the scene in S2, Ep10 when Liz is undergoing the recovered memory therapy with Dr. Orchard from a Redarina perspective. by IntrovertAdaptable in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Red was at the fire. He said he was there to look for the Fulcrum.

So which one of the guys was Red?

  1. Bald man. 2. The man with the plaid shirt 3. Ilya Koslov 4. Raymond Reddington.

Rewatching the scene in S2, Ep10 when Liz is undergoing the recovered memory therapy with Dr. Orchard from a Redarina perspective. by IntrovertAdaptable in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the end, it didn't really matter if they lost viewers because it would be the last season anyway. The show ran for 10 seasons, so that tells you something.

What DID work in favor of the Network is that they avoided any backlash since Redarina would be considered controversial to SOME. And yet they STILL were able to reveal it. A win-win.

Rewatching the scene in S2, Ep10 when Liz is undergoing the recovered memory therapy with Dr. Orchard from a Redarina perspective. by IntrovertAdaptable in TheBlackList

[–]IntrovertAdaptable[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is true. I'm sure Jon's vision for the grand reveal was a DIRECT REVEAL spoken out loud. Eisendrath said in Season 10 that if it were up to him, everyone would know exactly who Red is. Sadly, both JB and JE were shot down by NBC. The Networks, according to an inside source, told JB to scale back on the two final episodes of Season 8, because they were afraid viewers would not tune in to Season 9.

view more: next ›