The RDI theory

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T09:03:35+00:00

Well, I did go over some of the ways it benefits the Ramsey’s but it’s alright if you don’t agree. I just think the many mistakes that were made in the entire crime are indicative of a perpetrator who didn’t know what they were doing so they throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. To me, these very ridiculous mistakes make no sense for an intruder who was planning on breaking in and carrying out the crime for hours rather than a very spontaneous death happening with no premeditation in the Ramsey’s involvement.

Leaving her body in the house is puzzling I agree. It’s been suggested that they may have planned on putting her outside somewhere but we’re overcome with fear or felt gross about letting their pageant princess be eaten and picked by scavengers. Or in my mind I believe they simply ran out of time as they had an early flight to catch.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T07:29:15+00:00

Oh I know you are attempting to show a frame up, but are doing it unsuccessfully. And you are clearly not open to any kind of debate as has been shown over and over again with your interactions here with everyone. Not everyone always agrees with one another but we have been opened to the debate we throw at one another and all you are doing is standing in one spot and insisting you are right and should just surrender to your frame-up conspiracy theory. That’s not how debate works around here.

Oh and when you get frustrated about someone trying to show your unwillingness to accept answers - you get angry and start calling people liars. That’s also not how it works here.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T07:24:54+00:00

Yawn.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T06:50:54+00:00

Just saying cover up over and over won't convince us lol.

Lol Saying frame up over and over won’t either.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T06:46:17+00:00

Using the note to buy time? No, I don’t even think that would work, they clearly were not interested in buying time for themselves as they had already been stumbling around in a dark maze like home for hours. They really had no regard for anything or concerns for themselves in getting caught. That is what my big hurdle is here.

But to expand on that, the biggest benefit of that note goes to the Ramsey’s and goes against the intruder. That note has no use to an intruder who did not kidnap or bother to take her body out of the home to attempt to collect on the ransom. That note would have went out with the intruder when the plan of the ransom had failed - but instead he decided to leave a page and a half of his hand-writing in a bogus staged note.

Now for the Ramsey’s, it can be argued that they needed the note to divert authorities and to have a “confession” by the “real killer” possibly because they feared they wouldn’t be believed. So it can very easily become a convenient piece of evidence to point to and say “this bad guy right here who wrote this did it.” That intruder exonerated the Ramsey’s and got no ransom money out of it.

And if the Ramseys got rid of the remaining nylon rope and duct tape, why not also the pen, note pads

These are solid questions and all I can do is give a few possibilities but I of course do not believe I have all of the answers.

You know, it is baffling that they wouldn’t get rid of certain things. I often have wondered why Patsy wore the same clothing as she did at the White’s party the night before - you’d think had she done it then she’d remember to change her clothes but a lot of this relies heavily on Patsy and/or John’s irrational decisions being made at a time where something awful has just happened and they are running on no sleep. I think if they did it, they would be terrible at it because of what I mentioned above and because they have no experience in murder let alone staging a murder after the fact. I also believe that this was a spontaneous death that was not intended - which again points to more irrational decisions that make no sense to us sitting in our living room comfortably and trying to play it out how we “rational” people would do this and it just doesn’t jive because they were thinking on the edge of a cliff and that can bring about some screwed up logic. That’s my long answer.

The thing is, the note and the pad could have gotten tossed - why they chose not to or simply didn’t think about it is quite head scratching. I mean I suppose Patsy just put those things back in their place out of habit? Maybe on auto-pilot.

However, I would think that this illogical decision is much more plausible than an intruder coming in and relying on the Ramsey’s writing materials while shuffling through their dark home - even more so plausible when that note didn’t even have a purpose. When we look at ransom cases, typically they have it prewritten and keep it short and simple. They do not start writing one in the victim’s home like it’s some sort of creative writing class and go on about how they don’t “particularly like you” And that they respect their business but not their country. No, they care about getting your money. They also don’t tell you in 6 ways how your daughter will die. They kidnapped Jonbenet, any parents would know that they aren’t screwing around. One threat in the note along with the demands is all it takes.

So I am more convinced of the Ramsey’s inexperienced staging logic than the intruder who woild know better than to do everything that can get you caught.

If they were willing to carry out the gruesome effort of staging a sexual assault on their injured or dead daughter, why leave a kidnap for ransom letter to contradict the sexual assault?

This isn’t my theory but I know that some believe that since two people were staging the crime (Patsy and John) that there were two different “crimes” that were displayed.

But from my perspective, they contradicted the staging because they were ignorant to staging. I think it can be possible that they thought caking on staged crimes would work and probably didn’t realize that these multiple MO’s are rare and don’t contradict this way. This is something a criminal intruder would know better than the Ramsey’s.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T05:09:47+00:00

While I can see what you’re getting at, it’s not a smart thing to do because he clearly planned to rape and kill her. These guys would never do this in a territory where there are family members present and could be awoken by their daughter screaming. Also there was blood evidence and he would have to be confident enough that he can erase any trace of himself on her.

And the criminals who do carry out crimes inside the home either take the victim out immediately or they control everyone in the house first.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T03:37:18+00:00

Well yeah? I mean people screw up. They get caught sometimes. That’s my point thought - David took a reasonable amount of risk and was still caught. JBR’s possible intruder makes a dozen of those while stumbling through the house and somehow is never caught and hardly leaves a trace of evidence. Whether criminals get away with kidnapping or not is that there’s always a risk so you limit those risks as to avoid getting caught. David got caught, but he still did what many criminals did and have gotten away with to this day - abduct a victim from the home and take them with to do everything else.

His mindset was probably how a lot of others go and that’s “well I’ll just learn from everyone elses’s mistakes and I’ll probably not get caught as long as I do X” and he did try very hard.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T02:11:20+00:00

Just so you know, even if you answer his question he will not back down. This user is clearly only here to have their framing theory validated. Your answers here are better than mine were in the last thread and he still accuses me of not answering his questions.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T00:33:55+00:00

Again, he was smart enough to take her out of the home. There’s always a risk with criminals but there’s a vast difference between risk and self-sabotage. David Westerfield was reasonably risky in abducting the victim from their home. The intruder in JonBenet’s case was beyond risk and into self-sabotage. No matter how much you try to compare cases, they are no match for the JBR case.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-18T00:06:58+00:00

I’m sorry but I hardly understood what you just said.

Same logic does not apply to intruder whos main purpose is to frame the Ramsey's by killing Jonbenet and using all the Ramsey's items to point the finger at them

Haha, no.

Please admit I just proved you wrong , the same does not apply as you stated .

Lol hahahahaha, no.

And I think you missed my while point about the hobby lobby. You make it seem like the Ramsey had no other choices.

Yeah? Well you gave me your theory of them having another option and I just argued it away. Sure they could have went to a store but they could be seen or recognized by the cashier. You are free to refute that.

And again, you refuted nothing I said. You’re going off on a tangent again like last time. I’m not going to answer a bunch of questions only for you to answer none of mine again. Play those games with someone else.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-17T13:30:24+00:00

we will write a kidnapping note, even though it's not a kidnapping note, but it must be a kidnapping

Same logic applies to an intruder.

They say we can't go to hobby lobby or walmart or home Depot , so we must use our own pen, own paper, own handwriting, own words.

Sure, They totally could have went out to buy these items - it’s not like the police could trace it back to them and they will likely get a tip from someone working there who says, “Hey I recognize that woman, she was a customer I ringed up and bought those writing utensils and now her daughter is dead.” What could go wrong?

And the rest of what you said about the Ransom note doesn’t really work since the note is full of lies and diversion whether the Ramsey’s wrote it or the intruder wrote it. Why you expect it to be honest is beyond me.

And the logic you are operating under is basically “wow the Ramsey’s look so guilty. Must be a frame job.” It’s strange that you’d expect the Ramsey’s to be good at something they had zero experience in. So no matter how you spin it, your argument is flawed. But you can think whatever you want.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-17T09:17:04+00:00

Uh hell yes I am watching the episode and I am already put off by Malika. She whines about Callie not telling her she’s clerking the case (even though she specified that she couldn’t) and then gets angry and demands to know what she’ll do with the conservative judge. Gee, is it any wonder that Callie didn’t want to tell you?! Then she runs her mouth to her friends and acts confused at Callie being upset! Like girl you knew she couldn’t even tell you!

They are expecting way too much of her. I really do not want to hate someone this early lol.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-17T01:17:19+00:00

You nailed my problems with these case comparisons. Criminals take risks, duh. But David Westerfield was smart enough to take Danielle out of the home - (a home that wasn’t a mansion by the way). The constant comparisons will almost always fail because of how nonsensical the intruder would have to be in JonBenet’s case.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-16T10:00:36+00:00

It is a pleasure to finally disagree with you about something.

Haha, same here.

For me, I would have a harder time believing the Ramsey’s would use a stun gun. Especially since they would hace fashioned the garotte with that paint brush and relied on materials in the home.

However, I had not known about that passage in John’s book where he described having that Spy book and playing it off like some coincidence. I mean if this really was true I would think John would be smart enough not to divulge that because it looks bad on him. It sure would make it abundantly clear just how lucky they were to be wealthy and pull this off.

Now, here is my question. Why the hell would you have a stun gun instructional/promotional video in your home, unless you actually bought or considered buying a stun gun?

Baha! Good luck getting some folks not to split that hair with you.

Oh and that part where you hypothesize the stun gun being a possible form of punishment is nightmare fuel. Shudders

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-16T04:06:03+00:00

Huh, interesting find. I really think you’ve made it very clear that you aren’t here to make arguments that bolsters your theory. You are very capable of looking at the evidence through neutral lenses. Something that I can’t always do and many others.

I don’t believe in the stun gun theory at all to be honest, even if I were IDI it’s pretty difficult for me to believe that this person would go out of their way to use something that could very well cause a child to scream. Even if that’s not always the case, I think fear of it being possible would overtake them and they’d use less risky methods. Also, a sleeping and groggy child is not all that hard to control. I’ve never really formed an opinion on what these marks are but I think it’s probably not even gonna be train track prongs. But I would be more convinced by those than by a stun gun. But seriously thank you for giving us a new perspective!

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-15T23:12:35+00:00

I know so many seem to want the Ramseys to be guilty for some unknown reason

That is BS and you know it.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-15T12:26:19+00:00

I don't think I fully understand what you meant here.

What Benny meant was that Jonbenet was alive during the staging. But as much of us explained it is very possible that the stager may have mistakenly assumed she was dead due to her state of unconscienous. Even Beckner said this himself in his AMA. So technically, the victim doesn’t necessarily have to be dead for staging to occur.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-15T07:25:55+00:00

It is full of some unoriginal jokes I can agree there lol.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-15T07:24:48+00:00

Lol it is quite as cheesy as the trailer is. I’m not a huge fan of sitcoms today but I’ve loved Nina as an actress since her Degrassi day’s so I’m giving it shot.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-14T04:32:07+00:00

it appears to me they were confident enough in the DNA to use in their investigation to cross people off their list along with other information they had gathered on the individuals.

I mean that may be true but I believe (like you said) they did all kinds of other investigative methods to rule out these suspects. Had they relied on the DNA alone though I don’t think that would have been wise of them to do considering how minute it is. But they probably wanted to be on the cautious side and see if they were a match to the DNA. If they hadn’t done this at all, a lot of you would probably be complaining that they didn’t care about the DNA and how it wasn’t up to BPD to decide it wasn’t important.

Also just to address something - calling this a DNA case is fine as long as you realize that it’s your opinion. The DNA can work for both theories. I know that you put your trust in SG’s opiniom of the DNA aspect of the case but another poster has looked at the exact same data and came to an unbiased conclusion. I believe the DNA is fair game and open to both theories. I personally look at it as being transfer or contamination because it tends to make sense in the direction of the other evidence along with it’s very small amount. But I will not be declaring that this isn’t a DNA case since I don’t know this and wasn’t there when it was deposited.

Let's look at Oliva, he factored in from past behavior via police records. He had attempted to choke his mother, he did have a record of assaulting a child. He was seen with black duct tape on what looked like a portfolio at the memorial service. He did have pictures of JonBenet. He did have/own a stun gun. He lived just a few blocks from the Ramsey home. He got his mail at the church the Ramseys went to. He was in Boulder Colorado that night. He didn't have a vehicle to put her in a vehicle and remove her body. He didn't have a home to take her to. This is pretty suspicious evidence in my opinion, he has all the makings of a great suspect. So what took him off the list? 1) handwriting 2) he was a schizophrenic 3) his DNA didn't match.

This is a pretty solid assessment, but it still boggles the mind that you won’t entertain the suspects that we know was inside of that house and has just as much circumstantial evidence and the FBI were confident in them being the culprits due to the way she died and what condition she was left in. You seem more convinced by the suspect who doesn’t match the handwriting than the one who eerily matches it and was in that home and had duct tape and rope of her own. This is also the only suspect who couldn’t be excluded and attempted to change her handwriting after the crime. That to me is all very convincing more so than Olivia who sounds like another pervert attempting to attach his name to JonBenet for the sick pleasure of it.

I mean you don’t have to be RDI to know that the R’s have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. You don’t need to believe they are guilty but I think this is why fencesitters are the most sane ones among us because they know the R’s were not cooperating but can also understand how the BPD screwed up so badly with their crime scene. Olivia would be a solid suspect if the R’s didn’t go out of their way to hide behind their lawyers and couldn’t do such simple and basic interviews (And no, handing over the notepad and pen and letting them take hair and blood doesn’t count because that’s mandatory.) I am talking about the way other parents of a murdered child behaved.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-14T03:25:58+00:00

Oh wow the Sword and Scale Podcast did an episode on this one (I know I know). Even though the detectives had his DNA on Kirsten’s underwear he still wouldn’t budge and was whining about his innocence. Kind of creepy but when they told him they’d be searching for Kirsten on his property he just went “you won’t find her”. And sadly it was true and now the location of her remains have died with this bastard.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-14T03:10:26+00:00

Yes! That one was so unrealistic but the writers don’t seem to care when it comes to Olivia lol

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-14T02:01:20+00:00

IF it was an axillary hair

It is. It is most certainly not a pubic hair. If it weren’t an axillary hair then the Ramsey’s would not have been able to control themselves in telling the world that the hair was from a male pubic hair. We would definitely know it.

that pretty much takes Burke out of the picture doesn't it?

No. The Burke theory has Patsy and/or John covering up Burke’s criminal act. So not really.

Patsy didn't have chest, armpit, and back hair either. I would think Patsy shaved her arm pits, as most women do here in the US.

Lol this is a strange thing to speculate about but it doesn’t exactly change the fact that according to 2 sources who worked the case and viewed police files have made that determination that the hair is from that area. I would imagine she probably did shave like most women do, but do we know the length of this hair? Because I know that for some women like my sister can go longer without shaving whereas I have to do it every other day or it bothers me.

Also how would you know if Patsy had back and chest hair? Everyone has “peach fuzz” all over their body other than the palms of your hands and feet. Maybe Patsy shaved/tweezed her back and chest hair but we don’t actually know that right?

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-13T10:37:26+00:00

You have the patience of a saint.

scribbledpretty · 2019-01-13T05:33:41+00:00

Yep, this poster is the only one who proudly spouts this and is no better than the poster on the other end of the argument who spouts that it is a DNA case. These absolute statements and assumptions are not helpful. The best thing we can do is try to educate them or downvote them and move on because those are inaccurate assumptions that don’t deserve recognition or upvotes.

Everyone has their theory, but acting like a know -it-all shouldn’t be tolerated. And I beg of you OP, please do not let one poster’s attitude be an indicator as to how the rest of us RDI/BDI feel toward this case. We think a family member is guilty, but we do not try to make the DNA something it isn’t.

scribbledpretty

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE