Take the IDI & RDI consistancy challenge !

IDI consistancy challenge

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant.

For example, If you think a stun gun was used, then you have to say at what point in the crime it was used. If it was used by a kidnapper and he stunned JB in her bed, why then did he end up in the basement with her? How would going down the basement be part of a genuine kidnapping plan? How would use of a stun gun be consistant with a kidnapping gone bad? What could go bad carrying a stunned 6 year old down one flight of stairs and out a first floor door? If you think the stun gun was used in the basement, why ? How did the perp get JB down the basement w/o the stun gun, and why did he subsequently need to use it?

If your theory is that it started as a burglary, and morphed into a kidnapping plot, but then the would be kidnapper lost his nerve, - a perfectly reasonable theory, imo - then you still have to explain the vaginal injuries. You can explain them any way you like, but you canÕt ignore it. You have to explain why the perp took her in the basement and made fresh injuries to her vagina.

If you think, as Lou Smit apparently does, that it was the work of a paedophile, you have to explain why heÕd leave a fake ransom note.

If you think the ransom amount of 118K points to the Rs, and therefore the Rs wouldnÕt use that amount because they are intelligent people, then you have to attribute similar intelligence to the intruder. YouÕd have to explain why an Access Graphics employee, or the housekeeper, would point to themselves using the 118K figure.

I donÕt want to go through every element of the case showing examples - I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of IDI. It is my opinion that none of you IDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

P.S.

You don't have to supply a motive. It may not be possilbe to know the motive. But, if you do include a motive in your theory, -revenge for example- then you have to explain why a revenge killer would do x,y, and z.

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
IDI consistancy challenge

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant.

For example, If you think a stun gun was used, then you have to say at what point in the crime it was used. If it was used by a kidnapper and he stunned JB in her bed, why then did he end up in the basement with her? How would going down the basement be part of a genuine kidnapping plan? How would use of a stun gun be consistant with a kidnapping gone bad? What could go bad carrying a stunned 6 year old down one flight of stairs and out a first floor door? If you think the stun gun was used in the basement, why ? How did the perp get JB down the basement w/o the stun gun, and why did he subsequently need to use it?

If your theory is that it started as a burglary, and morphed into a kidnapping plot, but then the would be kidnapper lost his nerve, - a perfectly reasonable theory, imo - then you still have to explain the vaginal injuries. You can explain them any way you like, but you canÕt ignore it. You have to explain why the perp took her in the basement and made fresh injuries to her vagina.

If you think, as Lou Smit apparently does, that it was the work of a paedophile, you have to explain why heÕd leave a fake ransom note.

If you think the ransom amount of 118K points to the Rs, and therefore the Rs wouldnÕt use that amount because they are intelligent people, then you have to attribute similar intelligence to the intruder. YouÕd have to explain why an Access Graphics employee, or the housekeeper, would point to themselves using the 118K figure.

I donÕt want to go through every element of the case showing examples - I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of IDI. It is my opinion that none of you IDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant with RDI.


I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of RDI. It is my opinion that none of you RDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by breezy1234


Write a theory of the case, which includes all of the known elements, and accounts for them in a way that is consistant with RDI.


I just want you to offer a consistant rational theory of RDI. It is my opinion that none of you RDIs can do it, because any attempt at consistancy will cause an extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

docg has already done this. It's IDI's turn.

[Athena]

OK -- I'll be the first to go -- this is just an outline for now -- working on it.

I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house recently.

Premeditated

Tore pages out of her notepad and took a marker.

Brought the note with him; duct tape, cord and flashlight

Had a key to the house

Went directly to JBRs room.

Removed her from the room – possibly covering her mouth taking the white blanket covering her and possibly the Barbie nightgown had been wrapped in the blanket (static cling)

Took her down into the basement

Stun gunned her to temporarily immobilize her for 10-15 minutes

On the way in notices the paint tool kit and goes back to it and removes one of the brushes and breaks it.

Makes the garrotte and proceeds to bind JBR

JBR starts to come out of immobilization while she is being strangled; struggles and attempts to remove the cord from her neck. He tightens the cord making her lose her breath. He does not finish binding her wrists.

Tries to put her in the suitcase and she doesn’t fit (fibers found on her from the blanket in the suitcase).

The intruder gets angry and violently smashes her in the head with a flashlight and then digitally manipulates her private parts and finishes strangling her and pulls up her long johns and covers her torso with the blanket.

He runs back upstairs to leave the note, flashlight and escapes through the window or the butler door leading from the basement.

Originally posted by Athena
OK -- I'll be the first to go -- this is just an outline for now -- working on it.

I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house recently.

Premeditated

Tore pages out of her notepad and took a marker.

Brought the note with him; duct tape, cord and flashlight

Had a key to the house

Went directly to JBRs room.

Removed her from the room – possibly covering her mouth taking the white blanket covering her and possibly the Barbie nightgown had been wrapped in the blanket (static cling)

Took her down into the basement

Stun gunned her to temporarily immobilize her for 10-15 minutes

On the way in notices the paint tool kit and goes back to it and removes one of the brushes and breaks it.

Makes the garrotte and proceeds to bind JBR

JBR starts to come out of immobilization while she is being strangled; struggles and attempts to remove the cord from her neck. He tightens the cord making her lose her breath. He does not finish binding her wrists.

Tries to put her in the suitcase and she doesn’t fit (fibers found on her from the blanket in the suitcase).

The intruder gets angry and violently smashes her in the head with a flashlight and then digitally manipulates her private parts and finishes strangling her and pulls up her long johns and covers her torso with the blanket.

He runs back upstairs to leave the note, flashlight and escapes through the window or the butler door leading from the basement.

That's a good start. One question would be - If it wasn't a kidnapping, why would an intruder leave a RN? What elements of the RN - if any- do you think are consistant with the type of killing you've described?

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Athena
OK -- I'll be the first to go -- this is just an outline for now -- working on it.

I believe it was someone who knew the Ramseys and had been in the house recently.

Premeditated

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

[Ames]

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

That's a good question mimi. Wonder if the IDI folks have an answer to that one?

Mimi, didn't John say that he saw a car or van parked in the street near his home, either the 25th or 26th? I thought that I read that somewhere...please correct me if I am wrong. IF he did...then why didn't he turn on his house alarm? IMO

[Ames]

"Unknown vehicles: An unknown party parked in a blue van across the street from the Ramsey residence Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar was seen in the area during a Christmas party at a friend's home Dec. 25. "


Above is a direct quote from the Rocky Mountain News.
John Ramsey, knew about the parked blue van on the 24th. Why didn't he turn on his alarm system, at least for a couple of months? If he saw a suspicious van parked across his street on the 24th, his alarm system should have been ON. IMO

Originally posted by Ames
"Unknown vehicles: An unknown party parked in a blue van across the street from the Ramsey residence Dec. 24. An unknown Jaguar was seen in the area during a Christmas party at a friend's home Dec. 25. "


Above is a direct quote from the Rocky Mountain News.
John Ramsey, knew about the parked blue van on the 24th. Why didn't he turn on his alarm system, at least for a couple of months? If he saw a suspicious van parked across his street on the 24th, his alarm system should have been ON. IMO

It was Christmas time, alot of people came from other places visiting or staying at their relatives or friends. I have seen alot of unknown cars parking on my street during Thanksgiving or Christmas. JR implied the blue van as suspicious in his part of staging, so he was lying because if there was a blue van, it would have already been noticed by others. Strange if both Ramseys were the only ones who noticed that van that night if it already left before the BPD arrived. JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by harz


It was Christmas time, alot of people came from other places visiting or staying at their relatives or friends. I have seen alot of unknown cars parking on my street during Thanksgiving or Christmas. JR implied the blue van as suspicious in his part of staging, so he was lying because if there was a blue van, it would have already been noticed by others. Strange if both Ramseys were the only ones who noticed that van that night if it already left before the BPD arrived. JMO

Oh for sure...I know that he was lying about it. Notice that the quote from the Rocky Mountain News...said that an "UNKNOWN PARTY WAS PARKED....." to me, that sounds like there were people inside of it. Thats why I said, IF it was there, IF people were inside, and IF it was suspicious, WHY didn't he turn on his burglar alarm? Because, IMO..there was NO blue van. You are right...I don't remember reading where anyone else, besides the Ramsey's saw it. Maybe it was a "special" van, and it was only visible to the Ramsey's.....or not...maybe it was never there at all. IMO

Originally posted by Ames


Oh for sure...I know that he was lying about it. Notice that the quote from the Rocky Mountain News...said that an "UNKNOWN PARTY WAS PARKED....." to me, that sounds like there were people inside of it. Thats why I said, IF it was there, IF people were inside, and IF it was suspicious, WHY didn't he turn on his burglar alarm? Because, IMO..there was NO blue van. You are right...I don't remember reading where anyone else, besides the Ramsey's saw it. Maybe it was a "special" van, and it was only visible to the Ramsey's.....or not...maybe it was never there at all. IMO

Let's be as fair as possible here. Harz is correct that there would be a lot of friends and relatives dropping by for the holidays. It's possible there was a blue van, but no one thought itsusicious - including the Rs, until after the murder. That's why no one remembers it.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

Athena: According to your theory, the intruder tried to stuff JB into the suitcase, saw he couldn't do it and then angrily smashed in the head of an already dead (or almost dead) child.
He then digitally penetrated JB. So you think a kidnapper running out of time would suddenly transform into a pedophile? This doesn't make sense imo.
- And what about the pineapple (see Mimi's post)? It has to be fit in too. The Ramseys said JB was asleep when they got home and they put her straight to bed.
But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.

- Another crucial element: how did fibers from Patsy's jacket end up in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape? How do you build this into your theory?

[LadyFisher]

Wally, I think there will be elements to this case that will never be explained, just as there has been in many other profile murders...whether the perp is ever apprehended or not..................I do believe a stun gun was used....I would like to know how the RDI tie that to the Ramseys, they were JB's parents...there was no need for one of them to use a stun gun.....I know that many will say...well, it wasn't a stun gun...but until you folks can give us a reasonable explanation, other than a snap, etc....I will believe it was a stun gun....experts have looked at the marks in the pics and have stated that it's very possible a stun gun was used......................Wally, you just can't hide behind Doc's theory, we want to hear all the RDIs theories, come on, don't be shy!

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rashomon


Athena: According to your theory, the intruder tried to stuff JB into the suitcase, saw he couldn't do it and then angrily smashed in the head of an already dead (or almost dead) child.
He then digitally penetrated JB. So you think a kidnapper running out of time would suddenly transform into a pedophile? This doesn't make sense imo.
- And what about the pineapple (see Mimi's post)? It has to be fit in too. The Ramseys said JB was asleep when they got home and they put her straight to bed.
But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.

- Another crucial element: how did fibers from Patsy's jacket end up in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape? How do you build this into your theory?

Nothing has blown the Ramseys timeline.....they have consistently stated they do not have a clue how pineapple (if that's really what it was) was found in JB's body.....imho if they were guilty, they would have offered some innocent excuse why it was there, they didn't...they didn't know then and still don't know! Maybe the true killer does, but the Ramseys do not! imho

[rashomon]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Nothing has blown the Ramseys timeline.....they have consistently stated they do not have a clue how pineapple (if that's really what it was) was found in JB's body.....imho if they were guilty, they would have offered some innocent excuse why it was there, they didn't...they didn't know then and still don't know! Maybe the true killer does, but the Ramseys do not! imho

John Ramsey himself said to Lou Smit (who asked him when JB had eaten pineapple): "I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep."

So how did the pineapple get into JB's stomach? That's what this thread asks IDIs to explain (among many other things).

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rashomon

John Ramsey himself said to Lou Smit (who asked him when JB had eaten pineapple): "I will guarantee you it was not after she came home. She was sound asleep."

So how did the pineapple get into JB's stomach? That's what this thread asks IDIs to explain (among many other things).

What I was saying is....we don't know! The Ramseys don't know either....how can you explain something you don't know........there is still speculation whether it was really pineapple or if Ardnt suggested it to the ME during the autopsy....nobody knows, Rash!

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Let's be as fair as possible here. Harz is correct that there would be a lot of friends and relatives dropping by for the holidays. It's possible there was a blue van, but no one thought itsusicious - including the Rs, until after the murder. That's why no one remembers it.

Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Wally, I think there will be elements to this case that will never be explained, just as there has been in many other profile murders...whether the perp is ever apprehended or not..................I do believe a stun gun was used....I would like to know how the RDI tie that to the Ramseys, they were JB's parents...there was no need for one of them to use a stun gun.....I know that many will say...well, it wasn't a stun gun...but until you folks can give us a reasonable explanation, other than a snap, etc....I will believe it was a stun gun....experts have looked at the marks in the pics and have stated that it's very possible a stun gun was used......................Wally, you just can't hide behind Doc's theory, we want to hear all the RDIs theories, come on, don't be shy!

I'm working on my theory. Should have it done in a couple weeks.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How/when/where did she eat the pineapple?

I am not convinced that JBR ate that pineapple upon arriving home. John Myers never came up with time of death. I've seen several posts where it says pineapple takes 2-3 hours to digest but if that's so positive -- why didn't Myers attempt to arrive at a time?

I've also seen other expert opinions that says JBR could have eaten a fruit or vegetable as early as 4:30 pm before they left the Whites. The Whites also have never said they did not serve pineapple but just did not recall. How does anyone know if that bowl of pineapple was not taken out that morning when people were there? I'm also not convinced that it was definitely pineapple found in her stomach. John Myers would have been told that pineapple was found in the house and made a logical guess as he does not say it was definitely pineapple - he says fruit or vegetable that MAY be fragments of pineapple.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

Easy to say in hindsight. Many people do not use their alarms for whatever reason and I am certainly one of them. Usually I go into a "spurt" of time after finding out a neighbor has been robbed and then get lax about it again. John had explained that alarm had not been used not just recently but for months because the kids would trip it and it was loud. I don't turn mine on for the same reason because the kids not only forget the code to turn it off but then also forget the "password" when the police call. If you don't know the password and a car is dispatched -- I pay a $100.00 fine the first three times and after that it is even more - I've paid $600 in a couple of months which is why I stopped using it.

[Athena]

PS: If my theory HAS to include the pineapple then I would have to say that JBR was awoken by someone she knew; she trusted --and walked downstairs on her own where she had the pineapple before being taken down to the basement in a guise that the intruder told her he had a surprise for her down there.

I'm also reading more of these interviews and noticed that the housekeeper's daughter was tested for DNA some two years later. I'm now wondering if that DNA that was isolated and found in her underwear was possibly from a female???

Again -- I'm still working on putting this into a "story" but that was the initial outline and it will take time. I've been extremely busy this weekend which is why I haven't posted much and actually am going to bed shortly.

Another thought I had about the red fibers being found in the paint supplies -- red is an extremely popular color during the Christmas holiday. The housekeeper, her husband, her daughter and son-in-law all carried that stuff downstairs. Wonder if any of them had on red. Patsy even said she was down there prior to Christmas day to wrap presents. It is also possible that red materials were used to wrap gifts.

I just find it highly unusual that Patsy's jacket was red, black and gray - but only red fibers were found and stated "consistent with" not identical.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Athena


I am not convinced that JBR ate that pineapple upon arriving home. John Myers never came up with time of death. I've seen several posts where it says pineapple takes 2-3 hours to digest but if that's so positive -- why didn't Myers attempt to arrive at a time?

I've also seen other expert opinions that says JBR could have eaten a fruit or vegetable as early as 4:30 pm before they left the Whites. The Whites also have never said they did not serve pineapple but just did not recall. How does anyone know if that bowl of pineapple was not taken out that morning when people were there? I'm also not convinced that it was definitely pineapple found in her stomach. John Myers would have been told that pineapple was found in the house and made a logical guess as he does not say it was definitely pineapple - he says fruit or vegetable that MAY be fragments of pineapple.

It doesn't really go with the RDI Steve Thomas theory, either. If JonBenet wet the bed and Patsy got mad and threw her across the room, then JonBenet had to have gone to bed. And been there for at least two hours, having eaten pineapple first. Why would the Ramseys lie about her falling asleep in the car and being carried up? The eating of pineapple and the death still are not related. JonBenet is in bed for two hours in between the two events.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


It doesn't really go with the RDI Steve Thomas theory, either. If JonBenet wet the bed and Patsy got mad and threw her across the room, then JonBenet had to have gone to have been in bed for at least two hours at that point, having eaten pineapple before going to bed. Why would they lie about her falling asleep in the car and being carried up? The eating of pineapple and the death still are not related. JonBenet is in bed for two hours in between.

Exactly! and if JBR was hit in the head first over an alleged bedwetting incident and everything else allegedly was to cover up an accident; she would have been unconscious according to Thomas' theory. I personally think too much has been made of this pineapple but I posted above if HAD to include it I could explain that as well.

[Athena]

I'd also like to see an RDI theory other than docg's since docg believed it was all John.

What about the ones who think it was Patsy? Even an outline for now much like I did.

For other IDIs -- please feel free to expand/modify the outline I wrote. Especially interested in what you think.

Originally posted by Ames


Yes, but why would an "unknown party" meaning a person, or person's...be just sitting there in their van or car? I would expect to see an EMPTY car or van, being Christmas and all, with relatives coming over for visits. But, the Rocky Mountain News, said and "UNKNOWN PARTY"....not and "unknown car, or van". Party, means that there were unknown people inside of the vehicle. People just sitting in a car/van across the street from my house, would make me activate my alarm system...but, thats just me. IMO

Ohh, there was an unknown party inside that van? Could means thefts or robbers who usually break into houses stealing while nobody were home during the holidays. But who else saw that van or unknown party beside the Ramseys? What about Burke? I am not going to buy John's story after reading and listening to his "crying wolf". Even if there were robbers or an unknown party already inside the van, why wait until Ramseys got home if Ramseys noticed them after the party? IMO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
What I was saying is....we don't know! The Ramseys don't know either....how can you explain something you don't know........there is still speculation whether it was really pineapple or if Ardnt suggested it to the ME during the autopsy....nobody knows, Rash!

It was pineapple. There is no doubt about it:

JohnRamsey to Lou Smit: "Are you sure it was pineapple?"
Lou Smit: "No question. No question. So that's always been the big bugaboo."

All we have is the Ramseys' words that they don't know how it got into JB's stomach. But since the contents of the stomach are a crucial element in determining the time of death, the pineapple has to be explained in any IDI theory. Of course we as posters don't 'know' how it got there, but this is about offering a theory about what could have occurred.

Athena: you tried to explain that an intruder fed JB pineapple. But then the intruder would have had to stay with JB for over an hour after she ate it, before abducting her (since your initial scenario was a kidnapping). I can't imagine an intruder staying in the house full of people without the slightest fear of being detected.
And what is more: kidnappers are usually in and out of the house in seconds - they grab their victim and are gone.
Now which kidnapper would set himself up for detection by sitting down with the victim in the kitchen?

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon


<snip>

But she did eat pineapple after she got home. There is no forensic doubt about that. Even Lou Smit had to admit it. Which is why that pineapple gave Smit a lot to chew on: "The pineaple is inside her, so we have to figure out how that pineapple got there", he told John Ramsey.

That pineapple blew the Ramseys' time line apart.
<snip>

I have never read that the forensic evidence proved she ate the pineapple after she got home. Maybe the pineapple was in the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites. As in Pineapple/Crab dip? JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Pineappless Abandoned Kidnapping Theory:

1. Perp reads article in Daily Camera on Dec. 21st. He is aware of the Ramseys. Knows where they live. Has either direct or indirect link. Decides to burglarize their house. He has burglarized homes in the past.

2. Goes to the house. Finds broken window entry. Enters and goes through their things. While going through John's desk, finds bank book for retirement account in third drawer on right in desk. Sees deposit of $118K. Has idea to kidnap John's daughter, rather than burglarize house. Christmas night will be a good time. Everyone will be tired and their defenses will be down. It is Christmas. John can get the $118K quickly. By Friday.

3. Watches house. Sees family leave on Dec. 25th with gifts in car. Enters again by broken window. Knows it is not on alarm, because has left it open a crack to test. Has flashlight, cord, duct tape, and stun gun in backpack. Plans to remove JonBenet by this same window.

4. Writes ransom note, using Ramsey pad and pen so as not to leave links to self. Knows to do this from cop shows on TV. Has basic outline in head. Enjoys writing note. He is a real kidnapper now. He is somebody. Better than people like John Ramsey. They fear him. He is in control of them. Does walk through rehearsal.

5. After Ramseys home and to bed, he goes up to JonBenet's room. Stuns her in bed, while she sleeps. Puts duct tape over mouth. Ties her hands together, so that her arms do not flop around during trip to basement in dark and something get knocked over. Fibers consistent with those in cord will later be found in bed. Wraps her in blanket found on other bed, which has been taken from dryer to make room for next load and thrown onto other bed. Barbie nightgown is attached (static electricity).

6. Carries her to basement. Lays her on floor in storage room, near window he plans to take her through. Stuns her again for good measure, because will be leaving her alone, while upstairs. Tears ransom note and early drafts from pad. Early drafts go in backpack. In dark leaves "Mr. and Mrs." page on pad. Goes upstairs. Returns pad and pen. Leaves ransom note on stairs to JonBenet's room.

7. Returns to basement, intending to leave now with JonBenet. To horror finds is unable to take her through window. Because of the way it is constructed off of ledge, he cannot get out until he has gotten JonBenet all the way out, yet he cannot get her all the way out until he has gotten himself out. He is concerned about removing her by any other exit, as this window is the only thing he knows is not on the alarm. He tries various ways. Suitcase, etc. At some point a scuff mark from his boot is left on the wall. In addition to this rather basic problem, JonBenet is waking up again and is not going to be happy, when she does. She is moaning now.

8. He hits her with flashlight to make sure she doesn't wake up and abandons kidnapping plan. Takes her to wine cellar. Makes and uses garrotte. Sexually abuses her. Turns off light in wine cellar and closes door behind himself. Exits house through window and goes home.

9. In the end, he got nothing, and a child is dead. The ransom note he was so proud of becomes the laughing stock of the entire country.

[MissOtisRegrets]

edit to above post:

I believe "Pineappless" should be "Pineappleless". It sounds like a city the way I wrote it.

Apologies,



MissO

[lucky13]

Way to go Wally!! Thank you for starting a thread that I've many times considered starting myself.

Athena, You say that JB was struggling & attempted to remove the cord from her neck?? Why aren't there scratches on her neck where she was trying to get that cord off then?
-Unless the Ramseys NEVER read the newspaper & NEVER watched their local news....they would know that there had been a LOT of local robberies recently. Why take a chance, at Christmas time, when you have Cmas presents, other valuables, & 2 small children to protect? Plus, he admits to breaking the basement window previously- leaving a free entry for a robber. Was he really that stupid or naive? I doubt it, he was running a billion dollar business.
-The pineapple...whether it was pineapple or some other fruit( it was pineapple!! c'mon) it was still there, alone, away from the cracked crab, etc. that she had eaten earlier. If it was all eaten at the same time, it would all be digested at the same time. (right?) - IMO, it was just a slip-up by the Ramseys- forgetting to remove it before the investigation started. "I don't know, I can't remember"- famous words of guilty persons.....

[lucky13]

MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I have never read that the forensic evidence proved she ate the pineapple after she got home. Maybe the pineapple was in the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites. As in Pineapple/Crab dip? JMO

If that had been the case, the coroner would have noted & notated MORE than he did. He specifically identified what was in the upper portion of her intestine as belonging to the fruit/vegetable family.

I hope you realize that CRAB does not belong in the fruit/veggie category.

Bottom line - any IDI theory MUST answer the question of how she ate something in the fruit/veggie family - whether you want to claim it is pineapple or anything else - when it was not ingested at the party held at the White's home. We know she ate cracked crab & shrimp there. We also know the cracked crab & shrimp was eaten long enough before she died that it was no longer present in her stomach or the upper portion of her small intestine (where the pineapple was found).

And as soon as you can answer when she ate it - you will recognize that the story her parents claimed - how she fell asleep in the vehicle & was carried to bed still asleep - is not plausible. She DID EAT something that was not served at the Christmas party.

You can't conveniently ignore the facts when they don't support the theory. No matter how enamored you may personally be of the parents.

MOO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

a. Yes. He's a practiced prowler/burglar and not wearing mohair.

b. The opportunity presented itself. If she had been successfully removed from the house, she would have been molested and killed. Or the reverse. But that isn't what drove the crime.

c. I think the "pinepple" was eaten completely independently of the crime. And probably earlier than thought. Lucky13, I lost my dog last summer due to cancer of the pancreas. He died on a Monday. When he passed, a rabbit he had caught and eaten the previous Tuesday remained undigested in his stomach. His digestion had stopped, when his pancreas began to shut down. We know that JonBenet did not die quickly. Her system shut down gradually. Maybe she stopped digesting before she actually died. If she grabbed something (like celery used for dip) from a plate just as they were leaving the Whites, it would have been digested independently of and after the other food she had eaten there. I don't think it had anything to do with the crime, but if you want, I can have my kidnapper give her something, even pineapple, while she is still conscious, in an attempt to make friends.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

Thank you. Truer words, never spoken. The number & the variety of motivations, actions & travels which would had to present in any intruder for this crime defies belief.

A kidnapper who is not a kidnapper. A pedophile who, with a completely helpless (& probably close to lifeless) target behaves with extremely low impact. A Will-O-The-Wisp burglar who was so ethereal he just materialized into the house & then out again without so much as a fingerprint.

A murderer so full of premeditation he brings his own rope - but who is also so bungling he must use items in the house. So meticulous he leaves with the rest of the rope, cleans & wipes down the flashlight down to the batteries - but can't figure out how to get the body out of the house. No...wait....that's the kidnapper part.

And somewhere in all of this, an awake child has eaten pineapple, despite the fact that the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Yeah. Right.

Nowhere else in the annals of crime have so many competing actions & oppositional motivations appeared in one crime scene by at INTRUDER breaking into a house with the residents present. The whole thing screams of a resident in the house doing anything & everything in a state described as "blood simple". Desperate to cover up. Frantic to make the final crime scene look as if an intruder broke in. Overdone so that every sort of other crime, from kidnapping to sexual assault was thrown in afterwards.

MOO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by lucky13
MissO, you are saying that not only was this intruder lucky enough to have found an already broken window, but he also went in & out of it several times without leaving any fiber evidence??? Really?? You believe that? okay.
And this 'burglar'/kidnapper all of a sudden turns into a child molestor? Really?
And he hits her with the flashlight, but instead of taking it with him, he goes back upstairs & wipes it(&the batteries) down, & places it on the kitchen counter. Why?
She ate SOMETHING after she got home(IMO, pineapple). It was there in her, you can't just leave that out.
Too many holes in this theory IMO. At least you all tried though. Re read the IDI theories( all TWO of them) & see if it REALLY makes any sense.....

uh, NO!
MOO

We don't know whose flashlight that was upstairs. It might have been left by the police. It was the kind they carry. It might have belonged to the Ramseys (who had no idea what they did/did not own).

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Mimi428


Thank you. Truer words, never spoken. The number & the variety of motivations, actions & travels which would had to present in any intruder for this crime defies belief.

A kidnapper who is not a kidnapper. A pedophile who, with a completely helpless (& probably close to lifeless) target behaves with extremely low impact. A Will-O-The-Wisp burglar who was so ethereal he just materialized into the house & then out again without so much as a fingerprint.

A murderer so full of premeditation he brings his own rope - but who is also so bungling he must use items in the house. So meticulous he leaves with the rest of the rope, cleans & wipes down the flashlight down to the batteries - but can't figure out how to get the body out of the house. No...wait....that's the kidnapper part.

And somewhere in all of this, an awake child has eaten pineapple, despite the fact that the parents claim she was sound asleep.

Yeah. Right.

Nowhere else in the annals of crime have so many competing actions & oppositional motivations appeared in one crime scene by at INTRUDER breaking into a house with the residents present. The whole thing screams of a resident in the house doing anything & everything in a state described as "blood simple". Desperate to cover up. Frantic to make the final crime scene look as if an intruder broke in. Overdone so that every sort of other crime, from kidnapping to sexual assault was thrown in afterwards.

MOO

Why on earth would the Ramseys lie about giving their daughter a snack several hours before she died? Why would they lie about carrying her in from the car asleep? How did they co-opt Burke into that lie? And what are the chances of BOTH parents suddenly becoming murdering sociopaths and child molesters, as well as raving idiots, on the same night?

MOO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snip>

I hope you realize that CRAB does not belong in the fruit/veggie category.


<snip>

Gee, Mimi. I didn't know that. Are you telling me those aren't CRAB plants growing in my garden? How disappointing.........

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


We don't know whose flashlight that was upstairs. It might have been left by the police. It was the kind they carry. It might have belonged to the Ramseys (who had no idea what they did/did not own).

And that isn't kind of suspicious? Not only did they not know what they did or did not own, they also didn't know which light switches turned what on in JB's bedroom...including if the fan had a light kit on it or not. But yet, they are so sure of other facts that support their innocence. They know what they wore to the Whites party, what JB wore there and to bed two nights in a row but nobody knows what Burke wore at any time.
It sure is amazing how they only remember what it is important for them to remember in order for their story to work.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


And what are the chances of BOTH parents suddenly becoming murdering sociopaths and child molesters, as well as raving idiots, on the same night?

MOO

If you want to believe the killer was a sociopath, so be it. But you can't claim that the killer HAD to be a sociopath. We have prisons full of people who behaved in violent & irrational ways when they committed murder. But they were not & are not sociopaths. Some may be but too many others are NOT.

Not sure why y'all want an intruder to be a sociopath in the first place, for if that were the case, it makes it all the more strange that this person somehow, magically, lost all sociopathic tendencies & never struck again.

MOO