The reasons I am RDI.

Hi folks,
The reason why I am an RDI, are because of the circumstances, and the evidence available.

The circumstances would be the location, and the time of the year of the crime. The location was Boulder Colorado, in a wealthy area, while the homicide rate in Boulder in that decade was less than one per year. The time was around Christmas, and it is unlikely that anyone would willfully kill a child during the holiday season.

The evidence and lack of evidence also convinces me that the killing was “in house” by someone living in that house. First of all, there were no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home. That was an observation made by the first police who arrived at the scene. There is no evidence of a forced entry to the home, and for some intruder to commit the crime, he would have to be in that house for a few hours, while there is no evidence that supports such a stay. All in all, there is no credible evidence of any intruder.

The handles of garrote which was around JB’s neck when her body was discovered was made from Patsy’s paint kit, a brush handle.

The three page ransom note, which in my opinion, had to be written AFTER JB expired.

The ransom note was obviously a phony, there was no call, and the body was left in the house in the basement.

The pineapple in the small intestines found during the autopsy, indicates that JB ate pineapple about an hour before she expired.

The actions taken by John and Patsy, in calling the police (understood), but also her friends, Fleet White, John Fernie, and the pastor, asking them to come over, while the RN clearly stated that if they did that, JB would be killed.

The behavior of the Ramsey parents after the body was discovered. John wanting to leave Boulder, when his daughter lay dead on the floor, then refusing single interviews with the police, offering to take a polygraph test regarding the crime, then reneging when taken up on it.

The DNA evidence? While it is claimed that they got a profile from the DNA found on JB’s undergarments they haven’t released any official DNA test reports. All claims about any DNA evidence are speculations until the official reports are made public.. IF the alleged DNA proves an intruder, it would clear the Ramsey family completely even without a match, IF all of the claims we hear are true, such as the Touch DNA found, matching the DNA found in the blood spots and under JB’s fingernails. IF the DNA clears the Ramsey family, I see absolutely no reason for not releasing the official test results like the official autopsy report. If the official DNA test reports does not clear the Ramsey family of the crime at all, I can see the reason the official reports are being withheld.

As I see it, most of the IDI people, for some reason, are allowing themselves to be fooled by the million dollar smokescreen put up by the Ramsey Family and their attorneys.

All comments are welcome.

JMHO
CC

No one cares what you think as you do not know any of the facts or evidence regarding this case. Your "theory" is based on false assumptions, and you do not even try to find out the facts.

Charlie Chan wrote:

Hi folks,
The reason why I am an RDI, are because of the circumstances, and the evidence available.
The circumstances would be the location, and the time of the year of the crime. The location was Boulder Colorado, in a wealthy area, while the homicide rate in Boulder in that decade was less than one per year. The time was around Christmas, and it is unlikely that anyone would willfully kill a child during the holiday season.
The evidence and lack of evidence also convinces me that the killing was “in house” by someone living in that house. First of all, there were no footprints in the snow leading to, or exiting the home. That was an observation made by the first police who arrived at the scene. There is no evidence of a forced entry to the home, and for some intruder to commit the crime, he would have to be in that house for a few hours, while there is no evidence that supports such a stay. All in all, there is no credible evidence of any intruder.
The handles of garrote which was around JB’s neck when her body was discovered was made from Patsy’s paint kit, a brush handle.
The three page ransom note, which in my opinion, had to be written AFTER JB expired.
The ransom note was obviously a phony, there was no call, and the body was left in the house in the basement.
The pineapple in the small intestines found during the autopsy, indicates that JB ate pineapple about an hour before she expired.
JMHO
CC

That's a lack of subtlety, and typically American if you don't mind me saying so.

There was no snow on the walkways. There were signs of forced entry in the basement window. If the murderer had a key there would be no signs of forced entry anyway.

To say that it's unlikely that anybody would murder at Christmas is a ludicrous statement. That's like saying nobody but the parents would kidnap Madeleine McCann.

To murder at Christmas would be a wise move by the murderer as the police, and probably the FBI, would not have plenty of staff involved in preventing crimes at that time.

Using the Ramsey paint brush and note pad proves nothing. It could easily have been borrowed or stolen, prior to the murder.

My own view is that it's most unlikely that any murderer would want to hang about in the Ramsey house for long writing some complicated ransom note after the murder. He was probably s****** himself with nerves at the time, and anxious to become a fleeing criminal as soon as possible. The hoax ransom note would call off the dogs, which happened.

The pineapple is a controversial matter with no real proof to back it up. The Ramseys were genuinely mystified by the so-called pineapple.

It's possible that the murderer deliberately planted false DNA at the murder scene in order to mislead the police, in the same way he attempted to mislead Dr. Wecht about prior sex abuse. That would be an insurance policy for him to make sure he is never convicted, and to keep the pressure on the innocent Ramseys.

deb wrote:

No one cares what you think as you do not know any of the facts or evidence regarding this case. Your "theory" is based on false assumptions, and you do not even try to find out the facts.

Oh! Being a Loyal fan of mine, I KNOW your care!
But that is OK, you may act all you wish. But you need to practice a little more with your acting!

Your IDOL,
The Handsome Uncle CC

Henri> There was no snow on the walkways. There were signs of forced entry in the basement window. If the murderer had a key there would be no signs of forced entry anyway.

CC> Ya know Henri? If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle! I would agree with you, that IF an intruder, he would have had to have the keys to the house. Still, even taking away the "break in", there is still no evidence of any intruder.

Henri> To say that it's unlikely that anybody would murder at Christmas is a ludicrous statement. That's like saying nobody but the parents would kidnap Madeleine McCann.

CC> Henri, there ARE murders committed during Christmas, but MOST are because there is a lot of alcohol drinking during that season. The JB case, is the murder of a child, in a very low crime area. I have lived in a low crime area for more than 50 years,(BUT a higher crime rate than Boulder) and I have NEVER read about a murder of a child during the days of Christmas here.

H> To murder at Christmas would be a wise move by the murderer as the police, and probably the FBI, would not have plenty of staff involved in preventing crimes at that time.

C> That is true, if you have no family or friends to be with. If you do, you will have to explain the reason for your absence.

H> Using the Ramsey paint brush and note pad proves nothing. It could easily have been borrowed or stolen, prior to the murder.

C> Now THAT is ludicrous! The garrote was without a doubt, constructed IN the house at the time of the crime. That is a PROVEN fact! The time that the RN was written, had to be on the day of the crime at least, IF an intruder. The wording in the RN shows to me, that it was written AFTER JB expired.

H> My own view is that it's most unlikely that any murderer would want to hang about in the Ramsey house for long writing some complicated ransom note after the murder. He was probably s****** himself with nerves at the time, and anxious to become a fleeing criminal as soon as possible. The hoax ransom note would call off the dogs, which happened.

C> Do you actually believe that? Almost immediately after Patsy allegedly "found" the RN and showed it to John, they called 911 and asked for the POLICE! They then called their friends and the pastor and asked them to come over even when the RN said JB would be murdered if they did.

H> The pineapple is a controversial matter with no real proof to back it up. The Ramseys were genuinely mystified by the so-called pineapple.

C> The pineapple evidence is in the official autopsy reports. I would say that is proof enough.

H> It's possible that the murderer deliberately planted false DNA at the murder scene in order to mislead the police, in the same way he attempted to mislead Dr. Wecht about prior sex abuse. That would be an insurance policy for him to make sure he is never convicted, and to keep the pressure on the innocent Ramseys.

C> Henry, not enough was known about DNA for someone to dream about planting any in a couple of blood spots. Also, NO ONE in 1996, knew about Touch DNA.

deb wrote:

No one cares what you think as you do not know any of the facts or evidence regarding this case. Your "theory" is based on false assumptions, and you do not even try to find out the facts.

WOW that was rude. IDIs always complain that RDIs don't explain 'why' they think the way they do, and your response is probably why!

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW that was rude. IDIs always complain that RDIs don't explain 'why' they think the way they do, and your response is probably why!

Of course it is!
She is so consumed by my intelligence, that she misses the contents of my posts. But that is an Uncle CC Fan for you!
CC

I completely agree with your reasons for being a RAMSEY DID IT (RDI). As 15 years come up, the IDI's are nervous, because they ALL cried "Wolf" too many damn times, and NONE of their fake perps is the REAL perp, and they don't have any suspects anyone in the mainstream media will pay one second of attention to anymore.

Nervous?

The Ramseys got away with it.

There's no chance in hell this will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

candy wrote:

I completely agree with your reasons for being a RAMSEY DID IT (RDI). As 15 years come up, the IDI's are nervous, because they ALL cried "Wolf" too many damn times, and NONE of their fake perps is the REAL perp, and they don't have any suspects anyone in the mainstream media will pay one second of attention to anymore.

You are correct. The JMK fiasco proves it. They made an arrest in the Far East without even researching the suspect. It was a terrible waste of time and money by the orders of Mary Lacy, and it shows their ineptness.CC

Yes Charlie. Lacy was willing to run at break neck speed to Thailand BEFORE REALLY LOOKING INTO KARR, to hurry up and arrest SOMEONE WHOSE LAST NAME WASN'T RAMSEY.

NO SUPRISE, that DNA hasn't matched ANYONE since it was first sourced 15 years ago.

I don't agree Pinker. As the Rolling Stones said TIME IS ON OUR SIDE (not theirs). There is NO statute of limitations on murder and NO END to the people interested in JUSTICE in this case, that will keep pushing.

candy wrote:

Yes Charlie. Lacy was willing to run at break neck speed to Thailand BEFORE REALLY LOOKING INTO KARR, to hurry up and arrest SOMEONE WHOSE LAST NAME WASN'T RAMSEY.
NO SUPRISE, that DNA hasn't matched ANYONE since it was first sourced 15 years ago.
I don't agree Pinker. As the Rolling Stones said TIME IS ON OUR SIDE (not theirs). There is NO statute of limitations on murder and NO END to the people interested in JUSTICE in this case, that will keep pushing.

Loon!

tootlems wrote:

<quoted text>
Loon!

GAR!

candy wrote:

Yes Charlie. Lacy was willing to run at break neck speed to Thailand BEFORE REALLY LOOKING INTO KARR, to hurry up and arrest SOMEONE WHOSE LAST NAME WASN'T RAMSEY.
NO SUPRISE, that DNA hasn't matched ANYONE since it was first sourced 15 years ago.
I don't agree Pinker. As the Rolling Stones said TIME IS ON OUR SIDE (not theirs). There is NO statute of limitations on murder and NO END to the people interested in JUSTICE in this case, that will keep pushing.

Hi Candy,
The Ramsey family got away with it, but at a price. John no longer has the wealth he once had, which was his price for freedom. Patsy lost her life, and eventhough they killed JB, they lost their daughter.

Justice? Everyone has to meet their maker someday.
CC

Agreed completely. Most posters here think that since this case went to a grand jury that something or other was said to prevent this case from going to trial and that probably wasn't the case. Attorneys ask "Yes or no", leading questions to witnesses in a grand jury and that's pretty much it. Nothing is really explored and in this case the jury felt there wasn't enough to prosecute. That is not saying there was no evidence at all, just not enough of it in their eyes. I think the only way the truth would ever come out is for John to pass away and Burke to be in a situation where his livelyhood was in jeopardy. Maybe a situation where money meant more to him than his families reputation, especially if her death was accidental.

pinker wrote:

Nervous?
The Ramseys got away with it.
There's no chance in hell this will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

I believe there was not enough to prosecute because they could not tie the actions to a person. Not knowing which person did what is what made this case unprosecutable. They would have had one shot at getting it right and then double jeopardy would have applied. They were correct in not attempting to prosecute until they were 100% certain who did what.

JimmyWells wrote:

Agreed completely. Most posters here think that since this case went to a grand jury that something or other was said to prevent this case from going to trial and that probably wasn't the case. Attorneys ask "Yes or no", leading questions to witnesses in a grand jury and that's pretty much it. Nothing is really explored and in this case the jury felt there wasn't enough to prosecute. That is not saying there was no evidence at all, just not enough of it in their eyes. I think the only way the truth would ever come out is for John to pass away and Burke to be in a situation where his livelyhood was in jeopardy. Maybe a situation where money meant more to him than his families reputation, especially if her death was accidental. <quoted text>

In just about any other circumstance the prints on the bowl and the fibers intertwined in the garrotte as well as the fibers in the paint tray would have been enough to indict. The DA's office did not go forward because they knew they would have been in over their head against superior defense attorneys. Wasting millions of dollars as well as being embarrassed on the worlds biggest stage might have been enough to convince them not to indict. If the Ramsey's were tried and found not guilty then a civil suit against the BPD as well as the DA's office would have been huge and too big a loss for Boulder to incur. Counties are self-insured which means all damages would be paid for by the taxpayers. It would have been a huge gamble to prosecute. I think the DA's office held back in the grand jury to undermine themselves into avoiding having to prosecute. It was kind of a clever way to "Pass the buck" to the jury all while wiping their own hands clean.

DrSeussMd wrote:

I believe there was not enough to prosecute because they could not tie the actions to a person. Not knowing which person did what is what made this case unprosecutable. They would have had one shot at getting it right and then double jeopardy would have applied. They were correct in not attempting to prosecute until they were 100% certain who did what. <quoted text>

Question....during a police interview did patsy ramsey tell them that jon benet went to bed with a red turtleneck sweater on? i know i read that somewhere. i also read...not exactly sure where i read it...that police found a red garment soaking in a laundry tub outside of jon benet's bedroom. can someone corroborate that with me? If these two things are true then i have to ask...would an intruder take the red turtleneck off of jon benet and put a white one on her and soak the red one in a laundry tub? answer please????

detjlo wrote:

Question....during a police interview did patsy ramsey tell them that jon benet went to bed with a red turtleneck sweater on? i know i read that somewhere. i also read...not exactly sure where i read it...that police found a red garment soaking in a laundry tub outside of jon benet's bedroom. can someone corroborate that with me? If these two things are true then i have to ask...would an intruder take the red turtleneck off of jon benet and put a white one on her and soak the red one in a laundry tub? answer please????

This red turtleneck business is a confusing business because Steve Thomas was apt to jump to conclusions about it and he made up his ludicrous hypothetical scenario and guess about it.

What seems to have happened is that the Boulder cops made a police report after asking Patsy questions at the time of the murder in which they got the wrong end of the stick about the red turtleneck. That police report seems to have said that Patsy said JonBenet was wearing the turtleneck to bed that night. It was the same with the police report which falsely said John Ramsey read to JonBenet that evening.

Margoo had an interesting opinion about the matter. Margoo says that she has seen photos of the Whites' Christmas party which I have never seen. Those Whites' photos are not on the internet now:

"The stunning opinion that the endearing child was probably first choked with the turtleneck sweater she wore to bed was provided by renowned forensic expert Dr. Werner Spitz."

"Odd that he would presume she wore the turtleneck to bed when the same shirt she was wearing when found on the 26th was the one she wore to the Whites (confirmed through photos from the Whites) and the one both parents say she was wearing when she went to bed. So, HOW does ANYONE think it is reasonable that she changed to a turtleneck and then changed back to the white/star shirt? This sounds very much - AGAIN - like Spitz is commenting on this case on the basis of myths and rumors, not case facts."

The red turtleneck is mentioned on the Miss Marple website:

"Laundry Area

Red Turtleneck. Patsy had wanted JBR to wear a red turtleneck to the White's party on December 25, but JBR wanted to wear something else (June 1998 interview excerpt posted by Internet poster Margoo).

Turtleneck Was Not Wet. In her April, 1997 police interviews Patsy described what she did on the morning of December 26: "I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area" (quote and source provided by Internet poster Margoo).

Thomas Theory. In Steve Thomas's theory outlined in his book, JBR wore the red turtleneck home from the White's and it became urine-stained when JBR wet the bed, causing Patsy's explosive rage culminating in JBR's death. Yet according to Internet poster Margoo, Thomas later acknowledged he neither knew the turtleneck was wet or urine-stained."