The Case. It's Simple.

Well said, Trish! Advocating simplicity is not only accurate but, well, simple. And it goes back to a discussion Spade and I had more than a year ago about Occam's Razor, i.e., the KISS principle-Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Ramsey innocence has always been predicated upon a very convoluted form of Lou Smit's intruder theory that has been more than adequately debunked each step of the way.

As ST said, the Rs are "good for it" by some fashion and by some reason. Sorting through the "bys" is what gets us all bogged down. Thanks for bringing us all back to my hometown-reality!!

 

I like the kiss theory.

Child murdered in her home.

Innocent parents (ex. Van Dams, Walshs) co-operate immediately with police no matter how 'inconvient' or 'embarassing' is is to them. Finding the killer takes presidence over their FEELINGS.

Guilty parent---don't talk to the cops, lawyer up, hire your own team of investigators at once- not later down the road after giving LE their full cooperation, hire a PR person (to maintain your public rep) and for goodness sake's don't take a LE or FBI lie detector test, cause you can't possibly pass it.

 

Amen, Show ME! Yes, it is that simple! An accident that morphed into a murder by way of cover-up.

 

You know what always puzzled me was Lou Smit's saying things are usually what they seem to be (or words to that effect). And, yet, he contorted himself and the facts into a pretzel trying to change what seemed to be in this case. He contrived theories that were so convoluted from the facts, it was obvious he was trying to make the facts fit his theory.

The only intruder in that house that night was one who lived in the house and walked around on creepy crawly feet.

 

Absolutely right WY. That's why I call him deLOUsional. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He has lost all credibility in the LE community, because of the depths he has gone to defend the Ramsey's.

 

I was watching one of the talk shows yesterday afternoon (I think it was Oprah). There was a father on talking about the son he lost in the tsunami. I saw in this father everything I would expect to see from a parent who had lost his child - intense grief that choked him up to the point where he couldn't talk and breaking down in tears when it all got too much to talk about. This is the kind of grief I would know if something happened to one of my children. This is the kind of grief that brings you to your knees - something I didn't see with the Ramseys when they did their self-serving CNN appearance shortly after burying their daughter.

 

I would expect no less from a parent who had nothing to hide when their child is taken from them. The Ramsey's didn't act like that at all. They just wanted to "thank the public for their support." Yeah, and get the hell out of Dodge before they had to actually answer some tough questions from the police. ::shocked2

 

My personal feeling is that Lou Smith's religious faith has gotten in his way here. He saw the Ramsey's as having the same belief set as he does and that has colored the way things look to him. I don't think he sees any contortion or pretzel because his mindset is that parents don't murder their children, so what seems to be is not really what it is.

 

The case can be broken down to even simpler components.

JonBenet was killed by someone who had complete and utter control over the entirety of the crime scene, from the third floor to the basement. Remember that, and everything falls into place.

JonBenet's killer knew whether sound would carry up to the third or second floors at night when the house was otherwise quiet and there was no outside noise to distract a person's ears.

JonBenet's killer knew exactly where the items inside JonBenet's room could be found in the dark, and knew how to avoid them. JonBenet's killer did not accidentally and loudly bang into the wooden chest at the foot of her bed, even though it was right there in front of the door and the room was dark. JonBenet's killer did not accidentally and loudly bang into the dresser between the beds and knock over the bottle of lotion sitting very close to the dresser top's edge, or knock over any other items on the dresser.

JonBenet's killer knew exactly how to navigate the spiral staircase at night and in the most minimal of light so that it would not squeak loudly and so that the garland which was thick on the handrail would not accidentally brush up against either the killer's clothes or JonBenet herself and pull away from the rail.

JonBenet's killer knew how to carry a child through the kitchen in the dark without banging into the kitchen island counter that stuck out into the middle of the room, and did not bang into the chairs positioned at the end of the island, making them scrape loudly against the floor in the absolute silence of the night.



JonBenet's killer knew how to walk down the basement hallway leading to the area by the boiler, and yet did this while in the dark, holding a child, and more significant, without knocking over the golf clubs that were in the way, and without stepping so much as one inch onto the blue and yellow banner you can see sticking out onto the hallway floor.



And despite a scenario which pretends an intruder swung a bat inside a tiny basement, and strangled a child while she was on her belly outside the windowless room's door, JonBenet's killer still managed to avoid stepping on Patsy's paintings which were on the floor, or knocking over the ones which were leaning against the wall, just inches away.



It is these elements which are evidence to me of the lack of an intruder. Yes, intruders do kill people inside their homes. But when a child is killed by an intruder inside the child's own home, the distance covered by that intruder is very small. It does not cover thousands of square feet, and does not involve a great deal of furniture and other things getting in the way.

Again, remember. In order to kill successfully, a killer needs, above all else, control over the crime scene. John and/or Patsy had control over every aspect of this crime scene. An outside intruder had no control at all.

 

Agree totally.

 

Even if the house was totally empty (without any of the "impediments" that Why_Nut detailed), that house is a maze and an intruder would have had to do considerable study about how to negotiate it. Even during the day, an unfamiliar person would have a hard time finding his way from the point of entry, up to JB's room, carrying her down and finding the basement (much less the windowless room).
It would be completely amazing for an intruder to follow that path in complete darkness even alone. I can't imagine someone walking, carrying a child and not knocking over a bunch of the things in the path.

 

What ever happened to the Ramsey's own investigation?

For eight years, we've read ad nauseam the Ramseys' complaints that police focused their investigation only on them; the police lacked the experience needed and that the investigation was botched.

What ever happened to the Ramsey's own investigation?

John Ramsey told Larry King: "We’ve had investigators, seasoned investigators collectively with over 500 hundred homicides under their belt who have been working on this case, day in and day out." (Statement from the transcript from Larry King Live, aired May 31, 2000, as posted on http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm)

For eight years, John and Patsy's private investigators have looked for JonBenet's killer outside the Ramsey household with no results. Could it be as simple as they should have investigated inside the Ramsey household.

 

They are working for the prosecution's side now. Steadily ripping away all reasonable doubt by investigating all UnReasonable scenerio's so that when only the Ramseys can not be cleared of committing this crime - the door will be wide open to slam shut.

RR

:bowdown: Why-Nut!

 

Thank you RiverRat. I was unaware that the Ramsey investigators were working with the LE now. :blush: Perhaps there is still a chance this case will be resolved.

 

Technically

Via Lou Smit, Team Ramsey is camped out in the Ditrict Attorney's office. Keenan should be ashamed to cash her paycheck much less ask for a raise.

RR

 

Wonder what they are using for money. I read there were no funds allocated to investigating the JBR case this year.

 

Why_Nut, you ROCK!

Absolute control of a crime scene is THE underlying issue to any crime. Most kids who are legitimately kidnapped are snatched in places other than their own homes at night with the rest of the family sleeping nearby. They're taken from schools, shopping areas, etc. where there are crowds to ensure obscurity and indetection.

There is only one way a stranger could have committed this crime. With careful, risky interior inspection of that home, its contents, the family's comings/goings patterns, where all items needed to construct the crime and its scene were kept, what the family's financial position was, all consistent with a real "foreign faction" kidnap and ransom.

However, NONE of DeLOUsional's intruder theories have ever included any kind of this premeditation and surveillance necessary to pull off such an audacious, hours long crime. Instead, regardless of his perp-du-jour, he's presented it as random, spontaneous and in total opposition to the RN which he claims is legit.

And what premeditated kidnap/ransom plot would not conduct careful planning and scoping out of its intended targets? Then show up without any supplies and hand write a 3 page ransom note that is the most egregious display of opportunity for detection and arrest ever seen in American LE history?

Any other scenario or theory of this crime besides an "inside job" as John Ramsey was the first to tag it is a blatant defiance of reason, logic or just plain mental health.