Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#1 Dec 16, 2013
I was just wondering, why we still have IDIs even after the news of the Ramsey indictment. What is it? Just about everything in Lou Smit's "Theory" has been proven not to hold any water, the official DNA reports was never released, there was no evidence of entry, exit, or stay by any intruder in the Ramsey home. so, What is it?

Common sense should prevail here. The ransom note had to be written by SOMEONE, it had no folds or creases, and it was a phony, written with items in the house.

So, is there any evidence of an intruder?
CC

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#2 Dec 16, 2013
The reason there are and always will be IDI's is that some people don't want to believe a family could do this to one of their own, don't want to believe people can be so evil. If anything as bizarre and dysfunctional as this could happen to the Ramseys it could happen to any family.

Yes, a 9 year old brother can mortally hit an innocent little sister on the head. Yes, siblings do sexually abuse siblings. Yes, parents cover for their kid's wrongdoings and naughtiness.

Yes, people get away with murder all the time.
real Topaz

AOL

#3 Dec 16, 2013
moonjack wrote:
The reason there are and always will be IDI's is that some people don't want to believe a family could do this to one of their own, don't want to believe people can be so evil. If anything as bizarre and dysfunctional as this could happen to the Ramseys it could happen to any family.
Yes, a 9 year old brother can mortally hit an innocent little sister on the head. Yes, siblings do sexually abuse siblings. Yes, parents cover for their kid's wrongdoings and naughtiness.
Yes, people get away with murder all the time.
no offense MJ, but the IDI's have proven to be fairly evil themselves, so it's unlikely they don't want to believe that of others. They've called RDI every name in the book and accused us of vile acts, anyone BUT the Ramseys. I don't believe a single one of them really believes their spiel, they're here on a mission for JR. If you recall, the FIRST thing JR said would be his "mission in life" was "to change the way people get their news", NOT "I'm going to find the person that did this". Well, he succeeded with this merry band of misinformers and faux IDIs.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Dec 16, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
I was just wondering, why we still have IDIs even after the news of the Ramsey indictment. What is it? Just about everything in Lou Smit's "Theory" has been proven not to hold any water, the official DNA reports was never released, there was no evidence of entry, exit, or stay by any intruder in the Ramsey home. so, What is it?
Common sense should prevail here. The ransom note had to be written by SOMEONE, it had no folds or creases, and it was a phony, written with items in the house.
So, is there any evidence of an intruder?
CC
The Press has ignored the actual facts of the investigation. They are still reporting that the Ramseys were exonerated by DNA.

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#7 Dec 17, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
The Press has ignored the actual facts of the investigation. They are still reporting that the Ramseys were exonerated by DNA.
While some will believe that, the DNA in the JBR case does not eliminate anyone as a suspect, not is it enough to convict a person by itself. In the JMK fiasco, without his false confession, they had NOTHING to go on, and they hoped that his DNA would match the microscopic samples they had. This is even while his "confession" didn't hold up in many areas.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#8 Dec 18, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
While some will believe that, the DNA in the JBR case does not eliminate anyone as a suspect, not is it enough to convict a person by itself. In the JMK fiasco, without his false confession, they had NOTHING to go on, and they hoped that his DNA would match the microscopic samples they had. This is even while his "confession" didn't hold up in many areas.
CC
The DNA has shown itself to be a red herring but even with that said, had JMK not had the DNA to "free" him (at least from this crime), he might just have been in prison for this crime that he didn't commit.

As much as he wouldn't be missed in society, there is no greater injustice than imprisoning the wrong person for a crime and bad guys or not, nobody deserves prison for crimes they did NOT commit so the DNA works both ways.

I'm willing to bet that without his DNA proving negative to the crime scene, this maniac might have been even more famous than he is. With a false and ridiculous confession, they would have been more than willing to disregard the FACTS and evidence and allowed him to stand trial and he just might have been convicted..........in Boulder anyway

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#9 Dec 18, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA has shown itself to be a red herring but even with that said, had JMK not had the DNA to "free" him (at least from this crime), he might just have been in prison for this crime that he didn't commit.
As much as he wouldn't be missed in society, there is no greater injustice than imprisoning the wrong person for a crime and bad guys or not, nobody deserves prison for crimes they did NOT commit so the DNA works both ways.
I'm willing to bet that without his DNA proving negative to the crime scene, this maniac might have been even more famous than he is. With a false and ridiculous confession, they would have been more than willing to disregard the FACTS and evidence and allowed him to stand trial and he just might have been convicted..........in Boulder anyway
Hi Capricorn,
While I was very cautious on the JMK arrest, I did have strong doubts about his guilt, but I felt that his "confession" had to be good enough to hold up enough to beget the arrest. Obviously, it wasn't. He made some claims like "he drugged her" and "he picked her up from school" when there was no school, should have been enough to have a better look at the possibility that he was just trying to take "credit" for the crime he didn't commit. The Lacy team should have at least tried to verify for fact, that he was even in Colorado at the time of the crime.

While the Lacy team was hoping for a DNA match, I truly doubt that even a match combined with his false confession would be enough to win a conviction in this case. Too many holes in his confession, and to much evidence that would not have allowed him to have committed the crime.

Only people like Mary Lacy and Ole South would be able to "bite" on that bait.
CC.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#10 Dec 18, 2013
Hey CC,
You are a funny guy, you know that?:)

“Only people like Mary Lacy and Ole South would be able to "bite" on that bait.”

I couldn't agree more, and the only thing I could add to that is…and swallow it HOOK, LINE, and SINKER!

There is not one thing about JMK that can’t be discounted, and all the spinning in the world won’t help make it come true. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and with the help of Michael Tracey and the Defective Detective Smit, he got what he wanted.

JonBenet deserved better than that sideshow freak.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>

While I was very cautious on the JMK arrest, I did have strong doubts about his guilt, but I felt that his "confession" had to be good enough to hold up enough to beget the arrest. Obviously, it wasn't. He made some claims like "he drugged her" and "he picked her up from school" when there was no school, should have been enough to have a better look at the possibility that he was just trying to take "credit" for the crime he didn't commit. The Lacy team should have at least tried to verify for fact, that he was even in Colorado at the time of the crime.
While the Lacy team was hoping for a DNA match, I truly doubt that even a match combined with his false confession would be enough to win a conviction in this case. Too many holes in his confession, and to much evidence that would not have allowed him to have committed the crime.
Only people like Mary Lacy and Ole South would be able to "bite" on that bait.
CC.

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#11 Dec 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hey CC,
You are a funny guy, you know that?:)
“Only people like Mary Lacy and Ole South would be able to "bite" on that bait.”
I couldn't agree more, and the only thing I could add to that is…and swallow it HOOK, LINE, and SINKER!
There is not one thing about JMK that can’t be discounted, and all the spinning in the world won’t help make it come true. He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and with the help of Michael Tracey and the Defective Detective Smit, he got what he wanted.
JonBenet deserved better than that sideshow freak.
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
I think I will apply for a job as a standup comic! LOL!

However, I truly think that Smit really didn't believe that the Rams were innocent. I cannot give him enough "credit" for that kind of stupidity. I think he, looking at all of the evidence saw that one of them committed the crime, but figured there would be more money in trying to convince the world about their "innocence" than getting a conviction. This is regardless of whether he was paid off or not.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#12 Dec 19, 2013
Let me know if that career works out for you, LOL!

I believe he went into this case when asked to join the investigation thinking he would be a shining star and solve the case proving it was an intruder - making it the last hurrah of his career. In attempting this, he found himself in way over his head, and "stupid" escalated from there. He did more to hurt the investigation than he did to help it.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
I think I will apply for a job as a standup comic! LOL!
However, I truly think that Smit really didn't believe that the Rams were innocent. I cannot give him enough "credit" for that kind of stupidity. I think he, looking at all of the evidence saw that one of them committed the crime, but figured there would be more money in trying to convince the world about their "innocence" than getting a conviction. This is regardless of whether he was paid off or not.
CC
Taylur

Lone Jack, MO

#13 Dec 19, 2013
I couldn't agree more with this post. Not only does the majority of evidence point to a family member, but the killers profile points to someone within the immident family as well. The attitude of the family during the time of the murder was incredibly disappointing and I feel so sorry for that little girl. She deserve justice.

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#14 Dec 19, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Let me know if that career works out for you, LOL!
I believe he went into this case when asked to join the investigation thinking he would be a shining star and solve the case proving it was an intruder - making it the last hurrah of his career. In attempting this, he found himself in way over his head, and "stupid" escalated from there. He did more to hurt the investigation than he did to help it.
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
I agree with most of your assessment on Smit. You would think at one point in time, he would realize how stupid he appeared to be, but either he was committed enough that he wasn't going to stand corrected, or he was paid to be an IDI.
CC

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 1 hr ICU2 174
What I believe is close to what happened Fri berrytea333 64
Karr's Christmas Message Fri Legal__Eagle 45
SBTC--Victory Fri Legal__Eagle 34
Patsy's Ritual Abuse of JonBenet (Oct '08) Apr 30 Just Wondering 707
Random thought about the Stines Apr 29 Steve Eller 79
Chief Kolar's AMA on Reddit Apr 28 Steve Eller 185
More from around the web