evaluating RDI poster claims vs the real world Murder of JonBenet Ramsey & Katie Rough

View previous topic View next topic Go down

evaluating RDI poster claims vs the real world Murder of JonBenet Ramsey & Katie Rough

Post by redpill on Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:08 am

What a Face
Suspect

over at websleuths posters have claimed

detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?


If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.


ukguy wrote:
Mama2JML,
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!


nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim
docg wrote:

Questions

An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?


these RDI posters premise is that an intruder would have no reason to leave a body in the home and write a "ransom note".

a simple reason why, because the intruder wanted to. he felt like doing it. he wanted to kill Jonbenet and the ransom note is trolling.

to give you an idea of how RDI live in a pure fantasy world of delusion completely disconnected with all reality

this is murder victim  seven years old KATIE Rough



basic case facts
the sun wrote:
KATIE Rough was just seven years old when she was found with her throat cut in a playing field near her home in Woodthorpe, York.

The death of the little girl, a bridesmaid at her parents' wedding just two weeks earlier, left the community reeling.

Who was Katie Rough?

Katie was a seven-year-old girl from York who died after she was found in a field with fatal knife wounds on January 9.

She had been smothered then slashed and stabbed with a Stanley blade.

Residents told of the heart-wrenching scenes when devastated mum Alison found Katie and fell to her knees, screaming "no, no my little girl".

Little Katie had been a bridesmaid at her parents' wedding just two weeks before she was killed.

She was pictured wearing a silver sequined dress as she proudly stood by mum Alison and dad Paul.

The little girl's death shocked her local community, with people banding together to support the family.

Katie was described as a "kind and thoughtful child" by her teachers at Westfield Primary School.

What happened to Katie Rough?

Little Katie Rough playing after school when she was smothered and hacked to death in a playing field close to her home in Woodthorpe, York on Monday January 9, 2017.

The killer had suffocated Katie with a gloved hand before slashing her throat with a Stanley knife and stabbing her in the chest.

At 4.37pm her attacker called 999 to say: “She’s dead.”

Officers used mobile phone technology to locate the caller. They then frantically launched a search for Katie.

Thirteen minutes later Katie’s mum, Alison, 38 — unaware of the horror — rang police to report her missing.

She said she had not seen Katie for 45 minutes, it is understood.

Officers found Katie unconscious in a playing field behind a row of houses.

Her parents rushed to the scene, and Alison cradled her daughter's bloodied head as she screamed out: "She's killed my daughter", a court heard.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds, QC, said in July: "Upon seeing the bleeding in Katie's hair, Alison started to scream.

"She tried to cradle Katie's head and the officer led both parents away in considerable distress."

Katie was taken to hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after.

Who has been charged with Katie Rough's murder?

A 16-year-old girl was charged with the murder of seven-year-old Katie Rough.

The girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was 15 at the time of the horror attack.

A court heard the teen was suffering from a schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs - which included thinking other people were "robots" and "not real" - and self harm.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds QC said the defendant got stressed when a psychologist asked her whether she killed Katie “to test if she was human”.

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

The court also head the teen had planned to kill and cops found a Lion King stuffed toy in her bedroom with its ears ripped off and chest sliced open.

The accused denied murder but admitted the manslaughter of Katie by means of diminished responsibility.

She was due to be sentenced on September 7 but it was delayed until at least November.

The girl sobbed at Leeds crown court as she was told she would be assessed in a specialist hospital for 12 weeks.

The judge Mr Justice Soole told her: "It is not in dispute that you currently pose a high risk of serious harm to others and to yourself."

What was said at Katie Rough's inquest?

An inquest into Katie Rough's death opened in York in January.

It heard how hospital staff tried to save the seven-year-old but were unable to resuscitate her.

Det Insp Mark Pearson of North Yorkshire Police was the only witness.

He said that on the 9th of January 9, 2017, following a call to police, officers attended a field where they found Katie Sharon Rough with severe injuries.

She was taken to York Hospital where, despite best efforts, she could not be resuscitated.

Katie was confirmed dead at 5.45pm the same day and identified by her dad, Paul Rough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2584801/katie-rough-york-teen-girl-guilty-manslaughter-sentence/

let's look at the claims and premise of RDI



detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?


If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.


ukguy wrote:
Mama2JML,
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!


nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim
docg wrote:

Questions

An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.

Answers

No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?


the RDI claim is that an intruder has no reason to leave a body in the house and a ransom note.

the RDI premise is that an intruder has to think the same way the poster does.

the RDI premise is that if it makes zero sense to leave a body with the ransom note, therefore no sensible killer would do this.

RDI premise is that killers are logical rational beings who always act logically, and always act with motives that are normal, sane, and understandable. Killers never kill for reasons that an RDI cannot understand, and if a killer does not act logically then there was no killer. The parents did it. or Burke.

is this premise true?

7 year old Katie Rough was murdered. her killer's reason


16-year-old girl was charged with the murder of seven-year-old Katie Rough.

The girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was 15 at the time of the horror attack.

A court heard the teen was suffering from a schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs - which included thinking other people were "robots" and "not real" - and self harm.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds QC said the defendant got stressed when a psychologist asked her whether she killed Katie “to test if she was human”.

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

is that logical? does it make sense? Katie's killer reason is " other people were "robots" and "not real"

her killer after killing Katie called UK's 911. herself to report her own murder.

Since Katie's killer reason for killing Katie was  other people were "robots" and "not real"

why wouldn't it make sense for Jonbenet's killer to kill Jonbenet and then leaving a ransom note to troll the police and Ramseys.

RDI are a lynch mob. they have an inferior mental capacity and their ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds, and they have make claims completely disconnected with reality.

These real world facts won't stop or deter RDI from continuing to claim what an intruder would not leave a body and ransom note behind, even though real world murders include murderers who " other people were "robots" and "not real"

and


Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

to review, 7 year old Katie Rough is dead.

7 year old Katie Rough was murdered.

Her killer was a 15 year old girl at the time, Jan 9, 2017


Katie's killer suffers from

schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs

her reason for killing


Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

Katie's killer also left a written note at the scene which said

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

Katie killer after killling Katie called UK's 911 to report her own murder and stood there and waited.

is that logical?

Maybe Jonbenet's killer suffered from


schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs

his reason for the ransom note is


“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

RDI are a lynch mob who have rejected science and real world facts to perpetuate their stalking harassment of the Ramseys. They do not research their claims, they simply just make stuff up.

RDI make stuff up. that sums up RDI

another example of RDI making stuff up

this is her claim
koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

koldkase is a house wife with zero scientific or forensic qualifications

similarly, on topix,
Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me
Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.

these are additional examples of RDI making stuff up. instead of relying on scientific expert witness testimony that both
John and Patsy are eliminated as the authors, yes eliminate, using a scientific methodology and process that is validated under Daubert, they simply disregard it, make it up, and then claim this is "justice"

this is not justice this is a anti-science lynch mob.

RDI lack an actual genuine scientific understanding of the relevant forensics. so whatever they say, it is not in the interest of science, forensics and justice.

RDI are lazy troll lynch mob. it's easier simply to make stuff up, then to do the hard work of studying the forensics and science. thats laziness. it's also irresponsible.

and cynic has the nerve to crow about IDI nutjobs when he has never studied any forensics in any capacity whatsoever.

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 1695
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum