Yep, that about sums it up. All the IDI garbage is just that. It’s all Ramsey misinformation and not a single self respecting investigative journalist takes it seriously.
They mentioned how they've heard that there aren't any good IDI sources. Then they ask on a primarily RDI biased group what the best IDI sources are.
This would be like someone asking a group of southern raised Republicans where the best Muslim restaurant is. They probably don't know and will allow their personal bias to influence their response - which likely isn't useful in answering the question.
People who think RDI aren't likely to recommend or have anything positive to say about IDI sources - and vice versa. OP needs to ask this question in the other group.
Read multiple sources would be my recommendation and learn about criminology.
All IDI arguments are full of misinfo, its kind of impossible to make a real argument with facts. The real question is why. Lock weed Martin lawyers...
The intruder theory itself is misinformation. Read Lou Smit's interview with Larry King, his deposition in the Christian Wolf case and watch Haunting Evidence: Jonbenet Ramsey and you will know.
Edit: I forgot to ,mention Jonbenet Ramsey: What Really Happened?. There you can listen to some of Smit's deranged recordings, he made during his engagement with this case, and learn with what attitude he went into the 1998 interview with John Ramsey, one of the main suspects in this case.
Those Ramsey lawsuits are BS. Why? Because they always end up settling out of court for an “undisclosed amount” (could be $10), the defendants are never allowed to say how much (per agreement) AND, in the case of any authors like Det. Steve Thomas, their books are never banned or taken off the shelf.
Ramseys are phonies and so are their lawsuits.
Don’t forget, you also need to hire a lawyer. That costs a lot more than $10. Even if you win the case and don’t have to pay anything, you are still out a lot of money in lawyer fees and time.
Nick and the Captain also have a relationship with Dr Phil.
I'm an IDI leaner. Remember it's hard to discuss an IDI viewpoint without accusing someone specifically. I don't like to do that to someone in a public forum when they're not convicted of anything. But it's an incomplete conversation to just say "Ramseys or not Ramseys?"
There are various youtube videos bringing up theories of other specific people, more than just IDI in general. I see most of those like, "Yeah, could be. Needs to be investigated more thoroughly." The difference is, IMO, the way they were dismissed. DNA didn't match, sometimes handwriting, which as far as I can tell is often writing four or five single words, and some alibi like "Asleep."
I'm not convinced that just because BDI says "We dismissed that person," that they are innocent. If you follow any cold cases you'll find it so often ends up being someone investigated and dismissed early on. No shade to police. Sometimes the evidence they committed the crime just isn't there yet, and years later some other piece of evidence shows up.
I find more than one suspect and scenario to be just as suspicious (and IMO more suspicious) than the Ramseys.
The Prosecutors Podcast is probably the most biased one there is. They lack even the most basic facts about this case and clearly followed a pro Ramsey narrative.
The response they gained for their egomaniacal swaggering even caused them to close the comment sections to those episode. It will have its reason why they have to do podcasts as educated lawyers.
I've seen several people who were really familiar with the case say they lost respect for the hosts over their coverage on this case. They got a lot wrong and used a lot of very faulty thinking. (My kids don't do X, so no kid would do X, etc.)
That's happened to me on other subjects- someone I'm a fan of covers it and gets so much wrong that I don't trust their take in anything after that.
Plus the fact that they're friends with John Andrew and he promoted those episodes before they aired.
And I'm not going to get into their political associations but that alone takes them off my list of people's whose opinion i give any weight to.
Kolar went bonkers during the elections too. So did way too many people. Being a right winger is one thing, being a nazi apologist is quite another.
And Kolar's facts were in order- the prosecutor's weren't.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. Read Kolar’s Twitter. He wants to prosecute Fauci, doesn’t believe that the world is warming, believes Trump won the election, and believes that communists are going after our food supply.
I don't see how it's splitting hairs- politically nutty but factually correct is better than politically nutty and factually incorrect. I think it's pretty simple.
But when someone doesn’t get basic facts right on a case, is their series really “well done”?
I am glad though that you’re not on the dark side of this case. 👍
I haven't sorted these for what you're looking for but here are quite a few if you use the search box here [The Podcast Directory | Popular Podcasts | All Podcasts (podbean.com)](https://www.podbean.com/site/search/index?__cf_chl_tk=AW.bG5o0NxV3DSpauZj8M4B5X4MO5VB8e.kkA3fYDLc-1719993976-0.0.1.1-4820)
Not much at all. And you're right, what little there is isn't convincing at all. Which is why I stand by my statement.....the evidence that there is does not even come close to supporting the IDI theory.
So aside from fingerprints (understandable if gloves), there are most of those things. There are fibers that couldn’t be sourced, item moved and out of place (suitcase), and DNA. And spiderweb or not, I don’t think these were people to be meticulous about making sure all their windows are locked, and other people with key access to the house, and people who had access to those people. And a footprint.
Just because there are POSSIBLE explanations for those, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They all exist.
Fiber evidence points to the family. Fibers from John's robe, fibers from what Patsy was wearing that night. There were some items of clothing belonging to the Ramseys that they were not able to collect and test in a timely fashion or at all because the DA's office would not approve subpoenas and the Ramseys would not hand them over voluntarily. This included Patsy's fur lined boots and a fur jacket, just to mention a couple. The suitcase was moved to the basement by John, and then moved that morning by Fleet White. If you are referring to the Hi-Tec boot print, that was later discovered to belong to Burke. Persons known to have keys to the house were checked out. The DNA evidence is touch and could have come from anywhere. Determined to be from at least 2-3 people and not one individual. The existence of something does not necessarily make it evidential of an intruder. The amount of evidence that Lou Smit claimed pointed to an intruder is very small and has been debunked.
When you look at the entirety of the scene from that night, what was done to that child, wiping her down, changing her clothes, pineapple, the ransom note......that required a lot of time. How did this person know about the blooms and where to find them? The likelihood of an intruder being comfortable enough spending that amount of time in a home with 3 other persons present and sleeping (supposedly) and seemingly not worried about being discovered, just doesn't add up for me. And now we know that Burke was awake and went downstairs after he was put to bed the first time by his own admission. Given the timeline as we now know it, which includes this and the eating of the pineapple, we know that the Ramseys lied. Why? Burke has also stated that JonBenet was in fact awake and walked up the stairs herself. John at one point said he read to her before she went to sleep. Why so many different stories? I would also question why neither parent asked Burke before whisking him out of the house later that morning if he had heard anything that night. His bedroom was on the same floor as JonBenet's. And now that we know he was up and awake, the possibility of his running into the mystery intruder while roaming around has to be considered too.
There are fibers on her from the family, just like you would expect there to be because they put her to bed, just like there were fingerprints and DNA of the family on her and everywhere else in the house. She had fibers from Patsy's jacket, which is consistent with Patsy going straight from the car and putting her to bed just after they got home (or from hugging/leaning on Patsy during the party itself.) Any fibers on Jonbenet herself, particularly in her hair, would also be on the blanket she was on, and therefore end up in the tape and rope. If this all happened later in the night, why would Patsy still have her jacket on? And there were other fibers. Not just the animal fibers. Where did those come from? Maybe they came from something in their house, but you can't assume that and say there were no unidentified fibers there, there were.
The suitcase was moved to the basement by John, but put in another room (at least according to him.) Fleet White only changed the angle of it from parallel to the wall to perpendicular. I imagine you'll say he's mistaken or lying, but that's just it. If there is this evidence there and every bit is dismissed at just not true because you already decided the Ramseys did it, then you're not looking objectively.
The Hi-Tek book print was NOT found to be from Burke. Burke just had those kinds of shoes, like a lot of people did. That's exactly a Steve Thomas conclusion. There was no size of the imprint. Just the "hi tek" square at the bottom. We're talking about one of the most popular brand of hiking boots at a crime scene in *Colorado*. I think it's possible someone besides Burke owned them. Did Burke have on those shoes at the party? Did he come home and take off the shoes he went to the party in and change into boots for some reason?
Persons known to have keys were inadequately checked out, particularly people who had access to those people and their keys (who we may not even know about), and people who had keys at periods for house repairs, who may have made copies before returning them. (Although I think it's more likely someone who was at the house for some other reason just unlocked a window while they were there, and broke in numerous times without the Ramseys knowing.)
Yes, the DNA is touch and could have come from anywhere. And that's what was used to rule out a lot of the people who the police have ruled out. It also could have come from an intruder who was just had on gloves, but forgot and touched his face at some point, and transferred a small amount of DNA.
The existence of something does not necessarily make it evidence of an intruder, but that's not what you said. You said there was no evidence of an intruder. Of course there is no evidence if every time there is evidence you say "That's not evidence." You can't dismiss every other fiber besides Patsys jacket fibers. You can't assume a footprint is Burkes just because he had the same (very popular) of hiking shoes. You can't assume the note was written by Patsy when six of six handwriting experts couldn't say that, for that matter.
My problem with looking at the "whole case" at once is, you have to look at each piece first. You can't build a house with bricks if all the bricks aren't solid bricks in the first place. One brick in your house is "no evidence of an intruder." I think that brick is not solid. I find this with many of the bricks in the case. Almost all of them. When you try to get people to look at one, and they start to see, well, okay maybe that's not solid, but look at the whole picture. But in the whole picture, those aren't solid either.
>there aren’t many good from this viewpoint Well…. What’s that tell ya?
Yep, that about sums it up. All the IDI garbage is just that. It’s all Ramsey misinformation and not a single self respecting investigative journalist takes it seriously.
They mentioned how they've heard that there aren't any good IDI sources. Then they ask on a primarily RDI biased group what the best IDI sources are. This would be like someone asking a group of southern raised Republicans where the best Muslim restaurant is. They probably don't know and will allow their personal bias to influence their response - which likely isn't useful in answering the question. People who think RDI aren't likely to recommend or have anything positive to say about IDI sources - and vice versa. OP needs to ask this question in the other group. Read multiple sources would be my recommendation and learn about criminology.
All IDI arguments are full of misinfo, its kind of impossible to make a real argument with facts. The real question is why. Lock weed Martin lawyers...
The intruder theory itself is misinformation. Read Lou Smit's interview with Larry King, his deposition in the Christian Wolf case and watch Haunting Evidence: Jonbenet Ramsey and you will know. Edit: I forgot to ,mention Jonbenet Ramsey: What Really Happened?. There you can listen to some of Smit's deranged recordings, he made during his engagement with this case, and learn with what attitude he went into the 1998 interview with John Ramsey, one of the main suspects in this case.
Lou Smit always seemed like a quack to me bringing in psychics and stuff. I'll check it out.
I liked True Crime Garage. Thought It was mostly unbiased. However, did lean on the side of idi
This is the one I was going to suggest. I moved me from about 1% idi to around 3% idi. 😉
I just couldn’t listen to one podcaster call the other podcaster captain
They were afraid of a lawsuit.
Those Ramsey lawsuits are BS. Why? Because they always end up settling out of court for an “undisclosed amount” (could be $10), the defendants are never allowed to say how much (per agreement) AND, in the case of any authors like Det. Steve Thomas, their books are never banned or taken off the shelf. Ramseys are phonies and so are their lawsuits.
$10 is crazy
Don’t forget, you also need to hire a lawyer. That costs a lot more than $10. Even if you win the case and don’t have to pay anything, you are still out a lot of money in lawyer fees and time. Nick and the Captain also have a relationship with Dr Phil.
Listen to or read John Douglas' book The Cases That Haunt Us.
thanks i’ll look into it
I'm an IDI leaner. Remember it's hard to discuss an IDI viewpoint without accusing someone specifically. I don't like to do that to someone in a public forum when they're not convicted of anything. But it's an incomplete conversation to just say "Ramseys or not Ramseys?" There are various youtube videos bringing up theories of other specific people, more than just IDI in general. I see most of those like, "Yeah, could be. Needs to be investigated more thoroughly." The difference is, IMO, the way they were dismissed. DNA didn't match, sometimes handwriting, which as far as I can tell is often writing four or five single words, and some alibi like "Asleep." I'm not convinced that just because BDI says "We dismissed that person," that they are innocent. If you follow any cold cases you'll find it so often ends up being someone investigated and dismissed early on. No shade to police. Sometimes the evidence they committed the crime just isn't there yet, and years later some other piece of evidence shows up. I find more than one suspect and scenario to be just as suspicious (and IMO more suspicious) than the Ramseys.
I thought the Prosecutors Podcast was pretty good.
The Prosecutors Podcast is probably the most biased one there is. They lack even the most basic facts about this case and clearly followed a pro Ramsey narrative.
Exactly. That was a HORRIBLE, one sided pile of 💩 series. I unfortunately stumbled across it on YouTube.
The response they gained for their egomaniacal swaggering even caused them to close the comment sections to those episode. It will have its reason why they have to do podcasts as educated lawyers.
I've seen several people who were really familiar with the case say they lost respect for the hosts over their coverage on this case. They got a lot wrong and used a lot of very faulty thinking. (My kids don't do X, so no kid would do X, etc.) That's happened to me on other subjects- someone I'm a fan of covers it and gets so much wrong that I don't trust their take in anything after that. Plus the fact that they're friends with John Andrew and he promoted those episodes before they aired. And I'm not going to get into their political associations but that alone takes them off my list of people's whose opinion i give any weight to.
Does that mean you also don’t give weight to Kolar, then? I’m pretty sure no IDI podcast would be recommended over here.
Kolar went bonkers during the elections too. So did way too many people. Being a right winger is one thing, being a nazi apologist is quite another. And Kolar's facts were in order- the prosecutor's weren't.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. Read Kolar’s Twitter. He wants to prosecute Fauci, doesn’t believe that the world is warming, believes Trump won the election, and believes that communists are going after our food supply.
I don't see how it's splitting hairs- politically nutty but factually correct is better than politically nutty and factually incorrect. I think it's pretty simple.
Do you know who those podcasters are?
I don’t know them personally, no. Are you referring to the fact that they’re MAGA? I do know that.
Came to say the same, I don’t agree with them but their series on the case was well done
But when someone doesn’t get basic facts right on a case, is their series really “well done”? I am glad though that you’re not on the dark side of this case. 👍
What were facts that were wrong if you remember? I haven't listened to that one.
There is a new one that is really good IMO from Youtube. The channel name is Rambling Roads.
I haven't sorted these for what you're looking for but here are quite a few if you use the search box here [The Podcast Directory | Popular Podcasts | All Podcasts (podbean.com)](https://www.podbean.com/site/search/index?__cf_chl_tk=AW.bG5o0NxV3DSpauZj8M4B5X4MO5VB8e.kkA3fYDLc-1719993976-0.0.1.1-4820)
All IDI theory is irrational.
I don't think it's any more irrational than RDI. Almost every theory I've ever heard is irrational in some way.
The problem with the IDI theory is that there simply isn't evidence to support it.
Of course there is. It may or may not be convincing evidence. But there’s evidence.
Not much at all. And you're right, what little there is isn't convincing at all. Which is why I stand by my statement.....the evidence that there is does not even come close to supporting the IDI theory.
What evidence do you think would be there if there were an intruder?
Footprints, fingerprints, DNA (saliva, semen, etc), fibers, point of entry & exit, items moved, missing or out of place.
So aside from fingerprints (understandable if gloves), there are most of those things. There are fibers that couldn’t be sourced, item moved and out of place (suitcase), and DNA. And spiderweb or not, I don’t think these were people to be meticulous about making sure all their windows are locked, and other people with key access to the house, and people who had access to those people. And a footprint. Just because there are POSSIBLE explanations for those, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They all exist.
Fiber evidence points to the family. Fibers from John's robe, fibers from what Patsy was wearing that night. There were some items of clothing belonging to the Ramseys that they were not able to collect and test in a timely fashion or at all because the DA's office would not approve subpoenas and the Ramseys would not hand them over voluntarily. This included Patsy's fur lined boots and a fur jacket, just to mention a couple. The suitcase was moved to the basement by John, and then moved that morning by Fleet White. If you are referring to the Hi-Tec boot print, that was later discovered to belong to Burke. Persons known to have keys to the house were checked out. The DNA evidence is touch and could have come from anywhere. Determined to be from at least 2-3 people and not one individual. The existence of something does not necessarily make it evidential of an intruder. The amount of evidence that Lou Smit claimed pointed to an intruder is very small and has been debunked. When you look at the entirety of the scene from that night, what was done to that child, wiping her down, changing her clothes, pineapple, the ransom note......that required a lot of time. How did this person know about the blooms and where to find them? The likelihood of an intruder being comfortable enough spending that amount of time in a home with 3 other persons present and sleeping (supposedly) and seemingly not worried about being discovered, just doesn't add up for me. And now we know that Burke was awake and went downstairs after he was put to bed the first time by his own admission. Given the timeline as we now know it, which includes this and the eating of the pineapple, we know that the Ramseys lied. Why? Burke has also stated that JonBenet was in fact awake and walked up the stairs herself. John at one point said he read to her before she went to sleep. Why so many different stories? I would also question why neither parent asked Burke before whisking him out of the house later that morning if he had heard anything that night. His bedroom was on the same floor as JonBenet's. And now that we know he was up and awake, the possibility of his running into the mystery intruder while roaming around has to be considered too.
There are fibers on her from the family, just like you would expect there to be because they put her to bed, just like there were fingerprints and DNA of the family on her and everywhere else in the house. She had fibers from Patsy's jacket, which is consistent with Patsy going straight from the car and putting her to bed just after they got home (or from hugging/leaning on Patsy during the party itself.) Any fibers on Jonbenet herself, particularly in her hair, would also be on the blanket she was on, and therefore end up in the tape and rope. If this all happened later in the night, why would Patsy still have her jacket on? And there were other fibers. Not just the animal fibers. Where did those come from? Maybe they came from something in their house, but you can't assume that and say there were no unidentified fibers there, there were. The suitcase was moved to the basement by John, but put in another room (at least according to him.) Fleet White only changed the angle of it from parallel to the wall to perpendicular. I imagine you'll say he's mistaken or lying, but that's just it. If there is this evidence there and every bit is dismissed at just not true because you already decided the Ramseys did it, then you're not looking objectively. The Hi-Tek book print was NOT found to be from Burke. Burke just had those kinds of shoes, like a lot of people did. That's exactly a Steve Thomas conclusion. There was no size of the imprint. Just the "hi tek" square at the bottom. We're talking about one of the most popular brand of hiking boots at a crime scene in *Colorado*. I think it's possible someone besides Burke owned them. Did Burke have on those shoes at the party? Did he come home and take off the shoes he went to the party in and change into boots for some reason? Persons known to have keys were inadequately checked out, particularly people who had access to those people and their keys (who we may not even know about), and people who had keys at periods for house repairs, who may have made copies before returning them. (Although I think it's more likely someone who was at the house for some other reason just unlocked a window while they were there, and broke in numerous times without the Ramseys knowing.) Yes, the DNA is touch and could have come from anywhere. And that's what was used to rule out a lot of the people who the police have ruled out. It also could have come from an intruder who was just had on gloves, but forgot and touched his face at some point, and transferred a small amount of DNA. The existence of something does not necessarily make it evidence of an intruder, but that's not what you said. You said there was no evidence of an intruder. Of course there is no evidence if every time there is evidence you say "That's not evidence." You can't dismiss every other fiber besides Patsys jacket fibers. You can't assume a footprint is Burkes just because he had the same (very popular) of hiking shoes. You can't assume the note was written by Patsy when six of six handwriting experts couldn't say that, for that matter. My problem with looking at the "whole case" at once is, you have to look at each piece first. You can't build a house with bricks if all the bricks aren't solid bricks in the first place. One brick in your house is "no evidence of an intruder." I think that brick is not solid. I find this with many of the bricks in the case. Almost all of them. When you try to get people to look at one, and they start to see, well, okay maybe that's not solid, but look at the whole picture. But in the whole picture, those aren't solid either.
I agree but I think it could be spun in a way that is reasonable enough