Evidence of IDI...?

[Nuisanceposter]

Furrow.

 

[Louisa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by InnocentBystander
How would an Intruder know there wouldn't be an alarm on?

Unless he was a seasoned burglar who knew the ends and outs of B&E...he wouldn't have a clue.
Especially if there was one of those warning stickers visible on the house...if this was a first timer...he certainly was bold and reckless.

Okay. How did John Evander Couey know there wouldn't be an alarm on? David Westerfield? Immanuel, who took Elizabeth? Whoever took Sabrina Aisenberg? They were "first timers" as far as we know. They were certainly bold and reckless, no?

 

[tybee204]

Couey and Westerfield lived within spitting distance of their victims and could watch their activities and living habits. Sabrinas case has never been solved so no one knows how that one took place or who was involved.

 

[Louisa]

Couey and Westerfield lived within spitting distance of their victims and could watch their activities and living habits. Sabrinas case has never been solved so no one knows how that one took place or who was involved.

True that Couey could see the Lunsford property from his trailer, and probably true that he could assume the Lunsfords weren't among those that had an alarm system if he were going to venture a guess. However, Couey has admitted to being so coked up when he took Jessie that I don't think it would have mattered one way or the other to him.

I'm not ready to concede so easily on the other situations. Westerfield didn't have quite so easy access to viewing the VanDam property as Couey did the Lunsfords, and the VanDams were much more likely to be in a neighborhood with alarms.

As you point out yourself, we don't know yet who took Sabrina. Immanuel spent very little time at the Smarts and couldn't be sure whether there was a working alarm set or not.

My point still stands, I believe. If someone wants entrance to a house badly enough, he will go in, whether or not he has knowledge of an alarm system.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

My point still stands, I believe. If someone wants entrance to a house badly enough, he will go in, whether or not he has knowledge of an alarm system.

This is true of course...if a person wants to get in badly enough, or they are reckless enough, they will go in without giving regard to alarms. I don't rule such a person out...I just don't think they fit well.

Looking at the Ramsey residence would scream alarms at me...and makes me cautious of them.
So...if they were of no consequence to the perp, then yes, he was reckless. The perfection of the crime if committed by an intruder though...does not suggest as reckless person, I think. If the DNA on Jonbenet holds no worth...such an intruder left absoutely no trace of his existence in the home.

 

[Louisa]

This is true of course...if a person wants to get in badly enough, or they are reckless enough, they will go in without giving regard to alarms. I don't rule such a person out...I just don't think they fit well.

Looking at the Ramsey residence would scream alarms at me...and makes me cautious of them.
So...if they were of no consequence to the perp, then yes, he was reckless. The perfection of the crime if committed by an intruder though...does not suggest as reckless person, I think. If the DNA on Jonbenet holds no worth...such an intruder left absoutely no trace of his existence in the home.

I don't know whether Karr is the guy in this case or not yet; a whole lot more has got to shake out of the trees till we see that.

But leaving no trace of existence in a home can't be our criterion for deciding whether someone is a perp or not. We need only look to the Elizabeth Smart case for that. If Mary Katherine hadn't seen Elizabeth being taken, that case would have been split between assuming Elizabeth had run away or assuming the Smart parents had somehow done harm to her, I can almost guarantee it. (Not that Mary Katherine having seen her exit stopped people from speculating about Ed Smart's involvement.)

 

[tumble]

Hi little girl, here's my knife, here's my gun, I'm going to kill your mommy and daddy unless you keep absolutely quiet!

Hi little girl, I'm one of santa's elves, let's go down and have a snack, and I'll show you the reindeer!

It is here reasonable doubt kick in. IMO, she would scream for sure. And then the perp decides to stick around in the house. Without atleast subduing the parents with his gun... or would he just use his charm.

Tell Elizabeth Smart's family that a stranger can't quietly get a kid to go with them...and plenty of other very sad families know this as well. Whether by threat or by guile, it can be done.

Was she found in the house with no trauma to her lip and mouth?
Did she sit down with the kidnapper having a snack in the kitchen?

If someone came into the house and managed to deceive her on the other hand...it would suggest someone she'd seen before and was comfortable with.

IMO, not even then. And what intruder/friend would take that risk. That is just not reasonable.

Only if they were lying - and maybe not even then

Please elaborate, what does lying do to help LE find their daugters killer.

If they were guilty, there would be no reason to deny the pineapple

Just because you can't think of why doesn't make it so.
And I would say if they were innocent, there would no reason to lie either. Infact they probably would try very hard to remember correctly, BOTH of them. It is not reasonable that BOTH should be mistaken about if they put her to bed immediately or not, and it is not reasonable that they would remember and explain in detail the same story about something that didn't happen instead of remembering what infact did happen.

 

[Chebrock]

Regarding the pineapple:

I seem to remember that they matched the pineapple to some in the refrigerator but forgot that JBs finger prints weren't on the bowl or spoon.

The parents probably couldn't admit to serving her pineapple because that would put them too close to the timeline of the murder, especially if she ate it 2 hours before death. Also, they were supposed to be sleeping soundly. Feeding JonBenet pineapple 2 hours before death would be difficult to explain.

 

[tumble]

Regarding the pineapple:
The parents probably couldn't admit to serving her pineapple because that would put them too close to the timeline of the murder, especially if she ate it 2 hours before death. Also, they were supposed to be sleeping soundly. Feeding JonBenet pineapple 2 hours before death would be difficult to explain.

Agree, that is what I think also.
But why didn't they just remove the pineapple bowl?
Do you think it was just a lapsus?
Maybe they actually wanted it to look like the intruder fed her?

They were quite eager to point out that the spoon was way too big and that noone in the family would do such a setup.

 

[Louisa]

But Tumble, did you listen to John Evander Couey's confession and description of how he got Jessie Lunsford to go along with him? Jessie was totally compliant and silent as she complied.

Couey described in detail how he told Jessie "do X," and she did it and "do Y," and she did it. And I don't recall him even saying he had a weapon out, as in the Smart case. She just complied.

Jessie was 9. JonBenet was only 6.

 

[tumble]

Good point Louisa. But Couey was drug-hazed and wasn't thinking straight.
And IMO, smaller children are more likely to scream and not listen to instructions. IMO, he was very lucky and he got caught anyway.
Jessies autopsy is not released yet but I would suspect that they will find some injury to her lips. Couey put his hand over her mouth the first thing he did.

In JBR's case the perp sticked around and composed a 3 page ransom note not likely very drug-hazed.

 

[Lurker Steve]

Good point Louisa. But Couey was drug-hazed and wasn't thinking straight.
And IMO, smaller children are more likely to scream and not listen to instructions. IMO, he was very lucky and he got caught anyway.
Jessies autopsy is not released yet but I would suspect that they will find some injury to her lips. Couey put his hand over her mouth the first thing he did.

In JBR's case the perp sticked around and composed a 3 page ransom note not likely very drug-hazed.

Unless he broke in and wrote the note before the Ramsey's got home.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

Unless he broke in and wrote the note before the Ramsey's got home.

Which would bring up two questions:

1. Why bother writing the ransom note in their house, using their materials in the first place? And writing it by hand, as well?

2. If the ransom note was written first...was the perp's intentions to kidnap JonBenet then?

 

[Lurker Steve]

Which would bring up two questions:

1. Why bother writing the ransom note in their house, using their materials in the first place? Especially in their handwriting, as well?

2. If the ransom note was written first...was the perp's intentions to kidnap JonBenet then?

1. By using paper and pen in the house, the police can't use forensics to track the source of the paper/pen.

Also, several handwriting experts thinks it is his handwriting.

2. Kidnap, yes, but not necessary kidnap for ransom money. The ransom note would have bought precious time needed to cover their tracks - time the Ramsey's may not have called police, destroyed evidence, etc.

My guess is that the killer planned to kidnap JBR to molest.

He may not have even thought about the ransom note idea until he got there.

 

[Louisa]

If Karr is our man in this case, the ransom note may well just be part of the fantasizing. It might have little to do with the reality of the situation he found himself in, as far as actually demanding money or actually taking JonBenet away with him in a pre-planned sense. He is so clearly deeply enmeshed with her that the ransom note--if written beforehand while waiting for her return--may be all fantasy role play.

 

[tybee204]

The perps in the Lundsford and Smart Cases were only in the house for moments. In the Ramsey case the perp was in the house and all over the house for god knows how long, writing notes, eating pineaple, upstairs, downstairs etc. He commited a murder in the house. More forensics would be expected in the Ramsey home of an intruder then the Lundsford or Smart homes.

 

[Louisa]

The perps in the Lundsford and Smart Cases were only in the house for moments. In the Ramsey case the perp was in the house and all over the house for god knows how long, writing notes, eating pineaple, upstairs, downstairs etc. He commited a murder in the house. More forensics would be expected in the Ramsey home of an intruder then the Lundsford or Smart homes.

We've got a pretty good idea that's true in Couey from his confession. We have no clue how long Immanuel was in the Smarts' home before he took Elizabeth, and we know he lingered for some time in the hallway because Mary Elizabeth got scared, returned to her bedroom, and closed the door, too afraid to continue looking out at him in the hallway. As far as I know, he's never admitted when he entered the home prior to taking Elizabeth. The same is true of David Westerfield to the best of my knowledge--no concrete idea of when he entered the VanDams' home.

So, if you'll insert the word "possibly" before the phrase "be expected," you've got a point, yes. Whoever killed JBR was in the home long enough to murder her, which did not occur in the cases where the others were taken from the homes and murdered elsewhere. That still doesn't mean that forensic evidence would necessarily have been left all over the home just because of a longer time period.

Maybe there is forensic evidence. Maybe it's the DNA. We just don't know yet. And that's the point of letting this particular scenario play out before we reach conclusions about it, no?

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

1. By using paper and pen in the house, the police can't use forensics to track the source of the paper/pen.

Also, several handwriting experts thinks it is his handwriting.

It's true the materials couldn't be traced then...it's just a giant risk, especially when you write such a large one.

Ahhh, made a bit of a typo up there too...I meant to ask why the perp would write the note in his own handwriting (didn't mean to suggest an intruder was trying to replicate a family member's handwriting).

2. Kidnap, yes, but not necessary kidnap for ransom money. The ransom note would have bought precious time needed to cover their tracks - time the Ramsey's may not have called police, destroyed evidence, etc.

My guess is that the killer planned to kidnap JBR to molest.

He may not have even thought about the ransom note idea until he got there.

So pretty much it'd be a kidnapping gone wrong. One would think though once it did go south the perp would flee...not stick around and do everything to the body that was done.
Kidnappings tend to be in and outs...not a lot of lingering.

 

[tumble]

That still doesn't mean that forensic evidence would necessarily have been left all over the home just because of a longer time period.

Maybe there is forensic evidence. Maybe it's the DNA. We just don't know yet. And that's the point of letting this particular scenario play out before we reach conclusions about it, no?

You would certainly expect forensic evidence and in fact there are. Fibers in the knots and on the duct tape.
And these fibres point to PR not an intruder.

There are DNA too and regarding that I refer to the DNA thread.

The ransom note would have bought precious time

Precious time spent instead in the house writing the thing.
How much time do you think he thought he would get?
If just officer French had done his job that morning JBR would have been found 6.10. Not giving him any extra time at all.

 

[BirdieBoo]

True that Couey could see the Lunsford property from his trailer, and probably true that he could assume the Lunsfords weren't among those that had an alarm system if he were going to venture a guess. However, Couey has admitted to being so coked up when he took Jessie that I don't think it would have mattered one way or the other to him.

I'm not ready to concede so easily on the other situations. Westerfield didn't have quite so easy access to viewing the VanDam property as Couey did the Lunsfords, and the VanDams were much more likely to be in a neighborhood with alarms.

As you point out yourself, we don't know yet who took Sabrina. Immanuel spent very little time at the Smarts and couldn't be sure whether there was a working alarm set or not.

My point still stands, I believe. If someone wants entrance to a house badly enough, he will go in, whether or not he has knowledge of an alarm system.

I heard that tapes were found in Westerfield's house of the inside of several of the other neighbors houses. He may have had a tape of the van Dam's house at some point too, that he taped over or otherwise destroyed.