IDI'S answer me this.

[oceanblueeyes]

If it was IDI and the Ramseys are completely innocent...one would have to face up to the fact that the intruder left behind no DNA, no prints, no fibers, and no footprints.
Pretty much, he'd have to have been in a plastic suit, and touched nothing with his actual body or clothing.

Then you have the issue of how he got in and out. I do not believe the evidence points toward anyone entering or exiting through the basement window.
So, it's unknown how this intruder entered the house and then made his escape hours later.

The "garroting" strangulation, cord around the wrist, duct tape over mouth, and the RN were all elements of staging. The use of the paintbrush handle on the vagina possibly was also staging.
An intruder has no reason to stage a crime scene to look like the work of an intruder.

But isn't that like reading tealeaves when we absolutely do not know many of these things.

Who is to say he had never been in this home? We sure cant. Who can say for certain he didn't feel comfortable in a huge home with so many levels and turns with many places to remain undetected? Who is to say he didn't come into the home once he saw the Ramseys leave? For all we know he may have had a key to get in.

Why should he continue? He masterminded the crime of century! This was no simple murder this one was a target murder ...once he did it...his need was complete. How can he ever trump how shrewdly he manipulated this one? They are never going to catch him and he sits back in his home probably alone somewhere and throws his head back and laughs at all of us. imo

It certainly isn't logical either that parents would stage a scene and implicate themselves. It was their note pad...but they left it there......it was Patsy's paintbrush but they left it there. And the entire "pineapple like substances" is a red herring. They aren't even sure it is pineapple and JB had just gone to a Christmas party. And even if she did eat pineapple what does that mean? That one minute they are loving, nurturing parents... then went ballistic the next minute?

I have looked for evidence in this case for years that shows who killed JonBenet, still 10 years after extensive investigation we are no closer to that answer than 12-26-96. Imo there is absolutely no evidence at all to support that JB's brother did this or the parents. In fact we are at the same place. DA Lacy says there are no suspects at this time in the JBR case.

JMO of course.

Ocean

 

[magnolia]

You must not be looking in the right direction if you think there isnt any real evidence that links the ramseys.

Do you really believe running is a normal response, when your daughter is found dead in your home? No parent in the world that didnt have something to hide would run. They would want to help out as much as they could to find the killer.

I have put myself in the ramseys shoes. And guess what? And none of what they did was either logical or loving in any way shape or form. Sorry, try again.

Your right hiring an attorney means nothing. However, the girl was still dead in the house and your already on the defensive? Why would that be? And from then on hide behind your attorney like cowards.

Absolutely amazing. How can you possibly even begin to put yourself in the Ramsey's shoes?

 

[magnolia]

Good post doc, I think you nailed it with this one.

There are two kinds of IDI'ers.

One kind who don't want to reason but just want to accept.
LS said this and that. Judge Carnes said this and that.
They really don't want to delve into the case themselves.
Those people usually comes up with new suspects out of the blue, it's a long list by now, being a menber of 'Santa Barbara Tennis Center' is enought.
For those JMK fit the bill initially.
I really don't understand why those people come to a forum at all, it's all about accepting what some experts are saying as a package.

Another kind have elaborate schemes of what happened and a clear idea about how their suspect might look like. Those people are eager to understand the clues. They see the case much the same as RDI'ers and just read the clues in another way.
Those people seldom refers to LS and judge Carnes but come up with their own ideas.

I think the need to offend and insult people with an opposing opinion speaks for itself. What profile do you suggest fits the Grand Jury?

 

[julianne]

Magnolia, OceanBlueEyes, & Aspidistra--

Good points! The people who had and have the ability to prosecute the Ramseys have never been able to do so. That can not be refuted.

Kayebee--
you posted: "I agree with you that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from an unwillingness to believe that this kind of crime could occur among the white and the wealthy."

Au contraire....I think that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from the fact that in the last 10 years, they have never been charged with the crime! Don't you think THAT could quite possibly be a reason for reluctance????

FWIW, I have never heard anyone stating that the Ramsey's couldn't be guilty because they are white and wealthy. Never. I can admit I could be wrong, so if I am please direct me to a link.....

I respect your opinion and your right to post it---that's what healthy debate is all about.

We all know that evil lurks in this world. Evil knows no colors. I would still believe in the Ramseys innocence if the circumstances were the same except that they were black & poor, or black & wealthy, or white & poor. Their race and checking account balance doesn't play into this case at all--for me, anyway.

 

[BirdieBoo]

I have seen alot of people saying over the last week that an intruder murdered JBR. And that the ramseys loved their daughter or couldnt have brutally murdered her and then staged the scene.

Ok fine. Now put yourself in the ramseys shoes. If you knew beyond the shadows of doubt you were innocent and loved JBR with all your heart.

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice?

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead?

What loving parent would want to deal with a flight to Atlanta after the stress of your daughters death? Would you not want to stay and help?

Would you not feel compelled to tell LE that you would help in any way you could? Rather than run with your tail tucked between your legs.

Why would you feel insulted about a lie detector test by LE, when you want justice for your daughter and their the ones conducting the investigation?

Why would the only action you would take in your daughters death is legal action?

Why would you spill the beans on national TV, yet you wouldnt give LE the time of day?

Why would you have so many holes in your story each time you told them?

Would common sense not dictate, that if they clear us they can move on with the investigation?

Why would you try and play the victim?

When there was only one victim and that was JBR. LE was just doing their job.

I ask you these question because these are the actions taken by the wonderful, loving parents John and Patsy Ramsey. And these questions dont even scratch the surface of the love these parent showed to bring justice for JBR.

Forget any minute evidence of an intruder. Would these actions by loving
parents not spell out guilty?

And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys. That has been proven false. It just so happened out of everyone questioned things always seem to come ful circle and point to the ramseys.

I am a fence sitter...but leaning towards RDI more and more, in fact I had almost toppled when Karr was brought into the mix...which put me back on the fence because I wanted to see what came of that ( likely a bunch of nonsense now, I believe).

But, to see both sides, I will share my thoughts on why the Ramseys MAY have acted certain ways IF one of them was not involved:

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice? Like the VanDams, they may have felt that they had some other illegal thing to hide and that they may not have considered that they would be suspects, being very worried that they may also go to jail in addition to losing their daughter. Unlike the VanDams, who came clean about their swinging and pot smoking (IMO not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, certainly considered a bit unsavory by some) the Ramseys may have had some bigger secret or illegal (possibly business-related) activity to hide. This may not be unusual for a high-powered businessman IMO, there are a lot of corrupt ones in the world as we all know.

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead? Again, the same reason, Atlanta is also an international hub and may cause less notice of them than Denver, especially before their daughter's murder hit the media with the force it did.

Anyway, I will not answere every question individually, because the only answer I can come up with is that, in some way, for every single question, the answer seems to be the same: There was something to hide. Maybe that thing was not related to the murder, and maybe it was. Maybe the ransom note was for real and JonBenet WAS targeted because of John's business dealings. But those are just a few big maybe's in this whole case.

Another possibility is that the Ramseys just had such a HUGE sense of entitlement that they felt they should be naturally above suspicion.

(please excuse my typos, I am having trouble typing today)

 

[Jolynna]

"I would still believe in the Ramseys innocence if the circumstances were the same except that they were black & poor, or black & wealthy, or white & poor. Their race and checking account balance doesn't play into this case at all"

It might not matter to you. But where justice is concerned IT MATTERS.

I agree with all who have posted that if the Ramseys had been regular people, Patsy would have died in jail.

Whether or not a person is charged or found guilty or the length of that man's sentence, in my opinion, unfortunately probably depends as much on how much "justice" he can pay for, than upon anything he did or didn't do.

Even with the jury that he had, I do not believe OJ would be free to play golf had VanZandt and Harmon been the lawyers to represent him.

 

[sandraladeda]

Good points! The people who had and have the ability to prosecute the Ramseys have never been able to do so. That can not be refuted.

Kayebee--
you posted: "I agree with you that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from an unwillingness to believe that this kind of crime could occur among the white and the wealthy."

Au contraire....I think that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from the fact that in the last 10 years, they have never been charged with the crime! Don't you think THAT could quite possibly be a reason for reluctance????

FWIW, I have never heard anyone stating that the Ramsey's couldn't be guilty because they are white and wealthy. Never.

Why do you think the people who had and have the ability to prosecute the Ramseys have never been able to?

If you are talking about the DA's office, there was an unmistakeable bias in favor of protecting the Ramsey's by the DA's office in the early days of the the investigation which exists to this day. Instead of first considering the facts for or against the Rs, the DA's office bent over backwards to hand over information, extend unbelievable and unprecedented courtesies to the R's and their legal team, and therefore, how could they be prosecuted? If it were up to the BPD at the time, they WOULD have prosecuted the Rs. These are the same guys who followed up 5,300 phone tips (all about the Ramseys?), 4,800 letters (all about the Ramseys?), conducted 6,300 interviews (sure was a lot of Ramseys and Paughs!), and looked at 140 possible suspects (that's a lot of Ramseys and Paughs too)....they were frustrated by the DA's office at every turn. How many more phone tips, letters, interviews and suspects did the DA's office look at to come to a more accurate conclusion than the BPD? Their bias towards a connected rich white member of their community prevented them from doing their jobs.The reason they were not charged in 10 years is that there was no one in the DA's office with the objectivity and backbone to stand up to the Rs.

That is where rich and white comes in to play. The R's were a rich and white family with social and business connections in the legal community, and this is where being white and rich paid off for them.

Had they been a black or hispanic, heck, even white, blue collar family living in a trailer, do you think the DA's office would have bent over backwards to hand over every snippet of investigative information they demanded? Really? Do you think they would have avoided sitting for an interview for 4 months after the murder? Really?

imho....

 

[guppy]

> And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys.

Sorry, but they focused on the Ramseys and let JonBenet's killer alone, to enjoy his life uninterrupted by any pesky cops poking around. The only way we'll get justice from the BPD is if the killer forgets to look both ways before crossing a street and steps into the path of a Boulder Police cruiser.

 

[Jolynna]

Police investigators were not able to access even phone records.

You think every regular Joe can prevent this from happening?

I was able to have my ex-husband's bank and tax records subpoened over a property settlement dispute.

 

[julianne]

Why do you think the people who had and have the ability to prosecute the Ramseys have never been able to?

Because they didn't and haven't.

 

[sandraladeda]

Because they didn't and haven't.

gotcha, I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of my post.....

never mind....:chicken:

 

[K. Taylor]

Here are some items that have not been adequately explained.
1. The suitcase under the window.

Explained. Fleet White had moved the suitcase that morning when he was searching the basement and bent down to look for glass on the floor from the window John claimed he had broken the previous summer.

2. The fact that the alarm system was not on, admitted by the Ramseys - it was never on because they could not stand the false alarms and the piercing noise of it.

So? What part of that is not answered? You just answered it! The Rams said the alarm system wasn't on because they didn't turn it on.

3. The missing piece of the paintbrush, the cords and duct tape not linked to anything in the house.

Do you have a cite? Everything I've read lists that the cord, duct tape and brush were all found at the scene and linked both to Patsy's supplies and Patsy's purchase at the hardware store.

4. The young man Joe Barnhill saw walking toward the house around 5pm that night, whom he assumed was John Andrew Ramsey.

Could've been the relative of a neighbor walking to his relatives' house. He never even saw the young man enter the Ramsey house, just walking in that direction in the neighborhood at dinnertime on Christmas. You need more than that.

5. The cars seen around the neighbourhood at both parties, that were unaccounted for.

It was Christmas! First off, what is "accounted" for - do you know the cars of every single person who lives in and near your neighborhood? Secondly, I don't know about you, but in my neighborhood on Christmas it gets packed in some areas. People invite relatives over for the holidays and other people, like the Whites, have Christmas parties, so often driveways are filled with cars and cars get parked up and down the street.

6. I have not seen every teacher, every attendant at a pageant, publicly cleared, or even their names.

You don't determine who committed a crime by looking at everyone else in the world and eliminating them one by one. You look at the evidence and circumstances of the crime and see who had opprtunity.

7. The MO of the crime fits a sexual predator and a sophisticated sexual deviant. No one has shown any evidence at all that the Ramseys or their friends had that kind of knowledge or tendency.

Why? Because they're rich and white?

8. A mother would not put size 12 panties on her child.

Read Patsy's interview, quoted in the other threads. She admitted to putting those huge panties in JonBenet's room and giving them to her in the first place. Where do you think JB got them? So Patsy's own words contradict your assertion.

Or write a ransom note in her own hand.

Why? Exactly what evidence are you basing that on that it was impossible? Because us RDIer's base it on the actual evidence that the writing is very similar to Patsy's and was made using her pen and her notepad, and we know Patsy was in the house when JonBenet died. Aside from a "feeling" that a mother wouldn't that, what else do you have?

Or stab her daughter's vagina with a broken paintbrush. A mother like this would have quite a different psychological makeup than Patsy Ramsey. She'd be a slob, a deviant and mentally ill. There was no sign of that in Patsy.

What actual psychological basis do you have for that assertion?

Diane Downs, Susan Smith and Darlie Routier were all considered average moms who had no history of previously abusing their kids or anyone else. Their kids were clean and normal and well taken care of.

Again, IDIers seem to believe that all criminals are easily spottable. As if you can tell an abuser, pedophile or murderer just by looking at them because all of them "look crazy." That's a nice thought and it would be great if it would true, but it's not true. Ann Rule has written about the "Bushy Haired Stranger," i.e. the bogeyman people want to believe commits all crimes so they don't have to deal with the reality that their loved ones or people they know would do something evil.

BTW, we don't have to guess as to what the parent of an intruder abducted child would do. We have Marc Klaas who showed us: his daughter was abducted from their home and he was under suspicion. We have John Walsh. How did Jessica Lunsford's dad act?

 

[guppy]

> BTW, we don't have to guess as to what the parent of an intruder abducted child would do. We have Marc Klaas who showed us: his daughter was abducted from their home and he was under suspicion. We have John Walsh. How did Jessica Lunsford's dad act?

Klass had two witnesses to the abduction who said a weird dirty guy with a beard who wasn't Mark Klass kidnapped Polly.

 

[K. Taylor]

Klass had two witnesses to the abduction who said a weird dirty guy with a beard who wasn't Mark Klass kidnapped Polly.

The witnesses were two frightened children, and Mark Klaas was not present in the home at the time because he was divorced from Polly's mother. Since most kidnappings are committed by a non-custodial parent, he was under suspicion because he could have either disguised himself or hired someone to kidnap his daughter. He was ruled out because both he and his ex-wife immediately made themselves available to the police and took polygraphs. Mark literally sat down and told the police that he would do anything they asked so they could clear him quickly and move on to finding the real kidnapper.

 

[julianne]

gotcha, I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of my post.....

never mind....:chicken:

Actually, I did read the rest of your post. Out of 3 questions you posed, I answered the first one. The other 2, I simply chose not to respond to because they were speculative and your questions really added nothing to forward the thread, therefore neither would my answers to your questions.

Nice chicken, lol.....
Magnolia said it best---"The need to offend and insult people with an opposing opinion speaks for itself." It really does.

Although I appreciate your endeavor, I am not offended or insulted. Just humored.:crazy: :crazy:

Ooops, my mistake! After reading your tagline under your hat, I see that all you do is done in love. So, for that, thank you.

 

[Rachael]

I do not know who killed JonBenet. I will not pretend that I do know. I guess in some ways I just don't want it to be the parents because it is very hard for me to fathom why they would go to such extent to cover up an accident. If my husband or I accidentally hurt one of our children we would call 911 as quick as humanly possible. If the Ramsey's are responsible for JonBenet's death I feel it was an accident. I also have a hard time believing Patsy would cover for John or John would cover for Patsy. I would never cover for my husband regardless of what we would lose. The only person I could see John and Patsy covering for is Burke (if there was an accident). I hate to even say that though. If it was an intruder IMO it had to be someone who knew the family well because to me the ransom note seemed quite "personal". Just my opinion though.

 

[Zelda]

"Quote:
8. A mother would not put size 12 panties on her child."
from K. Taylor's post above.

Maybe Patsy Ramsey used the size 12 underpants over some type of diaper to help keep the diaper in place.

Size 12 underpants would slip off a child -- unless they were covering something -- or something covered them.

 

[Jolynna]

8. A mother would not put size 12 panties on her child."
from K. Taylor's post above.

Maybe Patsy Ramsey used the size 12 underpants over some type of diaper to help keep the diaper in place.

Size 12 underpants would slip off a child -- unless they were covering something -- or something covered them.

This would make sense except that when questioned Patsy said that all of the underpants in JonBenet's drawer were size 6 to 8. (actually all of the panties in the panty drawer were size 4-6)

--Panty info from Patsy's interview with Kane in 2000.

If Patsy used size 12 underpants because of bulky diapers why not say so?
It is not the kind of information a mother would be likely to forget.

 

[K. Taylor]

How do you know the perp returned to JB's bedroom to retrieve her favorite gown? Is it not possible, it was mere happenstance the gown was JB's favorite?

Because it was next to her body.

Let's take your scenario that this intruder just grabbed any old nightgown and leave aside the issue of it being her favorite. Regardless, that still meant he went to her bedroom and got it. When and how do you think he did that? Do you think he killed her and left her in the cellar and then went back upstairs to her bedroom to get the nightgown, a towel to wipe JB down with, and the oversized panties from a package in her bathroom? How did he do all that without waking anybody up, turning on a light, making a noise? And why take that risk when her parents and brother were sleeping a short distance away? If it was an intruder, why bother redressing JonBenet at all?

What about the pen and pad and paintbrush and rope and tape? When did he retrieve those? Was it when he was hiding in the house while they were at the party? If so, how do you explain where the intruder knew to get all those things (which are fairly obscure items) in a house with a complicated floor plan and not disturb anything? I'm not even talking about footprints in a carpet, but I mean not even leaving any fingerprints or moving any other objects in the house. In your own house, if I asked you for a pen, would you be able to produce one without touching anything else? Most people I know would have to move at least a couple of things to get a pen from a drawer, etc. And that's in their own house: tell them to find a pen or a paintbrush or a roll of tape in someone else's house and they would probably be rummaging around in drawers, checking shelves, etc. And those weren't items that were all grouped together in the Ramsey house either, they would require visits to several different rooms. Those are misc. items most people have in their garages, closets, junk drawers, etc. not anything that is easily found or apparent in most homes. A refrigerator, sure, that would be easily found in anyone's house - but a pen? Duct tape? Why would the intruder even risk entering the home without some security of a weapon or at least his own tape if he was going to restrain JonBenet? Why he take the chance that he couldn't find or that the Ramseys even had tape or rope?

Remember that Patsy said that when they got home she undressed and changed JonBenet's clothes and also went into the bathroom. If the intruder took that stuff before the Rams got home, wouldn't you think Patsy - dressing JonBenet for bed - would notice that a nightgown was missing? Wouldn't Patsy notice the opened package of undies in the bathroom? And when Patsy and John went to bed, wouldn't they have noticed that their room appeared to be amiss or that someone appeared to have gone through their desk?

These are honest questions that I'd like to see an IDIer answer. Instead of looking at the evidence only in how the Ramseys didn't do it, I'd like to hear an IDI that actually attempts to explain such questions as the above in an entire intruder scenario: what, how and when do you think the intruder did such things as the above, got JB to the basement, wrote and left the note, exited, etc.? Like a step-by-step, "I think the intruder entered via *advertiser censored* at *advertiser censored* time," and on from there.

 

[julianne]

Because it was next to her body.

Let's take your scenario that this intruder just grabbed any old nightgown and leave aside the issue of it being her favorite. Regardless, that still meant he went to her bedroom and got it. When and how do you think he did that? Do you think he killed her and left her in the cellar and then went back upstairs to her bedroom to get the nightgown, a towel to wipe JB down with, and the oversized panties from a package in her bathroom? How did he do all that without waking anybody up, turning on a light, making a noise? And why take that risk when her parents and brother were sleeping a short distance away? If it was an intruder, why bother redressing JonBenet at all?

What about the pen and pad and paintbrush and rope and tape? When did he retrieve those? Was it when he was hiding in the house while they were at the party? If so, how do you explain where the intruder knew to get all those things (which are fairly obscure items) in a house with a complicated floor plan and not disturb anything? I'm not even talking about footprints in a carpet, but I mean not even leaving any fingerprints or moving any other objects in the house. In your own house, if I asked you for a pen, would you be able to produce one without touching anything else? Most people I know would have to move at least a couple of things to get a pen from a drawer, etc. And that's in their own house: tell them to find a pen or a paintbrush or a roll of tape in someone else's house and they would probably be rummaging around in drawers, checking shelves, etc. And those weren't items that were all grouped together in the Ramsey house either, they would require visits to several different rooms. Those are misc. items most people have in their garages, closets, junk drawers, etc. not anything that is easily found or apparent in most homes. A refrigerator, sure, that would be easily found in anyone's house - but a pen? Duct tape? Why would the intruder even risk entering the home without some security of a weapon or at least his own tape if he was going to restrain JonBenet? Why he take the chance that he couldn't find or that the Ramseys even had tape or rope?

Remember that Patsy said that when they got home she undressed and changed JonBenet's clothes and also went into the bathroom. If the intruder took that stuff before the Rams got home, wouldn't you think Patsy - dressing JonBenet for bed - would notice that a nightgown was missing? Wouldn't Patsy notice the opened package of undies in the bathroom? And when Patsy and John went to bed, wouldn't they have noticed that their room appeared to be amiss or that someone appeared to have gone through their desk?

These are honest questions that I'd like to see an IDIer answer. Instead of looking at the evidence only in how the Ramseys didn't do it, I'd like to hear an IDI that actually attempts to explain such questions as the above in an entire intruder scenario: what, how and when do you think the intruder did such things as the above, got JB to the basement, wrote and left the note, exited, etc.? Like a step-by-step, "I think the intruder entered via *advertiser censored* at *advertiser censored* time," and on from there.

Why are you placing such strict parameters on how you want replies to this post? I don't have an entire scenario, because I don't know what happened that night, and neither do you. I wasn't there and neither were you. I don't have all the answers and neither do you.

Now, with that being said, I will respond to a few of your questions, but I will remove the requirements of how you want replies posted and will simply reply as I wish...

RE: The nightgown
We don't know for a fact that the perp is the person who removed the nightgown from the bedroom. We just don't KNOW that.

RE: The redressing
The fact that JonBenet was redressed does not implicate her parents as being the perps, from a logical and legal standpoint, it just doesn't prove their guilt.

RE: Pen, Pad, Paintbrush, Rope & Tape
You ask when the perp gathered these items & if it was when the Ramseys were at the party. Answer--probably. And yes, it was a complicated floor plan and large house. You said these are obscure items, and I beg to differ with you. What is so obscure about them? They're very basic household items--so basic, in fact, that I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of homes contain these "obscure" items. I think I could probably locate these items in a strange house if given time. Hmmm...pen & pad of paper....either by the phone (in lots of homes) or in the office. The others would most likely be kept in a garage or cellar.

RE: How could the intruder not leave any fingerprints?
One word......gloves.

RE: Why would the intruder enter the house w/o the security of weapon?
How do you know the intruder DIDN'T have a weapon? You don't. I don't.

RE: Wouldn't Patsy notice the nightgown missing?
Well, if it was indeed missing at that time, no, I don't necessarily think it would be noticed. I have children. In putting my children to bed, I don't take inventory of their clothing. My kids each have hundreds of articles of clothing, and if I am not actively searching for one particular piece of clothing, then how can I know it's not there? Especially when it's late at night. Nothing states Patsy was looking for the nightgown and couldn't find it. If she wasn't actively looking for it, then it is both plausible and probable that she wouldn't notice if it was missing.

RE: Wouldn't Patsy notice the opened package of undies?
Maybe, maybe not. Not if that opened package of undies was in a drawer. Again, however, we don't know if that package of undies was open at the time she was getting JonBenet to bed. We don't know.

RE: Wouldn't JR & PR notice someone had been going through their desk or had been in their room?
Do we have proof that someone went through their desk? Seriously, I honestly don't know that we do. And IF someone DID go through their desk, I think that it is highly possible that it could've been done without them knowing it. My own desk is very neat on the outside, very minimalistic as far as decor on the outside of it. Inside my desk drawers is another story. Anything that can be "rifled" through is located IN my desk and not ON my desk--therefore, in order for me know if someone has been rummaging through my desk, I need to open drawers and cabinets to look. Do we know what type of desk the Ramseys had? Was it a rolltop desk? If so, that makes it even easier to say that it's plausible they didn't know if someone had been in there, unless they actually rolled up the rolltop portion to look.

The above is my opinion only. That's all anybody here really has as far as motives, modus operandi, and who the guilty party(ies) is or are. Judging from past RDI responses, this post will most likely irritate, aggravate and generally inflame those who are convinced they have all the answers, and for that I say....................it's just a post on a message board. Don't let it raise your blood pressure.