Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

BUT, it then comes down to likelihood. Which is more likely: it's hers, which we know was there, or someone else's, who might have been there who-knows-how-long ago?

Dave, we'd have to break the laws of mathematics to arrive @ your so-called "likelihood." The hair wasn't sourced & we have no way of quantifying the other factors you mention. It simply has never been sourced, and we both know LE tried. It's a little pebble of RDI doubt for me.

 

[BBB167893]

I read the deposition. She did not say they were hers.

She didn't say anything then. She just swooned like she was going to faint. No, I'm talking about her 48 Hours interview two years later.

The thing is that if Patsy fibers were on her that is completely normal.

I've made my statement.

If they were strange fibers that can not be sourced to the R's or anyone in that house, That is a problem and shows that it is more than just possible someone who was an UNKNOWN was there and hurt her.

It shows nothing of the kind, necessarily.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes. I do. There is nothing documented that is proven to be anything that would lead to this crime. They were good parents. They took good care of their children.

Scarlett, I'm kind of at a loss to explain my statement without seeming hardhearted, so all I'll say is that "nothing documented" does not mean "nothing."

They were not cold blooded killers.

I never said they WERE, Scarlett. If that's the hurdle we have to get past, I'll be more than happy to talk it out with you. (Maybe on another thread)

I have no problem believing parents out there hurt and kill their kids. It is sickening but I am not blind to it. I know it happens. I know it happens all too often.

You could have fooled me.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

There is nothing in this case, Or before this case that shows them to be abusive, or dangerous to their children. Nothing that is real and factual.

Call it a hunch, then.

 

[BBB167893]

No it is not. The fibers are there in the house, They could have been picked up any time.

HOW?? PR said she never went down to the basement with those clothes on, so how could they end up on items she claims were never in the house before the killing?

However the other fibers don't have a source. They could have been left there by the killer. That can not be discounted.

Neither can the possibility that they have nothing to do with it. Don't believe what you see on TV, Scarlett. I have yet to see a case where every single thing "clicked" together as kosher as it does in Hollywood. There's always going to be artifacts left over.

Not if you are really looking at the facts.

My feelings EXACTLY!

 

[Mama2JML]

During Kolar's 08.04.2013 interview on True Crime Radio, he mentioned injuries on JonBenet's neck. He suggested she scratched & struggled as she was being strangled.

 

[Mama2JML]

Don't lecture me, Mama2JML. I've probably forgotten more about this case than most people will ever learn. And frankly, I look at it exactly the opposite way.

Do I sense a condescending tone? Arrogant much? How charming...

Speak for yourself.

If you wanted a speculative "likelihood" based on assumptions made by anonymous sources in 1999, then you shouldn't have asked.

 

[txsvicki]

During Kolar's 08.04.2013 interview on True Crime Radio, he mentioned injuries on JonBenet's neck. He suggested she scratched & struggled as she was being strangled.

I didn't hear the radio show, but read in his book that it was suggested by Cyril Wecht as a twisting of the shirt and her scratching at the neck as happening first, then the head bash before the garrotte. That scenario could fit intruder or family. Someone still having hold of her shirt, or just being right there could prevent impact injuries from falling and bruising. If JonBenet slumped onto someone's boots, that might explain the beaver hair in her hand. I just wasn't sure if Kolar thought she scratched her neck or Cyril thought it happened. Was there enough of JonBenet's dna under her nails to have done that?

 

[Mama2JML]

I didn't hear the radio show, but read in his book that it was suggested by Cyril Wecht as a twisting of the shirt and her scratching at the neck as happening first, then the head bash before the garrotte. That scenario could fit intruder or family. Someone still having hold of her shirt, or just being right there could prevent impact injuries from falling and bruising. If JonBenet slumped onto someone's boots, that might explain the beaver hair in her hand. I just wasn't sure if Kolar thought she scratched her neck or Cyril thought it happened. Was there enough of JonBenet's dna under her nails to have done that?

I don't recall Kolar mentioning Wecht.

One hand's fingernails revealed JonBenet's DNA profile, in full, & the other revealed a partial profile from which she couldn't be excluded. The presence of bacteria might account for the partial profile.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

HOW?? PR said she never went down to the basement with those clothes on, so how could they end up on items she claims were never in the house before the killing?



Neither can the possibility that they have nothing to do with it. Don't believe what you see on TV, Scarlett. I have yet to see a case where every single thing "clicked" together as kosher as it does in Hollywood. There's always going to be artifacts left over.



My feelings EXACTLY!

Of course she did, At some point.. Or wore them in the house and things would be tracked all over. Any fiber belonging to her just means she had those clothes on at some point. Nothing more.

I don't know what TV has to do with this.
The fibers that are not sourced can not be discounted because they were found on JBR and the tape that was on her mouth. I can not remember the exact count but there are fibers that don't have anything to do with the R's.

If you have evidence that is not sourced to an R it then becomes evidence that someone else could have been there that night. More than a possibility a probability. It has to be sourced to know for sure.
That along with the DNA that is not the R's.

There is another breakin 8 months later and that person is never caught. He molests a little girl and her mother comes in and SEES him. This little girl is connected to JBR by a dance school. Had her mother not come in, I am so glad her mother came in and scared him off but if she had not, We could have seen more similarities here. This person is not out of the realm of suspects.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, I'm kind of at a loss to explain my statement without seeming hardhearted, so all I'll say is that "nothing documented" does not mean "nothing."



I never said they WERE, Scarlett. If that's the hurdle we have to get past, I'll be more than happy to talk it out with you. (Maybe on another thread)



You could have fooled me.:banghead::banghead::banghead:



Call it a hunch, then.

Hunches mean nothing. They are not factual. Just opinion.

What matters is what can be proven. What is evidence and what is not.

 

[Mama2JML]

Hunches mean nothing. They are not factual. Just opinion.

What matters is what can be proven. What is evidence and what is not.

True, Scarlett. Investigators got stuck on their "hunches", and here we are today @ square 1. Ugh...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

True, Scarlett. Investigators got stuck on their "hunches", and here we are today @ square 1. Ugh...

Yep. I agree. A lot of what they thought happened instead of following facts only.

I can not help but believe had the police that day preserved that crime scene, Searched that house from top to bottom, WE may know who indeed did this. If the police had discovered Jonbenet as they should have, WE would have had a lot more evidence I believe.

 

[Mama2JML]

Of course she did, At some point.. Or wore them in the house and things would be tracked all over. Any fiber belonging to her just means she had those clothes on at some point. Nothing more.

I don't know what TV has to do with this.
The fibers that are not sourced can not be discounted because they were found on JBR and the tape that was on her mouth. I can not remember the exact count but there are fibers that don't have anything to do with the R's.

If you have evidence that is not sourced to an R it then becomes evidence that someone else could have been there that night. More than a possibility a probability. It has to be sourced to know for sure.
That along with the DNA that is not the R's.

There is another breakin 8 months later and that person is never caught. He molests a little girl and her mother comes in and SEES him. This little girl is connected to JBR by a dance school. Had her mother not come in, I am so glad her mother came in and scared him off but if she had not, We could have seen more similarities here. This person is not out of the realm of suspects.

You are absolutely correct, Scarlett.

RE: Patsy's fibers being found in various locations, I don't believe SD has proven this at all.

 

[Mama2JML]

Yep. I agree. A lot of what they thought happened instead of following facts only.

I can not help but believe had the police that day preserved that crime scene, Searched that house from top to bottom, WE may know who indeed did this. If the police had discovered Jonbenet as they should have, WE would have had a lot more evidence I believe.

I believe LE scoured that house. They had weeks to collect evidence. RDI tunnel vision took over & simple protocol was neglected; NO neighborhood canvass in the 1st 24 hours.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe LE scoured that house. They had weeks to collect evidence. RDI tunnel vision took over & simple protocol was neglected; NO neighborhood canvass in the 1st 24 hours.

They had all the time but so much evidence had to be lost in letting people walk all over, sending John to search was ludicrous.
I think there is a lot they missed even with the time allowed.

 

[wonderllama]

They had all the time but so much evidence had to be lost in letting people walk all over, sending John to search was ludicrous.
I think there is a lot they missed even with the time allowed.

Why would you say it was ludicrous?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why would you say it was ludicrous?

Because it was their job to search the house. It is one thing to go with an homeowner and ask if anything is missing, upset, but to just send him searching through the house where a kidnapping happen alone? that is a ludicrous act. It should never ever have been done.

 

[cherisa]

I have always been a RDI, however, seeing as of late how they won't even discuss other people, I'm inclined to change my mind. I'm wondering if the LE acted much like they do and won't answer questions, condescend every chance they get? no one will ever serve time over this murder, so what does it matter? What's with the hair that was found in her hand?

 

[Mama2JML]

I have always been a RDI, however, seeing as of late how they won't even discuss other people, I'm inclined to change my mind. I'm wondering if the LE acted much like they do and won't answer questions, condescend every chance they get? no one will ever serve time over this murder, so what does it matter? What's with the hair that was found in her hand?

There's not a lot of information in the public domain regarding the animal hair found on JB's hands, but this excerpt from Lou Smit's deposition (Wolf v. R) gives some insight:

Q. I want to ask you whether there were a number of fibers found at the crime scene -- being the house, JonBenet's body, her clothing, the blanket -- a number of fibers that were found that have never been identified or sourced to any item or individual.

A. Yes. There are many fibers, unexplained fibers, without a source found not only on the body of JonBenet but on the duct tape, on the bindings, also on the broken piece of the paintbrush. There are many, numerous fibers found at the crime scene that have not been explained.

Q. And does that include brown cotton fibers?

A. Yes. Brown cotton fibers are found on the broken piece of the paintbrush. Brown cotton fibers are found on the duct tape, on the ligature, and on the body of JonBenet. There are also hairs found.

Q. What type of hairs?

A. There are animal hairs that are found. There is a supposed beaver hair that is on the duct tape. There are also animal hairs found on her hand.

Q. On JonBenet's hand?

A. On JonBenet's hand.

Q. Sourced to any item in the house or any individual in the house?

A. Sourced to no animal in the house or any item in the house.

Q. Any effort made to try to ascertain whether there was any beaver hair or other type of animal hairs in the house since the initial days of investigation by the Boulder Police Department?

A. Yes. When we were at the Ramsey residence in the summer of 1997, Detective Ainsworth did actually take tape and taped the floors and all of the closets of the Ramsey home to see if there was any source in the closets of any type of animal hair, and he found none. Also the animal hairs were dark in color, brown and dark in color.

Q. These were not white animal hairs?

A. These were not white animal hairs. This is not also generally known to the public.

*********

There are blue fibers, a pubic/ancillary hair, and beaver hair that were found as well. There may be more that hasn't been released re: hairs & fibers.

 

[Mama2JML]

^^^The Rs' dog had white fur.