Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[tezi]

The GJ indictment does not have anything to do with that. It is just about is there enough evidence to take them to trial for murder and the answer was no. There were no murder charges leveled against the R's.


Remember this is the IDI thread, We are allowed to not support RDI theories here. It is about OTHER theories than that.

I am not an IDI. I am a person that believe that the Ramseys did not commit this crime.

Time and time again your remind us that an intruder did this crime, but yet you say you are NOT an IDI? Then, what are you? A Ramsey apologist?

 

[tezi]

Steve Thomas Depo (CW vs. Rs):

"Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas, if you would look at page 152 of your book. Next to the last paragraph, it ends "'I believe she wrote it.'.Ubowski had recently told one detective "'I believe she wrote it.'" Who was --

A. Yeah, may I read the paragraph?

Q. Yeah, I want to find out who that detective is.

A. I believe that's Trujillo and Wickman who made that statement, specifically Wickman, which John Eller certainly also heard.

Q. Anybody else?

A. I think this was Tom Koby. This was that meeting I described in a vehicle at the parking lot of the shopping mall, Koby, Eller, Wickman, Trujillo, and I don't know whether or not that's on tape.

Q. But isn't the bottom line that Chet Ubowski made it very clear that, whatever his beliefs were, he was not in a position from his standpoint to state under oath that Patsy Ramsey was the author within any degree of certainty; isn't that what he told you, sir?

A. No, the conduit was Wickman who said something very similar to that that he couldn't get on the stand and testify to it.

Q. And that never changed while you were there, did it, that Ubowski would not get on the stand and testify to it, right?

A. Yeah, as far as I know Ubowski never took the stand and testified to it.

Q. And it was always your understanding that he said that he was not in a position to do so from an opinion standpoint; isn't that true?

A. To take the stand?

Q. He would not go under oath and testify that Patsy Ramsey within reasonable certainty was the author of the note?

A. Well, the reasonable certainty I recall I think it was Mr. Ubowski speaking at the VIP presentation and I would like to see a transcript of that because I thought --

Q. I thought maybe --

A. -- his answer or his remarks were fairly strong there. But no, he was obviously not in a position to take the stand and make that identification in court.

Q. Am I right, maybe I went over this and I apologize, did Mr. Ubowski in his report say "There is evidence which indicates that the ransom note may have been written by Patsy Ramsey but the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion." That's Mr. Ubowski's opinion, right?

A. That's his formal report opinion.

Q. Did you ever know that opinion to change before August of 1998 when you left?

A. To get stronger or weaker?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Had you seen that article from KCNC from April 10, 2000, before I just showed it to you today?

A. No, as I've said, I wasn't aware that Mr. Ubowski was retracting any statements prior to you're making me aware of that today.

Q. If this is correct Mr. Ubowski is in fact stating on April 10, 2000 that he denies saying that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note and that he, the claim that 24 of the alphabet's 26 letters looked like -- looked as if they had been written by Patsy is denied as the lab does not quantify like that? You have never heard those statements made by the CBI before I showed you this KCNC report today?

A. No, as I have said, no."

I got my facts mixed up. Kithcart who worked at the BPD said Patsy wrote the note. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[tezi]

We have news reports, depositions, DNA in two places that match...

Again this is the place for us who do not believe RDI to talk about the case. There are a lot of RDI threads if you don't believe that someone other than they did it.

No one is trying to persuade anyone.

BBM: That is right. And also include this is a place for folks to post links to blogs that say innocent people (friends of the Ramseys, to this day), killed JonBenet. I remember that link very well. It should have never been posted, but yet, it was.

DNA, which is at best a secondary transfer.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM: That is right. And also include this is a place for folks to post links to blogs that say innocent people (friends of the Ramseys, to this day), killed JonBenet. I remember that link very well. It should have never been posted, but yet, it was.

DNA, which is at best a secondary transfer.

JMO

It was not transfer. And there is no proof of that. IT is just another way to discount to the two different places the SAME dna showed up. DNA mingled with JBR and left in one place alone not mingled.. It is strong evidence it was not transfer but left that night.

 

[TroyinTX]

If the RDI theorists didn't post in this thread, it would become stagnant. Because I mentioned earlier, IDI certainly aren't putting forward any scenarios or collaborating to explain the countless questions raised that signify the Ramsey's were involved somehow. Seriously, what are some "other opinions" as the thread title suggests rather than an unknown intruder? It'd be a different story if this thread was booming with other opinions.

They just say things like: Well, I know the Ramsey's didn't do it. Or, I don't believe this person or that. Or, the DNA is the only thing that matters. They ignore the opinions of people who worked on the case and who were actually THERE.

So, I say RDI's leave this thread; there would really be no posting left going on it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the RDI theorists didn't post in this thread, it would become stagnant. Because I mentioned earlier, IDI certainly aren't putting forward any scenarios or collaborating to explain the countless questions raised that signify the Ramsey's were involved somehow. Seriously, what are some "other opinions" as the thread title suggests rather than an unknown intruder? It'd be a different story if this thread was booming with other opinions.

They just say things like: Well, I know the Ramsey's didn't do it. Or, I don't believe this person or that. Or, the DNA is the only thing that matters. They ignore the opinions of people who worked on the case and who were actually THERE.

So, I say RDI's leave this thread; there would really be no posting left going on it.

This is a thread for us to explore Other theories not RDI. It would not become stagnant because we have evidence and thoughts about the case that do not have anything to do with RDI.

I believe the Ramseys did not do this. I see ample evidence of that.
What I don't understand is the need to convince someone else to believe as another does. If you don't believe that someone other than the R's did it, There are a kagillion other threads to discuss that. I just don't see how one little thread that discusses other possibilities is a problem for anyone.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I got my facts mixed up. Kithcart who worked at the BPD said Patsy wrote the note. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me.

Kithcart who is no expert just assumed that it was someone that was in the house.

The experts that looked at it 3 out of 4 said it was NOT Patsy, The 4th said He did not think it was Patsy but that he could not tell for sure.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-4...&q=kithcart says patsy wrote the note&f=false

There is nothing that ever said that Patsy wrote the note with any real proof. Nothing. IT has all been urban rumor and lies to make her look like a monster.

OMO

 

[TroyinTX]

This is a thread for us to explore Other theories not RDI. It would not become stagnant because we have evidence and thoughts about the case that do not have anything to do with RDI.

I believe the Ramseys did not do this. I see ample evidence of that.
What I don't understand is the need to convince someone else to believe as another does. If you don't believe that someone other than the R's did it, There are a kagillion other threads to discuss that. I just don't see how one little thread that discusses other possibilities is a problem for anyone.

I have ZERO problem with this thread. My point was that looking through it, is blatantly obvious that the RDI posters are the ones keeping the conversation going. I do not see much interaction between IDI's at all.

But carry on. I'll post in the RDI threads, because, well, they did. (IMO, of course)

 

[Mama2JML]

If the RDI theorists didn't post in this thread, it would become stagnant. Because I mentioned earlier, IDI certainly aren't putting forward any scenarios or collaborating to explain the countless questions raised that signify the Ramsey's were involved somehow.

I have researched many questions raised, and I post my findings.

Seriously, what are some "other opinions" as the thread title suggests rather than an unknown intruder? It'd be a different story if this thread was booming with other opinions.

The intent of this thread is not to defend the Ramseys, past DAs, Lou Smit, etc. We would like to discuss the case, itself, and offer our perspective & opinions.

They just say things like: Well, I know the Ramsey's didn't do it. Or, I don't believe this person or that. Or, the DNA is the only thing that matters. They ignore the opinions of people who worked on the case and who were actually THERE.

So, I say RDI's leave this thread; there would really be no posting left going on it.

I have not actively posted here, @ WS, for more than a few weeks, but attempts to engage in real case discussion have been made.

Recently, Scarlett has tried engaging in a discussion about the "Amy attacker" in an effort to compare the two cases. Someone posted that Amy's attacker was identified as her boyfriend, thus, the 'mystery' has been resolved. I'd love to check this possible POI off the list of potential suspects, but no source was shared. So, Scarlett contacted the investigator (R.W. Peterson) who had been hired by Amy's family. According to Peterson, Amy's case has not been solved. This angle should be investigated, IMO.

I have suspicions about other possible suspects; some well-known POIs, some not. However, IDIs have been warned, on numerous occasions; We are not to discuss our suspicions about non-Ramseys. Are we allowed to discuss POIs, if we don't identify them by name or obvious initials?

 

[wonderllama]

I really have no interest in ST book. I feel like he made up his mind and led the investigation that way rather than investigated and then looked to see where it led.

Even people who are RDI read books and examine information from people who aren't RDI.

I think you do yourself a disservice by simply dismissing ST's book and probably Kolar's book too? (Apologies if you have read Kolar's book).

When people so easily dismiss dissenting views to their own...well, I've made my point.

 

[momof4ws]

This is a thread for us to explore Other theories not RDI. It would not become stagnant because we have evidence and thoughts about the case that do not have anything to do with RDI.

I believe the Ramseys did not do this. I see ample evidence of that.
What I don't understand is the need to convince someone else to believe as another does. If you don't believe that someone other than the R's did it, There are a kagillion other threads to discuss that. I just don't see how one little thread that discusses other possibilities is a problem for anyone.

You say "ample evidence" that a Ramsey didn't do it. Will you site all the "ample evidence" that you found.... with sources? All I have heard you talk about is the TOUCH DNA found in Jonbenet's underwear. Ample means ALOT...so what is the other evidence? I'm curious...maybe I missed something.

 

[Anyhoo]

If the RDI theorists didn't post in this thread, it would become stagnant. Because I mentioned earlier, IDI certainly aren't putting forward any scenarios or collaborating to explain the countless questions raised that signify the Ramsey's were involved somehow. Seriously, what are some "other opinions" as the thread title suggests rather than an unknown intruder? It'd be a different story if this thread was booming with other opinions.

They just say things like: Well, I know the Ramsey's didn't do it. Or, I don't believe this person or that. Or, the DNA is the only thing that matters. They ignore the opinions of people who worked on the case and who were actually THERE.

So, I say RDI's leave this thread; there would really be no posting left going on it.

In case you did not hear mine, it goes something like this: No Ramsey killed JB directly but they know who did and why. It's not IDI and not RDI. It allows for the parents indirect involvement in the death of their daughter. It says the parents are purposely covering up for the murderer to protect both him and theirselves from being exposed for what they really are. It also allows for the DNA to be from the murderer.

 

[Mama2JML]

In case you did not hear mine, it goes something like this: No Ramsey killed JB directly but they know who did and why. It's not IDI and not RDI. It allows for the parents indirect involvement in the death of their daughter. It says the parents are purposely covering up for the murderer to protect both him and theirselves from being exposed for what they really are. It also allows for the DNA to be from the murderer.

Have you read Singular's book?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Even people who are RDI read books and examine information from people who aren't RDI.

I think you do yourself a disservice by simply dismissing ST's book and probably Kolar's book too? (Apologies if you have read Kolar's book).

When people so easily dismiss dissenting views to their own...well, I've made my point.

I know their point of view, see the evidence people pull from their books to support their theories but in the end it is just the opinion of the author.

It does not have to be accurate information and will be provided with their personal spin to support their theory. I have not interest in giving them a dime.

I know their theories..

I believe there is ample evidence that someone else committed this crime, Or had the opportunity too. I believe that DNA supports someone that broke in there and killed her. I believe that the intruder that attacked Amy that was never found, Is a good link. No it is not the same exact mo but in this case her mother came in and so he was thwarted. We don't know what would have happened if she had not.

I look for all the facts myself. I find a lot of things taken for fact that started as a line in a book, Or as someone else's opinion and has morphed into a "fact".

I have a hard time getting good clear information but am always looking. If I had found clear evidence of the R's being responsible I would have no problem supporting that.

I am not blind, I am not in denial. I just see too much that points to an intruder that has never been refuted.

 

[Darlene733510]

Last night on CNN there was a story about a man named Michael Morton, who was imprisoned for 25 years for killing his wife. About 100 yards from her residence there was a bandana found with blood and a hair on it. The DA refused to have this item tested. There was a court order to have this item tested. The blood belonged to another man, and he was arrested and prosecuted. Mr. Martin was freed from prison.
This is a good example of what happens when a DA hides evidence. What would happen if the JB case was re-opened? How much information did AH hide, and refuse to be presented to the GJ? We know that Kolar presented his investigative material, and it was ignored.
If only we knew, there may be no doubt about what happened. Of course, we have a DA in CO now who doesn't have the guts to get to the bottom of this case. One man amongst many who have let JBR down.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Last night on CNN there was a story about a man named Michael Morton, who was imprisoned for 25 years for killing his wife. About 100 yards from her residence there was a bandana found with blood and a hair on it. The DA refused to have this item tested. There was a court order to have this item tested. The blood belonged to another man, and he was arrested and prosecuted. Mr. Martin was freed from prison.
This is a good example of what happens when a DA hides evidence. What would happen if the JB case was re-opened? How much information did AH hide, and refuse to be presented to the GJ? We know that Kolar presented his investigative material, and it was ignored.
If only we knew, there may be no doubt about what happened. Of course, we have a DA in CO now who doesn't have the guts to get to the bottom of this case. One man amongst many who have let JBR down.

I don't think AH hid anything. I think more likely it was bad police work from the beginning. I hate saying that because as a rule I love the police and have the utmost respect for them. But in this case it was a nightmare from the beginning. The crime scene was not secured properly. The case was not handled correctly from the beginning. Instead of focusing on catching a killer one of the lead investigators made it all about him and what he thought. His first murder case and he made a mess of it.

I think that it should be reopened now. I think all the evidence should be reinvestigated by an impartial source, I think it should all be reexamined and put toward a GJ again.

I think that in doing that the real truth will emerge without all the bias and fantasy surrounding this case.

 

[i.b.nora]

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm


"Sept. 24, 1999
press conference held outside the Regent Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended."

*

"RPTR: Has the psychiatrist client been paying you for two years?

Peterson: No, he paid us for about four months.

RPTR: Who was that person? Can you name him, the psychiatrist?

Peterson: Dr. Steve Dubovsky of Boulder.

RPTR: How do you spell that?

Peterson: D-u-b-o-v-s-k-y, probably...s-k-i, possibly.

RPTR: You'd think he'd know.

Peterson: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house. He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder."

***

There are a couple of other mentions of the incident in the press conference as well. The husband divorced the wife and left Boulder with the kids, soon after. The wife died a few years ago. The oldest daughter is following in her father's footsteps, the younger daughter moved to Alaska.

There really isn't anyone that thinks it had anything to do with the Ramsey case.

 

[Mama2JML]

I know their point of view, see the evidence people pull from their books to support their theories but in the end it is just the opinion of the author.

It does not have to be accurate information and will be provided with their personal spin to support their theory. I have not interest in giving them a dime.

I know their theories..

I believe there is ample evidence that someone else committed this crime, Or had the opportunity too. I believe that DNA supports someone that broke in there and killed her. I believe that the intruder that attacked Amy that was never found, Is a good link. No it is not the same exact mo but in this case her mother came in and so he was thwarted. We don't know what would have happened if she had not.

My thoughts exactly. Also, a friend/forum poster of mine shared some information @ another JBR forum re: MO & Signature:

***[ame="http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12135"]signature vs MO learn to classify JB's killer's deliberate, intentional actions - Crimeshots© True Crime Forums[/ame]
***

Basically, research shows that an offender's MO tends to evolve over time, while their signature remains the same or very similar.

I look for all the facts myself. I find a lot of things taken for fact that started as a line in a book, Or as someone else's opinion and has morphed into a "fact".

Me too.

I have a hard time getting good clear information but am always looking. If I had found clear evidence of the R's being responsible I would have no problem supporting that.

I am not blind, I am not in denial. I just see too much that points to an intruder that has never been refuted.

Same for me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm


"Sept. 24, 1999
press conference held outside the Regent Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended."

*

"RPTR: Has the psychiatrist client been paying you for two years?

Peterson: No, he paid us for about four months.

RPTR: Who was that person? Can you name him, the psychiatrist?

Peterson: Dr. Steve Dubovsky of Boulder.

RPTR: How do you spell that?

Peterson: D-u-b-o-v-s-k-y, probably...s-k-i, possibly.

RPTR: You'd think he'd know.

Peterson: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house. He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder."

***

There are a couple of other mentions of the incident in the press conference as well. The husband divorced the wife and left Boulder with the kids, soon after. The wife died a few years ago. The oldest daughter is following in her father's footsteps, the younger daughter moved to Alaska.

There really isn't anyone that thinks it had anything to do with the Ramsey case.

That is not true nor an accurate quote from the investigator. IT was off to another question and was not about this case.

This reporter was from the get go trying to harrass the interviewed. It is a ridiculous interview and not accurate.

There are people that think this may have something to do with this case and the person was never found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/

That report is from 2004 after that interview (1999) and as you can see the perp was still not known or found.

 

[Mama2JML]

Last night on CNN there was a story about a man named Michael Morton, who was imprisoned for 25 years for killing his wife. About 100 yards from her residence there was a bandana found with blood and a hair on it. The DA refused to have this item tested. There was a court order to have this item tested. The blood belonged to another man, and he was arrested and prosecuted. Mr. Martin was freed from prison.
This is a good example of what happens when a DA hides evidence. What would happen if the JB case was re-opened? How much information did AH hide, and refuse to be presented to the GJ? We know that Kolar presented his investigative material, and it was ignored.
If only we knew, there may be no doubt about what happened. Of course, we have a DA in CO now who doesn't have the guts to get to the bottom of this case. One man amongst many who have let JBR down.

What incriminating evidence do you believe may exist that AH hid from the GJ?