Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[tezi]

that is really interesting to me and does make sense if you think about it. i wonder if the police ever looked into the guy

Westmoreland was in Tupelo, MS. He was nowhere near Boulder. And that's a fact.

JMO

 

[tezi]

http://investigation.discovery.com/...-aphrodite-jones-jonbenet-ramsey-evidence.htm

Since we were talking about the window and the possible entry and exit.. And then there are the two different foot prints.

There is that hitech boot impression that does not belong to the R's and then the other foot wear impression.

These are big clues that says someone else was there.

I am linking this sub-forum. There is plenty of evidence listed in it to prove AJ didn't have a clue as to what she was talking about on the show. I am doing this not to cause trouble, but just to help.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=455"]Rebuttal to Discovery I.D. Show about JonBenet - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

JMO

 

[2 percent]

The basement windows are ground level on the outside.
The basement floor is at least 5 ft lower than the window.
The windows are not spacious and the area outside is...well...nature.

A person going through the basement window will have to sit at some point and their clothes will scrape the sill. They will have to steady themselves on either (or both) the upper or side frames of the window to prepare for a probable unfamiliar drop in the dark. They will have nature on themselves and most likely drag it into the basement.
That nature, dust and other gunk ground level windows attract, would have transferred to basement and most likely JB too.

If an IDI, they did not come through a basement window.

 

[Tricia]

I am going to give you a little history about the JBR forum on Websleuths.

Many years ago we had poster put up a ridicules theory about a man. I am not going to mention his name. He is not well known to the case but he has been linked to in this thread

The post was some over the top theory on how this man wrote the ransom not. It was up for a couple of hours. It was removed as soon as the moderator became aware of it being on the forum.

This man contacted Lin Wood and Lin Wood decided he wanted to find out the posters real name so he could sue him.

People are always so brave on the Internet about saying things about real people when they can hide behind their hat like this poster from years ago.

Lin Wood sent me a subpoena (it was a civil subpoena not a criminal) and I fought it because not only did he want the email address for the poster he wanted the names of the moderators and their person information.

It cost over 4 thousand dollars to fight and finally I told my attorney to tell Wood (or Wood's associate can't remember who she was dealing with ) he would have to put me in jail because I was not turning over the names, I was not going to honor his civil subpoena.

It wasn't the poster I was worried about. It was the moderators. I was furious with the poster because he is the one who caused the problem.

I contacted the poster and told him to man up and contact Wood himself and tell him he was the one who made that stupid post. You know what? He did. If he hadn't I don't know what would have happened but I was not about to turn over any of the moderators personal info to Lin Wood.

I have no idea what happened with Lin Wood and the poster after they spoke. I do know that Wood no longer demanded information from me.

However, if you continue to name innocent people or link to blogs that name innocent people on this thread there is a chance that some lawyer is going to come along again with a subpoena for your email and IP address so they can track you down and this time I will not fight it. I will not risk going to jail. I will not spend 4 grand.

We do not allow pointing fingers at people who have absolutely NEVER been named as even a slightly possible suspect. THIS INCLUDES RAMSEY NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.

One final note. Lin Wood, the Ramsey's attorney is not shy. He will sue at the drop of a hat, yet, he has not said a word about Chief James Kolar's book. And this book is full of documented evidence.

Ask yourself why has Lin Wood stayed silent about this? Kolar is a HUGE target and the statue of limitations is up I believe for Wood to file suit.

If anyone continues to name or link to names of innocent people I will begin to time out then I will not hesitate to ban.

Talk all you want about the Intruder but do not use Websleuths to harm innocent people by accusing them.

 

[cynic]

"The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-661569.html

So with a complete profile it is obvious to me that There is the very real possibility that it was an intruder. Someone who was not supposed to be in that house that night.

It’s likely that another poster used the information from here and erroneously posted about a “complete” DNA profile in another thread.
I will repeat my reply here as I assume that you and everyone else on this thread wish to be working with facts and not a reporter’s mistaken impression:

The word “complete” was something that the reporter injected.
Perhaps because it was in CODIS they mistakenly attached the word “complete,” but whatever the reason, it is NOTa correct way to refer the “best” DNA profile in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

A full CODIS profile has 13 markers; any profile with fewer markers is a partial profile.
All DNA profiles in this case are PARTIAL PROFILES.
THE HIGHEST QUALITY DNA, AND THE ONLY PROFILE IN THIS CASE THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED IN THE CODIS DATABASE, AT 10 MARKERS, IS DISTAL STAIN 007-2

This is a fact.
The evidence is conclusive:

It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html
One of the 2 drops of blood that were on the garment was tested early in the investigation, but was not of sufficient quality to be placed in data banks. But the DNA from the second spot is "of sufficient quality" to be added to the agency's Combined DNA Index System, Wood said.
"They had to spend some time, probably months, to get that DNA sample up to the qualifications to be submitted to the national databank," Wood said.
CNN, December 27, 2003

The male DNA sample, subsequently identified as Distal Stain 007-2, only contained 9 genetic markers…
[SNIP]
The challenge to technicians was enhancing the DNA sample so that it could be entered into the state and national DNA databases, and it took a while for this technology to develop. As noted above, the FBI requires that 10 out of 13 genetic markers be identified in order for a sample to be entered into the Forensic Index database. DNA replication technology was utilized in the Denver Police Department’s crime lab, and the 10th marker was eventually strengthened to the point that the unidentified male sample discovered in JonBenét’s underwear was able to be entered into the state and national databases. This laboratory success didn’t take place until 2002, nearly 6 years after the murder of JonBenét.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 140

I met with the man who had worked so diligently to enhance the DNA sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2. Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was it in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 – 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.
[SNIP]
Laberge confirmed that no traces of semen had been present in the underwear or clothing articles worn by JonBenét upon the discovery of her body.
[SNIP]
The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, pages 303 - 304
As of this writing, I have been unable to determine the strength of the genetic markers that were identified as the Touch DNA samples found in the leggings worn by JonBenét at the time of the discovery of her body. Horita reported that they were weaker than the partial sample identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
The strength of the loci (genetic markers) observed in the cord of the wrist bindings were reported to be 6 markers, and those of the male in the garrote were 7.
Both of these samples were less than the partial sample of 10 markers identified as Distal Stain 007-2.
Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 417

 

[2 percent]

I am going to give you a little history about the JBR forum on Websleuths.

Many years ago we had poster put up a ridicules theory about a man. I am not going to mention his name. He is not well known to the case but he has been linked to in this thread

The post was some over the top theory on how this man wrote the ransom not. It was up for a couple of hours. It was removed as soon as the moderator became aware of it being on the forum.

This man contacted Lin Wood and Lin Wood decided he wanted to find out the posters real name so he could sue him.

People are always so brave on the Internet about saying things about real people when they can hide behind their hat like this poster from years ago.

Lin Wood sent me a subpoena (it was a civil subpoena not a criminal) and I fought it because not only did he want the email address for the poster he wanted the names of the moderators and their person information.

It cost over 4 thousand dollars to fight and finally I told my attorney to tell Wood (or Wood's associate can't remember who she was dealing with ) he would have to put me in jail because I was not turning over the names, I was not going to honor his civil subpoena.

It wasn't the poster I was worried about. It was the moderators. I was furious with the poster because he is the one who caused the problem.

I contacted the poster and told him to man up and contact Wood himself and tell him he was the one who made that stupid post. You know what? He did. If he hadn't I don't know what would have happened but I was not about to turn over any of the moderators personal info to Lin Wood.

I have no idea what happened with Lin Wood and the poster after they spoke. I do know that Wood no longer demanded information from me.

However, if you continue to name innocent people or link to blogs that name innocent people on this thread there is a chance that some lawyer is going to come along again with a subpoena for your email and IP address so they can track you down and this time I will not fight it. I will not risk going to jail. I will not spend 4 grand.

We do not allow pointing fingers at people who have absolutely NEVER been named as even a slightly possible suspect. THIS INCLUDES RAMSEY NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.

One final note. Lin Wood, the Ramsey's attorney is not shy. He will sue at the drop of a hat, yet, he has not said a word about Chief James Kolar's book. And this book is full of documented evidence.

Ask yourself why has Lin Wood stayed silent about this? Kolar is a HUGE target and the statue of limitations is up I believe for Wood to file suit.

If anyone continues to name or link to names of innocent people I will begin to time out then I will not hesitate to ban.

Talk all you want about the Intruder but do not use Websleuths to harm innocent people by accusing them.

Whew....!
I, too, am big on people manning up. I think we are a dying breed.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Today after reading the indictment, I am more confident than ever that the R's are not guilty of this crime. The indictment reads as if they just wanted to get them for something but found no proof to charge them with MURDER.

That along with the DNA that exonerates them, It is plain to me this has been nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning.

I watched today all the coverage and everyone, All the legal eagles, The lawyers, prosecutors agreed, There is nothing that says the Ramseys did this. It was someone else, and he left his DNA on Jon Benet that horrible day.

JMO

 

[Anyhoo]

This case perplexes me. As a rule I am IDI by default. I see nothing that points to the R's with complete clarity and can not be explained rationally.
So that leads me to believe there must have been someone else along with the unknown TDNA that was found on JBR.
The possibility until the sources are found, that there could be someone out there that did this stays with me. I need to get that answer..

I don't believe the R's were involved in JBR's death. Not at this point.

I know that the majority of this forum is dedicated to mainly RDI theories. I thought maybe we could discuss other theories and see what the consensus is on other theories.

While I can see ways the R parents were not directly responsible for the death of their daughter, there is no way I could accept that they are completely innocent parties in it. Any way you try to slice it, they had IMO knowledge of what happened even if neither of them killed JB. So you cannot just give them a pass. That said I would be interested in such theories that explained their obvious knowledge of the crime but did not have them directly doing it.

 

[Anyhoo]

<modsnip> It was the R's RIGHT to lawyer up and shut up! They had the RIGHT not to cooperate! It was their RIGHT to get their side of the story out in their/his money making books! They shouldn't HAVE to be cleared because LE should be looking EVERYWHERE but at them! <modsnip> :banghead:

True they had that right. They had the right to make it literally impossible for LE to solve their daughter's murder and their wealth and influence allowed them to fully exercise that right. You want to paint them as innocent but their actions on 12-26 virtually prove that not to be the case.

 

[Mama2JML]

Robert Whitson's book, Injustice, details a type of perp he believes murdered JonBenet. As well, he details a possible suspect, but the DNA is not a match. It's an interesting read with intriguing details about similarities among crimes committed by psychopathic, sexual sadists, regardless. I recommend the book, and can post some excerpts if anyone is interested.

 

[Mama2JML]

I guess you really have to stop and think and not just read it all together.. But it is obvious that he is talking about two different things. It does not make sense even together..

I am trying to find a contact for him.

Will keep searching.

Here's a link to Peterson's business page:
http://rwpeterson.com

 

[madeleine]

While I can see ways the R parents were not directly responsible for the death of their daughter, there is no way I could accept that they are completely innocent parties in it. Any way you try to slice it, they had IMO knowledge of what happened even if neither of them killed JB. So you cannot just give them a pass. That said I would be interested in such theories that explained their obvious knowledge of the crime but did not have them directly doing it.

Exactly.
The only IDI theory that makes some sense to me is it's someone getting back at JR and JR has his own reasons (ugly secrets)to keep his mouth shut and cover it up...but what did JR do to deserve this(must be something very bad/illegal)? ?how did he convince PR to go along and keep her mouth shut?too many questions.but I am CONVINCED at least JR knows who& why IF IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

Robert Whitson's book, Injustice, details a type of perp he believes murdered JonBenet. As well, he details a possible suspect, but the DNA is not a match. It's an interesting read with intriguing details about similarities among crimes committed by psychopathic, sexual sadists, regardless. I recommend the book, and can post some excerpts if anyone is interested.

Any book that uses Lou Smit's ramblings is not of the slightest interest to me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Here's a link to Peterson's business page:
http://rwpeterson.com

I already Emailed Peterson and got a personal response. There was no boyfriend in the mix. Ever, It is a misquote by a shady reporter trying to put spin on the interview.


Lou Smit has way more credit for me especially since the DA hired him first to investigate for their side. He left because in his investigation it became clear to them there were more possibilities and evidence that pointed away from the R's.
However I did not read his book and won't read any more books on the subject. The facts speak for themselves. DNA that belongs to someone else has to be sourced before it can be ruled out.

And the indictment was a joke. They did not indict John or Patsy for Murder, because even with all they had to look out, arguments from the DA, They knew there was not any clear evidence they had done anything to her. They are not even charged with harming her in the indictment, Only letting it happen.

This case is one that will haunt me until they find the killer. But it is not a Ramsey. Not any one of them. OMO

 

[BBB167893]

I already Emailed Peterson and got a personal response. There was no boyfriend in the mix. Ever, It is a misquote by a shady reporter trying to put spin on the interview.


Lou Smit has way more credit for me especially since the DA hired him first to investigate for their side. He left because in his investigation it became clear to them there were more possibilities and evidence that pointed away from the R's.
However I did not read his book and won't read any more books on the subject. The facts speak for themselves. DNA that belongs to someone else has to be sourced before it can be ruled out.

And the indictment was a joke. They did not indict John or Patsy for Murder, because even with all they had to look out, arguments from the DA, They knew there was not any clear evidence they had done anything to her. They are not even charged with harming her in the indictment, Only letting it happen.

This case is one that will haunt me until they find the killer. But it is not a Ramsey. Not any one of them. OMO

You're right about one thing, Scarlett: the facts DO speak for themselves. That's why I made my little appeal (which seems to have died a quick death).

 

[wengr]

They are not even charged with harming her in the indictment, Only letting it happen.

Actually, The R's were indicted for "letting it happen" AND purposely trying to cover up and derail the investigation.
The GJ found the R's to be complict. IMO, that's no joke.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Actually, The R's were indicted for "letting it happen" AND purposely trying to cover up and derail the investigation.
The GJ found the R's to be complict. IMO, that's no joke.

There is nothing there at all that says they did anything to her. Nothing. In all the evidence, all the facts, all the smoking gun evidence people like to say points to them, IT DIDN'T. This indictment was nothing more than them saying.. "well there is no evidence but we think they are guilty so what can we get them with... " I know.. They stood by and watched.. and then after someone else brutally murdered her, they covered it all up...

Not even close to feasible. Hunter did not charge them because he knew it was a joke.

It is completely ridiculous. OMO.

There is nothing at all in this case that points to the Parents or any Ramsey as a killer of Jon Benet.

 

[wengr]

There is nothing at all in this case that points to the Parents or any Ramsey as a killer of Jon Benet.

Nothing but the fact that the GJ heard from Lou Smit, and then found the R's to be complicit in the death of JBR.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nothing but the fact that the GJ heard from Lou Smit, and then found the R's to be complicit in the death of JBR.

No. Not complicit. They are not named as her killers or as part of her death. Just of the cover up which is not credible or rational. IT is just a hail mary to get them on something when there were no facts to support they killed JBR.

The GJ heard from LS, and?? If the DA had the evidence of a murder that would not have mattered. GJ indict all the time for the charge asked. This GJ could not find the evidence to charge them with murder. That is what the whole GJ was for and they could not. Not even with all the evidence. They saw EVERYTHING and the best they could come up they stood by and let it happen. There is nothing that connects the actual murder in their home. If it was there, It would be in the indictment.

People were waiting for this indictment because they thought it was going to show once and for all the GJ voted to indict for murder.
They didn't. It means it is just not there.

Someone killed Jon Benet but it was not a Ramsey.

 

[dodie20]

There is nothing there at all that says they did anything to her. Nothing. In all the evidence, all the facts, all the smoking gun evidence people like to say points to them, IT DIDN'T. This indictment was nothing more than them saying.. "well there is no evidence but we think they are guilty so what can we get them with... " I know.. They stood by and watched.. and then after someone else brutally murdered her, they covered it all up...

Not even close to feasible. Hunter did not charge them because he knew it was a joke.

It is completely ridiculous. OMO.

There is nothing at all in this case that points to the Parents or any Ramsey as a killer of Jon Benet.

Most legal experts agree that this indictment wasn't about the Rs covering for an outside murderer, but a 'compromise' from jurors not wanting to sort out which R did exactly what and when. It has even been referred to as a classic case of compromise. Unless they elaborate, we won't know for sure what they thought, but IMO, they weren't trying to stick it to the Rs. The exact opposite, IMO. They were going easy on them. This isn't a popular belief here, but I don't think the jurors thought the Rs were covering for their son or anybody besides themselves. This was about abuse that these 2 were responsible for that led to JonBenet's death. all moo.