Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
(sbm)
Quote:
Although OT, I did not realize this about Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf:

On March 2, 1932, after a conference with the Attorney General, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had contacted the headquarters of the New Jersey State Police at Trenton, New Jersey. He officially informed the organization that the U.S. Department of Justice would afford Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, the assistance and cooperation of the FBI in bringing about the apprehension of the parties responsible for the kidnapping.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/...rgh-kidnapping
Colonel Schwarzkopf (Sr.) was the first Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. His son, General Schwarzkopf (Jr.), is the one who led coalition forces in Operation Desert Storm.

220px-Herbert_Norman_Schwarzkopf_NYWTS.jpg

Colonel Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf (Sr.)
 
I know that the BPD have been characterized as woefully inept, and they definitely did make mistakes. However, I hope the leap that they didn't fully investigate other leads and possible suspects isn't being made. It's neither fair or accurate.

Kolar offered some interesting stats...

Unbeknownst to the media, however, was that by the time the Ramseys gave their first official interview with police on April 30, 1997, the thirty or so Boulder
investigators assigned to the case had already interviewed nearly 400 people. The list included those who were thought to be witnesses who could provide background information, as well as those whom police considered to be potential suspects. By that time, investigators had also collected sixty-three (63) sets of handwriting exemplars, sixty-four (64) sets of fingerprints, forty-five (45) DNA / blood samples and fifty (50) sets of hair samples. One (1) polygraph examination had been administered to a non-familial suspect. In spite of their assurances of wanting to continue to cooperate with authorities, John and Patsy Ramsey wouldn’t participate in another law enforcement interview for another fourteen months. The next time around, Boulder Police Department investigators would not be invited to the table.
convicted sex-offender Gary Oliva would soon become the object of Smit's inquiry. Oliva, like many of the other registered sex offenders living in Boulder County, would be carefully scrutinized for possible involvement by police investigators working the case.

A synopsis was provided (to Hunter) that detailed the BPD’s efforts to clear all of the registered sex offenders who resided in the area, and other suspects who had come to attention of authorities during their investigation.

Over the course of the investigation Boulder Police had investigated the case, they conducted 590 interviews, collected handwriting and non-testimonial samples of evidence from 215 people, and had travelled to 17 states and 2 foreign countries in their pursuit of the perpetrator. They thoroughly vetted well over 100 possible, viable suspects. In addition, they received approximately 6500 telephone tips and over 5000 letters that purported to identify people involved in the murder. Over 1500 pieces of physical evidence were collected, and 64 experts were consulted from a variety of fields. The investigative file, which I came to describe as a library, exceeded 60,000 pages of reports and documents. These were the details that emerged as I began to explore the steps that had been taken to investigate this murder. This is hardly the picture the Ramsey camp has liked to paint about the Boulder Police Department’s search for the murderer of JonBenét. The truth is, however, that a number of other potential suspects stood with the Ramseys beneath the umbrella of suspicion at one time or another.

I know ST also detailed the BPDs efforts in investigating leads/possible suspects other than the Rs.

:)
 
They were completely inept IMO. Made huge mistakes from moment 1. I don't believe they put much effort into investigating others. Other than DNA checking. Which is funny to me. They checked DNA of and other potential suspect and it not being a match to the DNA found cleared them. The Ramsey DNA does not match but their not cleared. Go figure.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
I simply do not believe there is enough evidence to show that after Christmas day, her mother was so incensed she killed her child because she wet the bed. There is no evidence of anything of the sort. I don't see any sheets that were wet from that night. Who knows what he smelled but people all have different sniffers and without proof, It is just his say so.
Maybe if the child was found beaten to death, I mean not just in her head but all over, I have had kids that wet the bed, You get up, Change the child, Change the sheets, yes it is annoying at 4 am but the thought of hurting them for something THEY CAN NOT CONTROL does not enter your mind. She loved this child. She did not beat her or choke her to death.. Sorry.. No proof of that at all.. JMO

While I will believe you may not punish your child for bedwetting, case histories do not support your contention that hurting a child who wets the bed doesn't happen. It's actually quite common for parents to initially blame the child for the bedwetting and physically and/or mentally punish them them for it.
 
While I will believe you may not punish your child for bedwetting, case histories do not support your contention that hurting a child who wets the bed doesn't happen. It's actually quite common for parents to initially blame the child for the bedwetting and physically and/or mentally punish them them for it.


I'm sure there are people that do but then they don't lead to an elaborate murder. Those children are often abused besides the bed wetting and show evidence of prior abuse.

There is not even proof that she wet the bed that night.
It just does not have enough fact to build a case on it.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
I'm sure there are people that do but then they don't lead to an elaborate murder. Those children are often abused besides the bed wetting and show evidence of prior abuse.

There is not even proof that she wet the bed that night.
It just does not have enough fact to build a case on it.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

This is an intruder theory thread, not a PDI thread, as we all have been reminded. Several times.

And I wasn't responding specifically to the bedwetting in this murder, only the sweeping assertion children are not hurt by parents for bedwetting because of personal experience. Again, case history has shown parents without prior reported abuse responding violently to regressive secondary bedwetting. Bowen has some histories among others.
 
This is an intruder theory thread, not a PDI thread, as we all have been reminded. Several times.

And I wasn't responding specifically to the bedwetting in this murder, only the sweeping assertion children are not hurt by parents for bedwetting because of personal experience. Again, case history has shown parents without prior reported abuse responding violently to regressive secondary bedwetting. Bowen has some histories among others.

So what's your intruder theory? I'm interested in hearing it.
 
This is an intruder theory thread, not a PDI thread, as we all have been reminded. Several times.



And I wasn't responding specifically to the bedwetting in this murder, only the sweeping assertion children are not hurt by parents for bedwetting because of personal experience. Again, case history has shown parents without prior reported abuse responding violently to regressive secondary bedwetting. Bowen has some histories among others.


But we are talking about this specific case. What happens in other cases doesn't matter. What does the evidence show here. There is no evidence she wet the bed that night so the theory holds no water.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
But we are talking about this specific case. What happens in other cases doesn't matter. What does the evidence show here. There is no evidence she wet the bed that night so the theory holds no water.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

Again...the only point at hand in my part of this debate is your assertion no parent abuses their child over secondary bedwetting.
You made a sweeping statement based on personal experience and I respectfully ask for proof other than personal experience.
 
Again...the only point at hand in my part of this debate is your assertion no parent abuses their child over secondary bedwetting.

You made a sweeping statement based on personal experience and I respectfully ask for proof other than personal experience.


I did not say no parent. I said that it makes no sense along with the way she died. If an abusive parent kills a child in anger it looks like anger. It's not set up as some elaborate strangling death. And again there is no proof of a bed wetting incident that night. So that is that.
IMO


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
I haven't seen a theory from most, if not all, posters on this thread.
Is it a requirement?
This is the 2nd IDI thread, and there's a lot of information posted in both threads; interview transcripts, depositions, court rulings, released evidence, photos, etc. ...conjectures & hypotheses galore, regarding the facts as we know them.
 
This is the 2nd IDI thread, and there's a lot of information posted in both threads; interview transcripts, depositions, court rulings, released evidence, photos, etc. ...conjectures & hypotheses galore, regarding the facts as we know them.

I'm aware. Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I'm not seeing your point
Nor your theory...
 
I'm aware. Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I'm not seeing your point
Nor your theory...
I have posted many theories, but I have not formulated a complete, detailed opinion of the events leading up to & resulting in JonBenét's murder. ...if that's what you're looking for?
 
I have posted many theories, but I have not formulated a complete, detailed opinion of the events leading up to & resulting in JonBenét's murder. ...if that's what you're looking for?

No, I am not looking for that.

You seem like a straight forward person, interested in the truth. I wish you well in these discussions :rocker:
 
Im really curious as to why So much was made of a theory that involved bed wetting when there is no proof of bedwetting that night.

I wonder who the new DA will be?
 
3 Questions for the IDIers.

1. What is your impressions of the type of person this intruder is. If you had to paint a profile of this person, what would it be? Do you believe it is one person or a conspiracy of multiple people.

2. Are you as disturbed as I am about why this crime has produced so much evidence (garrotte, the body, the ransom letter, the DNA). Usually in these type of intruder cases there is absolutely no physical evidence. Yet in this case we have more evidence than most investigators are blessed to have.

3. Do you believe the Ramsey's are telling the complete truth. And if so, why?

4. Do you believe this intruder got what he wanted out of the incident?

5. After reading the ransom note, what do you believe is the gender of the ransom letter writer and why?

(sorry for any mistakes, difficult to do this on a tablet keyboard, :))
 
3 Questions for the IDIers.



2. Are you as disturbed as I am about why this crime has produced so much evidence (garrotte, the body, the ransom letter, the DNA). Usually in these type of intruder cases there is absolutely no physical evidence. Yet in this case we have more evidence than most investigators are blessed to have.


(sorry for any mistakes, difficult to do this on a tablet keyboard, :))

RSBM:
???? Intruders leave evidence all the time. That is how they are are caught. I think what is sad is that there is all that evidence and DNA and yet no one was ever caught. There are plenty of cases where the crime is not solved. I believe with time this one could be though.
 
---RSBM:
???? Intruders leave evidence all the time. That is how they are are caught. I think what is sad is that there is all that evidence and DNA and yet no one was ever caught. There are plenty of cases where the crime is not solved. I believe with time this one could be though. ----

Not to this degree. If this case was a standard child abduction there should be no evidence. Check out most of the child abduction cases on web. There's little to no evidence in the majority of those cases.

To kidnap or kill her all you need to do is to have a means of entry. Identify the room Jonbenet is in. Grab her quickly and cover her mouth. And leave through the front door to your vehicle. This whole process would leave NO evidence. Not even DNA.

To commit this murder it requires quickness and nerve. It's like shoplifting. You see your opportunity and you make your move and you leave.

All the evidence in this case is left due to criminal intentionally leaving it there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
2,471
Total visitors
2,531

Forum statistics

Threads
602,009
Messages
18,133,216
Members
231,206
Latest member
habitsofwaste
Back
Top