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

[Chewy]

I'm a little confused about your approach here. The link too. Are you saying that lack of visual evil (horns, red skin, spiked devil's tail) equals innocence? :floorlaugh:

I know my approach is lighthearted but I really am curious about this. It seems the majority of your posts critique posters here, specifically on their opinions about admittedly surface subjects. Yet I don't see any opinion coming from you that isn't just criticism of others on this site. I've always found that when I think something is trivial I either ignore it or I steer the conversation back to meaningful.

So, what are your thoughts on this crime? Do you have a theory (you don't need one, just curious)? I'm not sure I get the significance of your link. I didn't see any reaming of Patsy. I saw a poster describing the incident from the point of view of the man who approached her and then the accusation that John throws his friends and others under the bus to deflect.

On the whole I don't think it's a bad thing for John to tell the police things that disturb/disturbed him or that he remembered later. But I also don't think names should be flung out there to deflect for no reason other than deflection (if that's what it is)...it can hurt people's lives and reputations to falsely accuse them.

I don't have a theory really. I'm just totally blown away how after all these years, I thought people had indicted the family in the court of public opinion based on REAL EVIDENCE. I'm new to this whole case (which others have noticed) but I really really thought there was a series of evidence that showed that only the Ramseys could have done it but they just couldn't prove it. Even a cursory examination shows this is not the case.

I'm also frustrated because there seems to be just leaps made in evaluating the evidence that absolutely would not stand up in court. [modsnip]

Do I think the Ramsey's could have done it? Absolutely. There's plenty of indicators that suggest that, not to mention many examples in crime that make this a legitimate theory.

However, what I find telling is that when you lay out the theory and examine it, people have to add more and more people to the list of the corupt evil brigade because the theory wouldn't work unless there were multiple layers of cover up and deceit.

It seems strange to me how willing people are able to just keep making every player in this story "EVIL CO CONSPIRATOR!!!"


But what really seems off to me, is people making statements about a persons state of mind, how they should react, why they did something and refusing to accept that there could be a totally valid and normal reason for doing something.

Ex. Ramseys contacting their lawyer. To me it was the most normal thing in the world for them to do that. If I was in their situation (and it was a real kidnapping) I absolutely would call my lawyer before I'd even call 911. I'd say "You need to get over here RIGHT NOW" then I'd call 911. But for some people, maybe because they don't have a lawyer in real life and to them you only call a lawyer if you've been accused of a crime, you wouldn't call a lawyer unless you were guilty. To me that's just an uniformed mindset and distrust of things you don't really understand.

Another would be the situation with Patsy and the stranger talking to Jonebenet. I can tell you that if a man walked up to one of my kids when they were 5-6 years old and started talking to them I'd be pissed and tell the man to leave. I'd also point him out to the head of the pageant event and tell them to keep an eye out. My girlfriend recently reported a man by himself in toys R us who was going up to kids in the store. Turns out he was on the Registered Sex Offender list and wound up getting arrested again because they had him on the security cameras. That's freakin' scary to me and even if a man is innocent he shouldn't be approaching other people's children. IMO it's wrong.

Anyway that's a bit long but basically I'm interested in seeing a legitimate theory and I also DO NOT AGREE that this case won't be solved by online people looking at the case. I bet it could be. Which is why I'm interested.

:seeya:

 

[Chewy]

How do you know the child wasn't cold? If it was too cold to the bystander, then it was too cold for the child. Gender is totally irrelevant. If a parent is right there, even more reason for a bystander to intervene. Patsy was indicted for child abuse.

JMO

How do you know she was cold? And I don't agree that if it's cold for bystander it's too cold for a child.

I teach a class every week with at least 20 people in the room. The heats been wonky and we're always having to open the windows and then close them again because some people get too cold.

I have watched a room full of people that half have their coats and scarves on and the others are sitting there in short sleeved shirts without a problem.

It doesn't even take ten seconds to know that saying just because one person is cold it means another one is, is untrue.

Another example is when I used to teach swimming and the kids would be in the school lobby waiting to go outside. Some of the kids would run out the door to their parents cars with wet hair and holding their jackets and others would bundle up.

Anyone who has ever been around children has seen similar situations.

Patsy wasn't indicted for child abuse because her child wasn't wearing a coat that day.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For me it is as simple as there is plenty of things that point to intruder, including DNA that points at someone other than the R's, any and all of them.

 

[Chewy]

BBM

~Carnes Account. "On December 25, 1996, while playing at the home of a neighborhood friend, JonBenet told her friend's mother that "Santa Claus" was going to pay her a "special" visit after Christmas and that it was a secret. (SMF P 124; PSMF P 124.) The person who may have said this to JonBenet has never been identified. (SMF P 125; PSMF P 125.)" (Carnes 2003:101).

~PMPT Account. "Barbara Kostanick was the mother of a playmate of JBR's. She asserted: "The day before Christmas, JonBenet was at our house playing with Megan. The kids were talking about Santa, getting all excited. I asked JonBenet if she had visited Santa Claus yet. She said, “Oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night.” Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that. Then JonBenet said, “Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas.” I thought she was confused. “Christmas is tonight,” I told her. “And Santa will be coming tonight.” “No, no” JonBenet insisted. “He said this would be after Christmas. And it’s a secret” (Schiller 1999:38-39)."​

PMPT makes it seem as if JonBenét identifies 'Santa' as an individual she'd visited @ the Christmas party on the 23rd, but Carnes' ruling indicates otherwise. IMHO, considering the 911 hang-up call, as well, this story re: a "secret Santa visit" is quite suspicious.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What Neighbors Reported

This story is one that gave me pause, especially since Jonbenet said Santa said he'd visit her after Christmas. It doesn't mean it was the Santa at the Christmas party.

One of the things they often find in pedophiles is that try to find work that allows them to be exposed to children. A job as a Santa would be a perfectly logical place to find an unknown pedophile. She could have seen that Santa anywhere.

It is very suspicious and begs the question who made the promise to her. I wonder if cops thought to check on who may have purchased a santa suit in that area or in Denver or even over the Internet.

This would be something I think would be easy for them to sort out. But consider even in a Mall on the holidays a person could rent a suit and walk through the Mall and most people wouldn't see anything out of the norm. He could have been stalking a target.

I don't think this is what happened, but it could have happened.


I think more that Jonbenet just made up the story. I have seen examples of other children doing similar things.

The 911 call is very interesting to me.

 

[Chewy]

For me it is as simple as there is plenty of things that point to intruder, including DNA that points at someone other than the R's, any and all of them.

The fact that people blow this off as nothing is strange. In any other case I've ever seen this would be a huge red flag. It reminds of what happened to Ryan Ferguson. There was hair and DNA at the crime scene and it was completely ignored.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The fact that people blow this off as nothing is strange. In any other case I've ever seen this would be a huge red flag. It reminds of what happened to Ryan Ferguson. There was hair and DNA at the crime scene and it was completely ignored.

Yes. In any other case DNA is the answer. That it does not match anyone in the house is a huge sign someone else was there. This is the only case I have seen people throw DNA out like it is used TP.

 

[MyBelle]

This story is one that gave me pause, especially since Jonbenet said Santa said he'd visit her after Christmas. It doesn't mean it was the Santa at the Christmas party.

One of the things they often find in pedophiles is that try to find work that allows them to be exposed to children. A job as a Santa would be a perfectly logical place to find an unknown pedophile. She could have seen that Santa anywhere.







This would be something I think would be easy for them to sort out. But consider even in a Mall on the holidays a person could rent a suit and walk through the Mall and most people wouldn't see anything out of the norm. He could have been stalking a target.

I don't think this is what happened, but it could have happened.


I think more that Jonbenet just made up the story. I have seen examples of other children doing similar things.

The 911 call is very interesting to me.

BBM. Not so easy when subpoenas were denied for things like phone records.

Why would JonBenet make up a story about Santa visiting her? I think we all view her as a victim, not a liar.

 

[Salem]

This is the IDI thread. If you do not wish to discuss the possibility of an intruder, that's fine. Go to one of the other threads. There are 100s of them, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to find one that has something you might like to discuss.

Do NOT come into this thread and try to change the minds of others. That is NOT what this thread is for.

Do NOT come into this thread and talk about other members. That is NOT what this thread is for.

Stay on topic. The topic is "AN INTRUDER DID IT."

If a post is against TOS, alert it. Don't respond to it. If you respond, you will be subject to the same consequences for engaging. So don't go there. Just alert and scroll and roll.

Salem

 

[Chewy]

BBM. Not so easy when subpoenas were denied for things like phone records.

Why would JonBenet make up a story about Santa visiting her? I think we all view her as a victim, not a liar.

Just curious why the Ramseys have the ability to quash phone records when others do not?


I didn't call Jonbenet a liar, I said she made up a story about Santa.....you know that FICTIONAL character.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, will you please post some of your Mindhunter/John Douglas "trivia"? ...and your invitation theory?

Just wanted to say that I haven’t forgotten this. I’m barely keeping up with reading here these days, but what little time I’ve found for writing has been dedicated to answering your request. It will be of some length as I’m writing it out in detail. It’s definitely going to be a multi-post, so I’m not sure where it’s going to end up. In my arrogance, I think that it is going to be worthy of a thread of its own.
...

AK

 

[MyBelle]

Just curious why the Ramseys have the ability to quash phone records when others do not?


I didn't call Jonbenet a liar, I said she made up a story about Santa.....you know that FICTIONAL character.

JonBenet didn't know Santa was a fictional figure.

The Ramseys attorneys had the ability to convince their pals in the DA's office to quash phone records. It's not the first case where wealth and influence has affected outcome. I think there are quite a few of the "potential intruders" who had to retain legal counsel and were a waste of taxpayer dollars in investigation because the Ramseys were pointing at them.

There remains a possibility that Patsy pre-planned a kidnapping of her daughter and the kidnapping went terribly wrong.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

So the evil Ramsey's had the ability to quash information in the DAs office, I'm assuming the DA's office is filled with highly unethical people who were more than happy to just ignore the death of a little girl because "their friends the Ramseys" didn't want them to investigate.


And while Jonbenet may not have known Santa wasn't real, I'm responding to your assertion that I said she's a "liar" when I said that she may have made up her story about Santa. It's not unusual for little kids to make up stories about fictional characters, it's part of a normal childhood.


Curious why you keep trying to post the Ramseys did it theories here when it's not allowed?


The strange thing about this whole case is that the way some reject the idea that a psycho could have lingered in the house after the Christmas party and decided to cause harm. On the one hand I think that the fact that the ransom note seems to indicate that someone who knew the Ramseys did this because of the $118,000. On the other hand I would think that when writing a ransom note, if the Ramseys wrote the note, they wouldn't ask for that kind of an amount. What "foreign faction" having access to a millionaire would ask for such a low and specific number. I'd think the Ramseys would have gone all Dr. Evil and asked for a million dollars. There's no point to the specifics of that amount.

Granted it could be a number that stuck in their head and they wrote it without thinking, but it does open up room for questioning. If an intruder had gotten into the house at the Christmas party, having stalked them prior, if John had any documentation on his desk that indicated this number the intruder could have fixated on it. IOW "I'll ask for that amount because I know they have it." There was plenty of time for a person to sneak around the house looking at their papers etc while the Ramseys were gone.

It does also make me wonder about who knew about the bonus and what it could have represented in a jealousy or resentment.


But I'm reminded of other stories of break ins and murders where they suspected a family member and it was a serial killer.

Adam Leroy Lane comes to mind. He killed Darlene Ewalt and her husband was eyed as the suspect and going to be prosecuted until another family caught Lane in the act trying to kill their daughter.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/serial_killer_adam_leroy_lanes.html

It does happen.

Not only that but we all go by the assumption that it was a faked kidnapping because the killer didn't take the body out of the house. However if the person didn't really intend to kill Jonbenet and then realized she was dead and then garroted her in the basement it could be because they didn't want to get caught. There's no point in the risk if she's dead. It could have been a situation where the intruder had the intention of going for the ransom but realized or thought he'd killed her and wasn't able to take a dead body with him and then just mutilated her as a form of revenge.

 

[MyBelle]

So the evil Ramsey's had the ability to quash information in the DAs office, I'm assuming the DA's office is filled with highly unethical people who were more than happy to just ignore the death of a little girl because "their friends the Ramseys" didn't want them to investigate.


And while Jonbenet may not have known Santa wasn't real. However I'm responding to your assertion that I said she's a "liar" when I said that she may have made up her story about Santa. It's not unusual for little kids to make up stories about fictional characters, it's part of a normal childhood.

I didn't say that. I said their attorneys had the ability to quash information. The investigators have confirmed it so it is a little late to pretend it didn't happen. Their friends were not the Ramseys, their friends were the other attorneys.

Do I believe a child would make up a claim Santa promised to visit. Nope.

 

[Chewy]

Again, it doesn't matter who did it, the point is that the DA's office has to be filled with highly unethical people. I just don't think that makes any sense.


And you not believing something doesn't make it not true. I've sat with my son when he was 6 years old and he told me that "I have dreams about God but he says no one will believe me but it's true. God told me that I'm a special person chosen to help him."

It freaked me out at first but then I realized he was just parroting something he saw in the cartoon "The Prince of Egypt." Again, it's 100 percent completely normal for a kid that age to creatively make up stories.

http://www.parenting.com/article/why-kids-lie-age-by-age


http://www.empoweringparents.com/How-to-Deal-with-Lying-in-Children-and-Teens.php#

To get attention: When your child is little and the lies are inconsequential, this behavior may just be his way of getting a little attention. When a small child says, “Mommy, I just saw Santa fly by the window,” I think it is very different from an older child who says, “I finished my homework,” when he really didn’t. Younger children also make up stories during imaginative play, or playing “make believe.” This is not lying but a way for them to engage their imaginations and start to make sense of the world around them.

Read more: http://www.empoweringparents.com/How-to-Deal-with-Lying-in-Children-and-Teens.php#ixzz2xuCqmn36

And for the record since we know that Jonbenet didn't REALLY see Santa Claus it's highly unlikely that a fictional character told her anything.

Unless you think someone dressed up as Santa told her he'd visit her after Christmas with a secret. A much more likely scenario would be that she misunderstood something a Santa said.

 

[Chewy]

Here's another bit of information that is based on people just rejecting something that could easily have happened.

That is the batteries in the flashlight being wiped of prints. To me this is a very significant clue and one that bolsters the idea that the RDI. It's a detail that an intruder might not have considered. It makes sense to me that it is interpreted as a red flag that someone inside the house is attempting to direct attention outside the house.

However, there could be a very simple explanation that points to an intruder. We can't just assume that the flashlight wasn't USED or turned on. And if the flashlight was turned on and didn't work, the first thing a person does is usually check the batteries. Take em out, flip them around and put them back in to try to get the thing working.

A similar detail was used to help convict the Scuba Diving murder in Australia. The husband said his gauge wasn't working so he took the batteries out and flipped them around. That statement proved to be a lie.

In this case if an intruder was using the flashlight for light and not just the murder weapon, he may have checked the batteries if the light was weak or flickering or not coming on. Then when he wiped everything down he realizes he can't forget to wipe the batteries.

But it goes to show how our assumptions may not be entirely accurate.

Examples

The perp totally faked the ransom note and Jonbenet was never intended to be taken for ransom. (I personally think this is a fair observation, I don't see how they thought they'd get her out of the house unless they had an accomplice. It seems highly unlikely that an intruder would try to go into the house and take JBR out through the basement window.) But perhaps there had been another plan that had gone awry and the kidnapper was known to JBR and once she recognized them they had to kill her. Still doesn't quite add up to me though.

But again, the flashlight, the assumption being they didn't touch the batteries and therefore had no reason to wipe them off. It's not a stretch beyond belief to think of someone using a flashlight, checking the batteries. And then wiping them off.

 

[2 percent]

I don't have a theory really. I'm just totally blown away how after all these years, I thought people had indicted the family in the court of public opinion based on REAL EVIDENCE. I'm new to this whole case (which others have noticed) but I really really thought there was a series of evidence that showed that only the Ramseys could have done it but they just couldn't prove it. Even a cursory examination shows this is not the case.

I'm also frustrated because there seems to be just leaps made in evaluating the evidence that absolutely would not stand up in court. [modsnip]

I do understand what you're saying to some extent but the evidence is there, properly interpreted. So many on this site have been discussing the evidence for years and while it's frustrating to new people like you and me, they're just as frustrated to have to explain themselves over and over and over again....providing proof over and over and over again.

I don't know if you discuss many cases but it is typical for posters to apply personal experience. But in my experience giggle, there are two types of personal experience - purely personal and general personal. The first being one person is experiencing it the second being it's been observed behavior by many over years. The first I'm never impressed with, the second I evaluate for accuracy.

For example, while debating the Darlie Routier case there was a poster who had been assaulted. They said that the bruises on her arms were caused by the intruder kneeling on her arms while she was attacked on the couch. Sounds fairly logical...until another poster showed it would very unlikely that the struggle would only bruise the arms, bruise them that badly and that the bruises the length of arm from armpit to knuckles was much longer than the length of the lower leg on an intruder.
But that illustrates a lot of things that happen on these websites. It is almost exclusively about theories that include the evidence but doesn't end with it. I'm afraid you will probably have to evaluate whether you can work within this framework...but I hope you stay.

Do I think the Ramsey's could have done it? Absolutely. There's plenty of indicators that suggest that, not to mention many examples in crime that make this a legitimate theory.

However, what I find telling is that when you lay out the theory and examine it, people have to add more and more people to the list of the corupt evil brigade because the theory wouldn't work unless there were multiple layers of cover up and deceit.

It seems strange to me how willing people are able to just keep making every player in this story "EVIL CO CONSPIRATOR!!!"

I agree with you there. I lean more toward the simple explanations and positively loath conspiracy theories.

But what really seems off to me, is people making statements about a persons state of mind, how they should react, why they did something and refusing to accept that there could be a totally valid and normal reason for doing something.

Ex. Ramseys contacting their lawyer. To me it was the most normal thing in the world for them to do that. If I was in their situation (and it was a real kidnapping) I absolutely would call my lawyer before I'd even call 911. I'd say "You need to get over here RIGHT NOW" then I'd call 911. But for some people, maybe because they don't have a lawyer in real life and to them you only call a lawyer if you've been accused of a crime, you wouldn't call a lawyer unless you were guilty. To me that's just an uniformed mindset and distrust of things you don't really understand.

And this is a perfect example of what I was saying before.
In your experience, calling a lawyer immediately would be prudent and smart. I wouldn't go so far as to say only guilty people call lawyers so quickly, but there is a well established pattern of people who want their lawyers so quickly either being guilty or are compromised in some way and want to carefully navigate their contact with the police. I happen to lean more toward there being something hinky about how quickly they called a lawyer.

Anyway that's a bit long but basically I'm interested in seeing a legitimate theory and I also DO NOT AGREE that this case won't be solved by online people looking at the case. I bet it could be. Which is why I'm interested.

:seeya:

I hope you're right. I don't hold out much hope that there will be a resolution in this case. I truly don't think Burke knows much about that night other than what he's been told. I don't see him as a good source for the resolution. I think John holds some secrets but if he hasn't broken by now, he won't. The only place I think some truth can be found is in the Grand Jury transcripts.

 

[Chewy]

Whenever I see someone mention the word hinky I know they are not objectively evaluating the case. Also I don't care how long a person has investigated a case, if they were biased the whole time their investigating was worthless because the most likely ignored anything that didn't support their bias.

What I really think is that something happened that was interpreted the wrong way because of assumptions made that were wrong. I think that by reexamining those assumptions we may solve the case.

And to clarify, its completely normal to call your lawyer in a situation like this. Only people who don't have full time lawyers think it is strange. This situation is exactly when you'd call your lawyer.

If the Ramseys were innocent they called the lawyer to help with the ransom issues and to help with legal issues.

 

[MyBelle]

Whenever I see someone mention the word hinky I know they are not objectively evaluating the case. Also I don't care how long a person has investigated a case, if they were biased the whole time their investigating was worthless because the most likely ignored anything that didn't support their bias.

What I really think is that something happened that was interpreted the wrong way because of assumptions made that were wrong. I think that by reexamining those assumptions we may solve the case.

And to clarify, its completely normal to call your lawyer in a situation like this. Only people who don't have full time lawyers think it is strange. This situation is exactly when you'd call your lawyer.

If the Ramseys were innocent they called the lawyer to help with the ransom issues and to help with legal issues.

I can only speak to my own experience and reactions. If I found my child missing from her bed my first, second, or third thought would not be to call my attorney. If I found a crude ransom note on the steps, my first thought would be to check all of my children.

BTW, we don't know if the Ramseys did or did not call their attorney because the DA's office refused to issue a subpoena for the toll records.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I can only speak to my own experience and reactions. If I found my child missing from her bed my first, second, or third thought would not be to call my attorney. If I found a crude ransom note on the steps, my first thought would be to check all of my children.

BTW, we don't know if the Ramseys did or did not call their attorney because the DA's office refused to issue a subpoena for the toll records.

JMO

People will all say what they would do, But you have no idea until you were there. They did not get up and call attorneys. They only called the attorneys on the advice of a friend.

 

[MyBelle]

People will all say what they would do, But you have no idea until you were there. They did not get up and call attorneys. They only called the attorneys on the advice of a friend.

BBM. Where did you get this fact? We do not know when or whom they called because the DA failed to obtain a subpoena.

Actually I do know what I would NOT do. My 4-yr-old disappeared from my neighbor's backyard after an older child left the gate open. Within seconds the entire neighborhood was looking. I didn't call my attorney before I found her.

One of our dogs went missing the other night and our reaction when we realized she wasn't with us was to search the ENTIRE house, top to bottom.
One of my grandkids had shut the door to my husband's basement office with her inside sound asleep under his desk.

So, yeah, I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what we'd do if our child went missing from her bed and contacting our attorney would not be high on the list if we were innocent.