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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MyBelle said:
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
Click to expand...

Which they did. So enough with the spinning of drama. They checked Burke and they called 911 and they called their lawyer.

Next
 
MyBelle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your kid was missing, there wasn't a ransom note lying around. You knew what happened. They got out through the gate.

You didn't walk outside and find a ransom note lying in the back yard. And I don't think you have a full time lawyer on your staff. So this story is completely different and irrelevant.
 
http://www.teamamberalert.net/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1973

Police Pursue 'Hundreds Of Leads' In 3-Year-Old's Murder
Update Report: Acquaintance Of Riley's Father Also Killed


WILMINGTON, Ill. -- Will County detectives are leading a team of 20 investigators to follow up on "hundreds of potential leads" in the murder case of 3-year-old Riley Fox, whose body was found in a creek miles from her home just hours after she was reported missing on Sunday.

One of those leads, according to NBC5's Phil Rogers, "gives a good idea of how far police are looking and how diverse the leads have become in a troublesome case."

Rogers said another murder case has come under scrutiny because "violence has visited two different people known to Riley Fox's father in the span of less than one month."

Rogers said the other case occurred two weeks ago, at a tavern in downtown Braidwood, Ill., called Kevinigans. A 40-year-old man named Robert Dransfeldt was drinking at the tavern when a masked gunman entered and "pumped two shots into his head and chest."

"NBC5 has learned that the victim, Dransfeldt, was an acquaintance of Kevin Fox -- the father of victim Riley Fox," Rogers said. "And police sources confirm for us that they have been looking into the possibility that the two crimes might somehow be related."

Kevin Fox and Dransfeldt were both painters and had worked for the same contractor.

"Dransfeldt ends up dead, and so does Fox's daughter," Rogers said.

Rogers said it is "extremely important" to note that the possible connection is just a lead and "not the only one being followed."

"But investigators we spoke with said it is a curious confluence of events that has certainly sparked their interest," Rogers said.

Rogers reiterated that this "is a case where every possible lead has been pursued."

Investigators dragged the creek where Fox's body was found again on Monday afternoon, looking for evidence to compare with evidence from Fox's home and her body -- "fibers, hair, body fluids, things of that nature," according to police.

It was determined that the cause of death was drowning, and the water in Fox's lungs "was consistent with that creek," police said.

Police said they continued to question registered sex offenders in the area and continued questioning the girl's parents, to confirm the timeline of events.

Fox's father said he locked the door and put her to sleep on Saturday night, after picking her and her 7-year-old brother up from their grandmother's house. He reported her missing on Sunday morning.

Police did not say that Fox's killer knew her, but did say there was nothing to indicate that a stranger in the area was victimizing children at random."​
 
MyBelle said:
Do I have "evidence" that phone companies are regulated by the public service/utilities commission in various states? Uh, yeah, I do. But that has nothing to do with your intruder theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet.



I still await your theory on the intruder killing JonBenet.
Click to expand...


Do you know how long landline phone records were kept in Colorado in1996?




Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Actually that's not what grand juries are for. They are not for being able to hold people. They are for seeing if there is enough to bring people to trial.

It's fine if we look at it differently. Knowing that there are many people in jail that are innocent and many that have been exonerated with DNA shoes grand juries are not always right.




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


Grand juries are NOT used because it's believed the suspect is innocent.

People awaiting their trial being held behind bars without bail, are NOT presumed innocent.




That's my point.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Some IDI ideas about assumptions that may be wrong.

One the most compelling clues in the case that make it seem like the Ramseys' could be guilty is the ransom note. We've all gone over the ransom note with a fine tooth comb and there are few things that make us think it points to the Ramseys.

One is that the note mentions that $118,000 and that no one could have known about that unless they were close to the family. Since the Ramseys didn't tell anyone, who could have known? However we may be making a false assumption that they didn't tell anyone. As we have seen from PRs Christmas notes, she's got a habit of listing all her family accomplishments and details. She even comes across as "bragging" to some. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that she mentioned it to someone and doesn't remember doing so. Or a worker in the home heard her mention it. Was there a plan earmarked for that $118,000 or was it just going to be dumped in JBs account. If they had decided to use that money for a specific thing, she may have accidentally mentioned it.

Example. "Now that John got his $118,000 bonus, we're going to get that new Yacht that he wanted"

(I'm not saying that's what she said, just as an example.)

Another assumption about the ransom note that points to the Ramseys is the assumption that the note was written that night in the house on that note pad after the Ramseys had gone to bed and before they found Jonbenet. That certainly seems strange. What criminal is going to sit down and write this note risking being found.

But what if the note was written much earlier? The family had been out for the evening and there was no one in the home. What if the ransom note was written by the Intruder while they were gone. And then it was simply placed on the stairs at the end of the attack on Jonbenet.

Why do we assume that the ransom note was written in that time frame. It's entirely possible that a perpetrator sat in the house waiting for hours until they came home and filled up their time writing out this ransom note.
 
I believe the person that wrote the note was there in the house when they were out that night. I think they had all the time in the world to plan and figure out and explore the house.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
Linda7NJ said:
Grand juries are NOT used because it's believed the suspect is innocent.

People awaiting their trial being held behind bars without bail, are NOT presumed innocent.




That's my point.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Everyone is presumed innocent until convicted. That is how it works. Being accused or indicted does not make you guilty. Being convicted does.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
It's entirely possible. They could have easily taken that note pad out of the kitchen and written the note hours before the family came home.



Another issue I have is that JR told the police that all the doors were locked and he didn't see any sign of a break in. Why would he say that if he was trying to get the cops to think someone had broken in?


http://braveheart.users4.50megs.com/ramsey/floorplans.jpg
 
The thing is that locked doors don't preclude that someone could have been in the house then opened a door switched the lock and shut it when they left leaving - a locked door.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
I know, people often say "Why would an intruder do that" and it's as simple as "habit"

My point is that if JR were deliberately trying to stage the scene and make it seem like an intruder did it, wouldn't they have manipulated a fake break in or even just left a door wide open and then have Patsy fret that she must have forgotten to lock it.

Why tell the cops that you didn't see any sign of a break in if you want them to think there was a break in?
 
There are many things that are not reasonable if you are trying to stage a murder. Ridiculous things that a child would know to take care of.

And intruder would do that to not give a point of entry or escape.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Everyone is presumed innocent until convicted. That is how it works. Being accused or indicted does not make you guilty. Being convicted does.


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


I disagree
A person may escape conviction, be found not guilty or never be arrested that alone doesn't mean they are factually innocent.

How it works, jurors are instructed the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The prosecutor certainly doesn't extend that presumption, law enforcement certainly doesn't.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Linda7NJ said:
I disagree
A person may escape conviction, be found not guilty or never be arrested that alone doesn't mean they are factually innocent.

How it works, jurors are instructed the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The prosecutor certainly doesn't extend that presumption, law enforcement certainly doesn't.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You may disagree. But that is how it works. You are innocent until proven guilty. That does not happen until verdict day. Up until that time you are presumed innocent.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
Chewy said:
Some IDI ideas about assumptions that may be wrong.

One the most compelling clues in the case that make it seem like the Ramseys' could be guilty is the ransom note. We've all gone over the ransom note with a fine tooth comb and there are few things that make us think it points to the Ramseys.

One is that the note mentions that $118,000 and that no one could have known about that unless they were close to the family. Since the Ramseys didn't tell anyone, who could have known? However we may be making a false assumption that they didn't tell anyone. As we have seen from PRs Christmas notes, she's got a habit of listing all her family accomplishments and details. She even comes across as "bragging" to some. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that she mentioned it to someone and doesn't remember doing so. Or a worker in the home heard her mention it. Was there a plan earmarked for that $118,000 or was it just going to be dumped in JBs account. If they had decided to use that money for a specific thing, she may have accidentally mentioned it.

Example. "Now that John got his $118,000 bonus, we're going to get that new Yacht that he wanted"

(I'm not saying that's what she said, just as an example.)

Another assumption about the ransom note that points to the Ramseys is the assumption that the note was written that night in the house on that note pad after the Ramseys had gone to bed and before they found Jonbenet. That certainly seems strange. What criminal is going to sit down and write this note risking being found.

But what if the note was written much earlier? The family had been out for the evening and there was no one in the home. What if the ransom note was written by the Intruder while they were gone. And then it was simply placed on the stairs at the end of the attack on Jonbenet.

Why do we assume that the ransom note was written in that time frame. It's entirely possible that a perpetrator sat in the house waiting for hours until they came home and filled up their time writing out this ransom note.
Click to expand...
BBM

I agree. This seems most probable, IMHO.

Also, if we consider the notepad's missing pages, curious elements surrounding the Ramsey's Christmas party, the "accidental" 911 call, etc., then it seems plausible the/a perp had been in the home on another occasion (or other occasions). The RN may have been drafted even before the 25th. It certainly seems elements of the scene were staged with the intent of implicating the Ramseys.
 
The 911 call was interesting to me as well. Because if it was someone in the party, why not call 911 and hang up. Then the cops come and they see it's a false alarm. That way if anyone tries to call 911 again during the crime, they can disconnect the call and maybe buy themselves more time if the operator thinks "oh this is just another kid playing on the phone"


Also I agree it is possible that the perp was in the house and took the pages from the notepad in the house, even took the entire notepad and a sharpie in order to use something from inside the home to prevent detection. There's been many cases of cops figuring out who wrote the ransom note because the person took it from their own home.

And it also seems like the note written was a very amateur note. As if they had watched movies and designed the note around that. There have been several movies where the note itself led the cops back to the perpetrator. They may have thought they were being clever in doing this.
 
Chewy said:
The 911 call was interesting to me as well. Because if it was someone in the party, why not call 911 and hang up. Then the cops come and they see it's a false alarm. That way if anyone tries to call 911 again during the crime, they can disconnect the call and maybe buy themselves more time if the operator thinks "oh this is just another kid playing on the phone"


Also I agree it is possible that the perp was in the house and took the pages from the notepad in the house, even took the entire notepad and a sharpie in order to use something from inside the home to prevent detection. There's been many cases of cops figuring out who wrote the ransom note because the person took it from their own home.

And it also seems like the note written was a very amateur note. As if they had watched movies and designed the note around that. There have been several movies where the note itself led the cops back to the perpetrator. They may have thought they were being clever in doing this.
Click to expand...

I am no conspiracy theorist and so this case was hard for me from the beginning but there are things that make absolute sense when considering an intruder that do not when considering the family. The note is a huge one. The way it was written, On what , the toss away page, the missing pages... The pen from the house. Just like an assailant that does not want to be linked to a murder weapon will use a knife from a house they break into to kill someone.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Do you know how long landline phone records were kept in Colorado in1996?




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

Phone companies are regulated utilities. Please cite me a link with any utilities commission that requires landline records to be stored for any period of time.

Local landline phone calls were unlimited, they were not itemized on the phone bill. To obtain local call detail required a subpoena because it was quite a task for the phone company to retrieve them from data storage. There was no requirement for the phone company to store that call detail for any period of time. Long distance phone call detail for landlines had to be obtained from the long distance provider which may or may not have been US WEST.

Thomas requested a subpoena for toll (long distance) records. The DA's office refused. I think it is ridiculous to suggest those long distance records were available three years later therefore it is no big deal that Thomas' request was denied.

The fault is with the DA's office, not Thomas. Trip DeMuth's dad worked for US WEST as legal counsel. He certainly knew subpoenas were required to obtain toll records. Refusal to obtain a subpoena is outrageous, inexcusable conduct on the part of the DA's office.

all, IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 3,234 (members: 85, guests: 3,149)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
3,149
Total visitors
3,234
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,269
Messages
18,169,910
Members
232,271
Latest member
JayneDrop
Back
Top