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

[gramcracker]

TP/tissue/gift wrap are (for lack of a better word) treated, and may be less appetizing. brown paper bags are more like au natural. supposedly the ink in books is a deterrent but it didn't help with my cookbooks. don't know where you are in NM but a lot of it is desert like PHX. apartment buildings are worse than houses for roaches because neighboring units may opt out of exterminating so the little buggers run to the safe zones and wait it out. if you've lived where you are for awhile and haven't seen them yet you must be OK. but then, weather patterns are changing so what has always been OK could change. I would say ask neighbors and ask realtors, especially realtors. exterminators may/may not give accurate answers if they're out to make a buck. if you have lots of books you value it might be worthwhile to do some research

(I wish we had an off-topic thread we could use sometimes. any ideas for a title?)

 

[Mama2JML]

In 1987, Heather Coffin was sexually assaulted and strangled to death in the dead of night in her own home. Statistics would suggest a parent was quite likely responsible.

"Heather, the oldest of four children, had shared a room with her 8-year-old sister until about three months ago, Hallowell said. Then her parents, Randall Coffin, 39, and Brenda Coffin, 35, had taken 10-month-old baby Randall into their bedroom. That gave Heather her own room.

It was there, Randall Coffin told police, that he found his daughter's body shortly before 7 a.m.

Heather Coffin had been strangled with some type of cord or strap, police said, and she had been raped at least twice. Bruises around her mouth indicated the killer might have muffled her cries.

...

Family members reported hearing nothing unusual during the night.

A neighbor told police of seeing the dining room lights on about 5 a.m. An hour after that, Randall Coffin told investigators, he went downstairs to heat a bottle for the baby and noticed a draft on his feet. The front and back doors and a rear basement door were ajar, he said.

Investigators said later they found no evidence the doors had been forced open.

Randall Coffin said he went upstairs and found Heather's body. Her nightgown was pulled up around her shoulders and her underpants were rolled up on the floor.

A leather belt was found in the hallway, but police said they did not think it was the murder weapon. It appeared to be too wide to match the narrow strangulation mark on the girl's neck.

Brenda Coffin, the mother, told police she last saw her daughter alive the night before, after she and her husband returned from a family anniversary party. Heather was in bed, Coffin said, and her other daughters, Kimberly, 4, and Danielle, 8, were sleeping in their room.

The mother walked a baby sitter across the street, she told police. Randall Coffin was in bed when she returned. She said she locked the front and back doors and went to bed."​

Source: http://articles.philly.com/1987-02-17/news/26177778_1_baby-sitter-body-doors

 

[Mama2JML]

Heather Coffin's murder was solved 16 years after her death when investigators decided to take a fresh look at some old evidence.

"CARROLL: Her death was a mystery for 16 years. Heather Coffin was 10 years old when someone quietly broke into her bedroom in the middle of the night, raped and then strangled her.

Detectives at the time questioned a number of people: friends, neighbors, even Coffin's parents, who were sleeping in the next room when the murder happened. But their leads went nowhere. Until now.

SYLVESTER JOHNSON, POLICE COMMISSIONER: This individual defendant was on our radar screen at the time this thing happened. I understand he'd been interviewed two or three times before, but didn't have physical evidence to tie him into the case until we got the results back that we have now.

CARROLL: Early Wednesday, police arrested Raymond Sheehan at his Philadelphia home, located just a few miles from where the Coffins live. He's 38 years old and a former friend of the Coffin family.

According to police, Sheehan had provided them with blood and hair samples back in 1988, although they say he was not a suspect at the time. Detectives now say new DNA technology enabled them to make a match now that they could not have made years ago.

JOHNSON: The fact that DNA technology has caught up with our investigation is tremendous. CARROLL: Heather's sisters, then 7 and 4, were sleeping in the same room when she was killed. Today, they are relieved and feel their family has finally been vindicated.

DANIELLE COFFIN, SISTER: My dad went through so much. Everybody saying that it was my dad. Everybody saying, when I would go to school, people saying, 'Oh, yes, you're the sister that your dad killed your other sister.'

...

COOPER: Randall Coffin is Heather Coffin's father. He joins us from Philadelphia.

Randall, thank you so much for being with us.

RANDALL COFFIN, FATHER: You're welcome.

COOPER: Your thoughts on hearing Jason Carroll reporting that sources tell him a written statement has been made by this man, confessing to the crime?

R. COFFIN: Yes. I have heard.

And number one, I want to thank the press and the homicide that they have solved the case. I'm -- I am surprised who it really is, but yes, I knew him, and I never knew that I would ever know anybody could come in, rape, strangle and kill your daughter and I hope he's looking at me, that they give him a TV to look at me. This is all I have left.

And my children don't have to put up with people saying that I am the murderer anymore. It gives me a little bit of relief.

God has been good. He has answered my prayers, and I pray time and time again, and I am a strong believer that your prayers are answered once you let God come into your heart.

COOPER: Randall, I understand you heard this, all of this story breaking by watching television this morning.

R. COFFIN: Yes, my daughter called me this morning. This was Danielle, so upset that I didn't know what was going on. I was not notified or the mother was notified. And I almost passed out myself when I first heard it on TV this morning at 7:30.

And then off and on, I had three, six, and every other reporter call me and homicide finally responded back around 11 this morning. And they always promised me that they would call and let us know, that we would be the number one that they would notify first.

And it's been a long haul. I have no hate, no grudges against them. Thank God they solved the case."​

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/08/se.10.html

 

[midwest mama]

Thanks for posting the link to the transcript, Mama2JML. It was interesting to see that in 2003 they were claiming new technology helped them get different results with DNA that enabled them to make an arrest of the perp who committed the crime in 1987. I have to wonder if any of the samples taken in 1996 for JB's case have ever been looked at again as this sort of new technology developed.

Also, I found it interesting that Mr. Coffin, who appears to have been a godly man, and believed his prayers were answered in finding his daughter's killer, still wanted to see grave sentencing, and eventually the death penalty, imposed upon his former friend turned killer. Not at all like the Ramsey family with members wanting to seek forgiveness and being very careful to remain calm when the JMK news first broke.

I know different people react differently, but I think the Coffin family probably had a reaction much closer to what you would think innocent family members might express, than the reactions the R's have displayed over the years.
.
I seriously would LOVE to see this case turn out to be IDI, since that's where I started in Dec 1996. But I will wait until someone says they're going to resubmit the collected samples from suspects back through any new technology now available that might give different results before I get hopeful. I guess since the Coffin investigators believed they should do it in 2003, I wonder why any of the Ramsey investigative team hasn't had the same desire?

 

[Venom]

TP/tissue/gift wrap are (for lack of a better word) treated, and may be less appetizing. brown paper bags are more like au natural. supposedly the ink in books is a deterrent but it didn't help with my cookbooks. don't know where you are in NM but a lot of it is desert like PHX. apartment buildings are worse than houses for roaches because neighboring units may opt out of exterminating so the little buggers run to the safe zones and wait it out. if you've lived where you are for awhile and haven't seen them yet you must be OK. but then, weather patterns are changing so what has always been OK could change. I would say ask neighbors and ask realtors, especially realtors. exterminators may/may not give accurate answers if they're out to make a buck. if you have lots of books you value it might be worthwhile to do some research

(I wish we had an off-topic thread we could use sometimes. any ideas for a title?)

I am sitting here all shifty eyed over thinking about what paper I have in the house. And thinking of flying roaches the size of candy bars....shudder.
Tovarisch, that would freak me out. Gah, I'm going to be thinking about bugs while I'm in bed tonight.
BBM- How about the Roach House, lol.

 

[Chrishope]

Sorry, are you saying that everything I posted there was utterly pointless?

This is why I don't usually touch this Ramsey forum with a 10 foot pole.

Well, I suppose you could put it that way. I've thought about the same questions and I think most people have. The problem is we can look at it either way. It's a smart person trying to look dumb by misspelling some words or it's a dumb person using big words to look smarter. It's a poor person who isn't familiar with large sums of money a rich person trying to sound like a poor person. You can have it either way, and that's why I say the question just leads in circles. Much of what is "discussed" on these forums is like that, which is why I don't come here much either.

Sorry If I offended, but if you think about it you'll realize there is no definitive answer to your questions. It can go either way, and therefore doesn't really help solve the crime.

 

[Mama2JML]

Well, I suppose you could put it that way. I've thought about the same questions and I think most people have. The problem is we can look at it either way. It's a smart person trying to look dumb by misspelling some words or it's a dumb person using big words to look smarter. It's a poor person who isn't familiar with large sums of money a rich person trying to sound like a poor person. You can have it either way, and that's why I say the question just leads in circles. Much of what is "discussed" on these forums is like that, which is why I don't come here much either.

Sorry If I offended, but if you think about it you'll realize there is no definitive answer to your questions. It can go either way, and therefore doesn't really help solve the crime.

BBM

I appreciated the questions posed, but I agree with you. ...and I realize your reply wasn't intended to offend.

I am genuinely curious, knowing you're firmly RDI; Whom do you suspect, on what evidence have you based your theory, and what is your level of confidence in your opinion?

 

[lawstudent]

Well, I suppose you could put it that way. I've thought about the same questions and I think most people have. The problem is we can look at it either way. It's a smart person trying to look dumb by misspelling some words or it's a dumb person using big words to look smarter. It's a poor person who isn't familiar with large sums of money a rich person trying to sound like a poor person. You can have it either way, and that's why I say the question just leads in circles. Much of what is "discussed" on these forums is like that, which is why I don't come here much either.

Sorry If I offended, but if you think about it you'll realize there is no definitive answer to your questions. It can go either way, and therefore doesn't really help solve the crime.

It's a really interesting discussion that I enjoy having, and I'd like to hear more FBI analysis of it. But I agree that, as far as I can see, it can go a bunch of ways and that to try and pick one is always misleading, but a lot of people do that in this case. I just always hone in on the letter's inconsistency. It seems like whoever wrote it was trying to come across as something they weren't. But that doesn't pinpoint anyone by any means.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM

I appreciated the questions posed, but I agree with you. ...and I realize your reply wasn't intended to offend.

I am genuinely curious, knowing you're firmly RDI; Whom do you suspect, on what evidence have you based your theory, and what is your level of confidence in your opinion?

I think JR is the best suspect. That's based on my agreement with the DocG theory of the case http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/just-facts-maam.html I'm not clever enough to have figured it out myself, but I can recognize the solution once it's in front of me. My confidence in Doc's theory is very high.

 

[Mama2JML]

I think JR is the best suspect. That's based on my agreement with the DocG theory of the case http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/just-facts-maam.html I'm not clever enough to have figured it out myself, but I can recognize the solution once it's in front of me. My confidence in Doc's theory is very high.

DocG's theory is interesting, and I can understand how some find his general analysis convincing. A very basic summary of his conclusion:

"Fact: no intruder, telling us this must have been an inside job.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Conclusion: John Ramsey and John Ramsey alone must be the guilty party. Case solved."​

I agree with most arguments DocG presents regarding Patsy, but I do not believe he establishes a convincing argument against IDI. If not PDI, then JDI or IDI.

Source: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/case-solved.html?m=1

 

[reedus23]

DocG's theory is interesting, and I can understand how some find his general analysis convincing. A very basic summary of his conclusion:

"Fact: no intruder, telling us this must have been an inside job.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Conclusion: John Ramsey and John Ramsey alone must be the guilty party. Case solved."​

I agree with most arguments DocG presents regarding Patsy, but I do not believe he establishes a convincing argument against IDI. If not PDI, then JDI or IDI.

Source: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/case-solved.html?m=1

I think to be fair, he/she shouldn't have listed those as facts. Rather, they are assumptions. I have no problem with brainstorming, but it always throws up a red flag to me if one is having to assume or create facts to fit a theory as opposed to the theory fitting the facts. It also throws up a red flag to me if one is stating an opinion or assumption as fact as if the person has tunnel vision. Personally, I'm open to any possibility but just thought I'd throw out my thoughts on the DocG.

 

[Anti-K]

Docg is a he, and the title (Dr.) is genuine, although I won’t say in what field. Yes, I happen to know Docg’s “real identity.” But, that’s all that I will say about that.

Docg has, as far back as I can remember – many years – started out his theories by, supposedly, disproving ALL possibility of an intruder. Primarily, his arguments in this regard are almost always Arguments Ad Ignorantium (mostly, Personal Incredulity) and he usually builds his case for elimination by describing and defeating a series of Straw Men, sometimes incorporating (incorrectly, I believe) concepts such as “negative evidence.” He’s been banned from several forums, which might be one of the reasons he started his blog.

Anyways...

If we ignore his “no Intruder” fact, than Docg’s argument actually leads to IDI. I think he knows this, and that is one of the reasons that he always, always, starts out by with this fact.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Docg’s argument is similar to the one that I often use: people who report (fake) kidnappings only do so AFTER they have disposed of their victim’s body.
...

AK

 

[reedus23]

Thanks for the insight. I know I've said it too much already, but relatively new to studying up on this case. I've found the couple of interviews the Ramseys have given. Found where numerous depositions are. Are there any police/investigative reports out there? Trying to read the raw information as opposed to other people's take on what happened and if y'all could point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated. TIA

ETA - And not talking about books written to make a buck. For instance, I really don't care at this point what Thomas has to say but I would be curious to read any formal reports he filed at the time of the investigation.

 

[Anti-K]

Thanks for the insight. I know I've said it too much already, but relatively new to studying up on this case. I've found the couple of interviews the Ramseys have given. Found where numerous depositions are. Are there any police/investigative reports out there? Trying to read the raw information as opposed to other people's take on what happened and if y'all could point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated. TIA

ETA - And not talking about books written to make a buck. For instance, I really don't care at this point what Thomas has to say but I would be curious to read any formal reports he filed at the time of the investigation.

I’m not sure what you mean by “police/investigative reports.” There is a lot of stuff out there, depositions (Smit, Thomas, Beckner, interviews (by police, and media: there is the Carnes Decision, and a few official statements of one sort or another have been made by BPD and the DA’s office, over the years. I have links to some of these, but they’re a bit scattered and some may no longer work.

The autopsy report is available, and there are a decent number of autopsy/crime scene photos available. Some media concerns did investigative reporting (for example, 48 Hours had the 911 call analyzed), and some of that should still be out there.

Search warrants, and an inventory list of evidence seized is available.

You might be able to find some (most?) of this stuff at http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm but, note that the site does have a clear, RDI bias. Still, a pretty decent resource. I haven’t visited there in quite some time, so I’m not sure how it’s held up.

I’d go ahead and read the Thomas book, but his deposition is probably more revealing, and IMO important reading. PMPT, I’d recommend to anyone and everyone, and it is the book written with the least bias. If you’re RDI, or leaning that way then PMPT will confirm your beliefs, and if you’re IDI, or leaning that way, then PMPT will confirm those beliefs; but, if you’re on the fence or otherwise undecided, PMPT will change nothing. Save Kolar for last, or just skip it. Kolar is all one-side of a two-sided story and, although factually based, is best described as by Lacey in her letter to Kolar:
Kolar’s presentation, she wrote, is, “not based on facts supported by evidence. Your theory is based upon conjecture, which at times approaches pure flights of fantasy. Your conclusions are based upon suppositions and inferences with absolutely no support in evidence or in the record. Your presentation lacks the fundamental substantive factual basis from which reasonable minds cannot differ.

“I must repeat, there is no substantive basis to your theory. It is almost pure speculation as to what could've happened rather than evidence as to what did happen.”

Oh, and Smit’s powerpoint presentation, which he may have shown to the Grand Jury should be available somewhere. I think. I probably have a copy of it.

Etc.
...
AK

Ps
Go ahead and read Kolar.

 

[reedus23]

Thanks Anti-K. I guess what I was wondering is, I don't how familiar you are with the West Memphis 3 case, but callahans is basically just a document dump of all the actual statements, investigative reports and notes as they were prepared during the investigation. I guess I was wondering if there was something similar for Jonbenet's case.

I have already undertaken to start reading the transcripts from the Ramsey statements and some of the various depositions. I was hoping to read the original information without any taint or bias as to RDI this or IDI that. I have also read the search warrant documents and autopsy, which is good stuff and the "raw" type of information I'm talking about. I guess what I'm trying to avoid at the moment are books, movies, tabloid/media articles where it seems they are trying to advance one position or another. The depositions in the civil cases aren't really related to the investigation but is closer so I've begun reading them. acandyrose has some of that stuff interspersed in it but it's so difficult to weed through or weed out all the stuff that ends up just quoting media articles/segments or is just related to message boards and posters that have nothing to do with the underlying investigation itself. Not sure if that makes sense. My guess is there isn't anything more out there but thought I'd ask.

Here's an example of what I mean. My understanding at this point is that there were 4 experts to analyze the handwriting as part of the actual investigation. Are their reports available anywhere? Not people talking about them, but the reports themselves. I know there were other experts used by private individuals but I really am not too interested in them or experts used by the media. All of those experts are going to say whatever the person writing the check wants them to say. But I'm having a hard time tracking down the actual reports done as part of the investigation.

 

[Anti-K]

I’m familiar with WM3, but most of what I know comes from the documentaries (3), and from J. Douglas’ “Law & Disorder.”
The acandyrose website and I suppose the smoking gun website are probably the closest that you’ll find to what you’re looking for, but I think you’ve already seen the downside of that.

As far as I know, none of the document analysis done by what I call the “credible expert’s” – the four you mention - has ever been released; but the Carnes Decision gives us pretty good idea as to what these experts concluded; and the Epstein depo (and, Hunter’s via Epstein), and the Smit depo, and even the Thomas depo all give pretty good indications as to what these experts concluded.

There’s a chance that someone will pop up now and say something negative about the Carnes Decision; but, the truth is that the Carnes Decision was sound, as it was based on the evidence that was presented before it.

The absence of the sort or reports and documents you’d like to see is one of the reasons that I am, still, after all these years, sometimes shocked with the degree of certainty so many posters seem to possess. I’m pretty set as an IDI, but that is a provisional position, things could change; but I need evidence. It’s always, always, always about the evidence.
.
I’m wondering about your opinion on questions asked by interrogators during the interviews as opposed to the depositions. It’s been my opinion that information gleaned from questions/statements/claims made by interrogators during the depositions are more indicative of “the truth” than that gleaned from questions/statements/claims made by interrogators during the interviews. As I understand it, interrogators (my term, because I don’t know any better) can – ah, misrepresent – during the interviews, but cannot legally/ethically do the same during the depositions.

If this is true – and, I’m hoping you have some insight on this: if its “true” – than, the questions asked during the depositions can be as informative, and possibly less misleading, than the answers given. Or, so it seems...
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks Anti-K. I guess what I was wondering is, I don't how familiar you are with the West Memphis 3 case, but callahans is basically just a document dump of all the actual statements, investigative reports and notes as they were prepared during the investigation. I guess I was wondering if there was something similar for Jonbenet's case.

I have already undertaken to start reading the transcripts from the Ramsey statements and some of the various depositions. I was hoping to read the original information without any taint or bias as to RDI this or IDI that. I have also read the search warrant documents and autopsy, which is good stuff and the "raw" type of information I'm talking about. I guess what I'm trying to avoid at the moment are books, movies, tabloid/media articles where it seems they are trying to advance one position or another. The depositions in the civil cases aren't really related to the investigation but is closer so I've begun reading them. acandyrose has some of that stuff interspersed in it but it's so difficult to weed through or weed out all the stuff that ends up just quoting media articles/segments or is just related to message boards and posters that have nothing to do with the underlying investigation itself. Not sure if that makes sense. My guess is there isn't anything more out there but thought I'd ask.

Here's an example of what I mean. My understanding at this point is that there were 4 experts to analyze the handwriting as part of the actual investigation. Are their reports available anywhere? Not people talking about them, but the reports themselves. I know there were other experts used by private individuals but I really am not too interested in them or experts used by the media. All of those experts are going to say whatever the person writing the check wants them to say. But I'm having a hard time tracking down the actual reports done as part of the investigation.

I'd love to have access to official reports, but until a case is presented to a trial jury all we have is what we've got; books, interviews, articles, depositions, etc. ...a lot to weed through & assess. Frustrating case, for sure.

 

[2 percent]

Not every household has brown grocery bags. We don`t.
Even if Ramsey`s had in household brown paper bags, how killer could be sure about it. He was not, that’s` why the bag was left.

This particular bag stands out of the row of the other innocent grocery bags if stacked under the sink or elsewhere in the kitchen. This one brown paper bag was innocently looking to other people on the streets, while carried in the perps hands to the Ramsey`s house, and that`s why killer had chosen it, and it`s innocence ended there. Killer(s)`s kit was in the brown paper bag: gloves, rope(s), duct tape, flashlight. He (they) might had couple of those bags.

Brown paper bag(s) was used in the crime. There is no innocent explanation for:
1, It was found in the bedroom, adjacent to JB`s bedroom, it stood on the JAR bed, in the morning after the crime
2. It had the rope inside
3. The particle of this brown paper bag had been found in JB`s bed , which means at some point this brown paper bag had been in JB`s room, or used to take something out of it . “Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94).
4. Ransom had reference to the brown paper bag .

The point #3 is major evidence towards the IDI to the disappointment of RDI believers. RDI people cannot avert their eyes from one more forensic evidence, they should come with the reason why Patsy / John would bring the brown paper bag into JB`s room on the night of her killing. We cannot continue swiping the evidence under the rug, if it does not fit RDI theory. It makes the dispute between IDI and RDI worthless. Other than how I believe it got in there- the perp(s) kit was inside the bag, the crime started in JB`s room, things taken out of the bag, bag`s particles flew on the bed, I cannot phantom any other scenario.

Concerning the adequate size attaché. I believe that every briefcase, even slim one, could accommodate this amount of money. I can visualize this amount, I cannot verify with the experiment, because I would need to buy 28 small notebooks. I can only visualize, we can look at the small notebook with 100 pages for 100 bills bundled to make $10,000 and imagine 10 bundles of it, and 50 pages for 20 bills bundled to make $1,000 and imagine 18 bundles like it. It`s not mountain of the money, any briefcase could accommodate it. One brown paper bag would definitely accommodate this amount.

Why perp(s) was so detailed about the money handling down to the obsessive instructions and concerns? My personal believe that either perp(s) was psycho ( and a liar, which is always connected) , so detailed, and so wrong on almost everything, like taking money from the bank earlier then 8-10 am , morning after the Christmas, face-to-face transaction of exchange; or he (them) mocked at the victims Ramseys at every step, enjoying prolongation of the defeat and victory.

Scenario: Patsy goes to the store and comes home with a lot of brown paper bags containing groceries. Threaded through the foodstuff is toiletries and other non food items that belong in places like bathrooms and bedrooms in the upper floors. There are several items, so Patsy piles them all in one bag so she can make one trip upstairs. She drops off something in JBs room, placing the bag on the bed (largest flattest most convenient surface) and then moves on to bathrooms and maybe even Burke's room.

This isn't hard stuff.

By the way, why is the "kit" only the tool of the intruder? Why couldn't either John or Patsy also keep a "kit" in a brown paper bag?

 

[tovarisch]

Scenario: Patsy goes to the store and comes home with a lot of brown paper bags containing groceries. Threaded through the foodstuff is toiletries and other non food items that belong in places like bathrooms and bedrooms in the upper floors. There are several items, so Patsy piles them all in one bag so she can make one trip upstairs. She drops off something in JBs room, placing the bag on the bed (largest flattest most convenient surface) and then moves on to bathrooms and maybe even Burke's room.
This isn't hard stuff.

By the way, why is the "kit" only the tool of the intruder? Why couldn't either John or Patsy also keep a "kit" in a brown paper bag?

I `ve been absent on the thread due to our old dog`s sickness for 3 weeks now. I’m` depressed to the lowest point, because despite ton of money spent on 2 veterinarians, I realized, our dog is in the end of her 15.5 years life journey.

Thank you for your response. My view on your scenario- I`m sorry, I cannot get it as a realistic scenario.

The bag`s particle were on the body, and on the JB`s bed. Undeniably, the brown paper bag was in the JB`s bedroom AFTER she was put to bed and BEFORE she was taken to the basement on the night of killing, it creates exact time frame for the bag in JB`s bedroom -----AFTER JB was put to bed and BEFORE she was taken to basement. The killing took place late in the night/ early in the morning. Patsy`s carrying toiletry around at this time of the night - unbelievable scenario. Ramseys entering JB`s bedroom with killer`s kit in brown bag-unbelievable premeditated killing `s scenario.

Fact that RDI yet to explain – brown paper bag was in the JB~s bed room IN the MOMENT of killing. And then it was put to the adjacent room with the ROPE inside it.

And the other MATERIAL object I would be pleased if RDI could explain it - new batteries in the old FL. How could it been replaced without trace of old batteries discharged in the trash , packages of the other new batteries left minus 2 taken, no finger prints on it? Steve Thomas had big problem with those batteries, he tried to put this FL in the hand of policeman, did not he?

 

[THE BUNK]

Killer(s)`s kit was in the brown paper bag: gloves, rope(s), duct tape, flashlight. He (they) might had couple of those bags.

A brown bag runs the risk of ripping to carry all those items. A plastic bag would be more suitable. The lack of handles would also make it kind of pointless to use in transportation.The only reason to use the brown bag is that it was what the rope and tape were placed in to begin with. Like they were just recently purchased and was placed in his car.

The more likely scenario is that the rope and masking tape were recently purchased, hence the brown bag. Or they were never used and were left in the bag...a common thing that people do with tools they are not using. I often still have boxes of nails and screws I purchase that are still in their original bags from my hardware purchase.