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

[THE BUNK]

What makes you think it would have been "pitch dark"? Aside from artificial light, the moon may have illuminated the night sky. (Full moon on the 24th.)

FWIW, I'd think a flashlight could draw unwanted attention & we don't know the perp's mode of transportation.

Having lived in both urban and rural areas, I can tell you the difference in walking at night is stark!! Even with moonlight. The Ramsey's neighborhood is very similar to the one I grew up in during my teens. It was near impossible to see at night without lights! It's not unusual to see people walk with flashlights to one anothers house or for joggers to wear jackets with reflectors. Heck dogwalkers usually head out with a flashlight often. So the intruder walking normally with a flashlight would not be a unique sight in that neighborhood.

we don't know the perp's mode of transportation.

That's actually a very critical question that needs to be answered in regards to the IDI theory. How did the intruder arrive and escape from the crime scene.

in regards to his modes of transportation

1. By foot - if the killer travelled by foot, that narrows down the suspect list. That gives us a very limited radius from which the killer could leave from his home and walk a reasonable distance to the Ramsey house. The killer then has to have resided in the Ramsey neighborhood at the time of the murder.

It also eliminates the kidnapping motive, since I don't think the killer would be that stupid to risk bringing a struggling little girl with him on foot. Unless his house was really close.

It could also be the answer as to why the killer never bothered to move the body. He had no transport. Perhaps also why he abandoned the kidnapping plan, as well

It would also explain why the killer chose to stay in the house for so long. Without the comfort of a car, he really didn't have a good place to wait in for the Ramsey's to come home.


2. (himself as the driver)

The killer couldn't leave his car in front of the ramsey residence, so he had to leave it somewhere within reasonable distance. This would also mean the car was parked in this location....the whole time from when the Ramseys left the house to when the killer escaped after the murder.

Course this brings up this point. If you have a car, why would you need to stay in the house till the Ramsey's arrived? It is much easier to stake out their place from inside the car. You can always leave every now and then to get food, supplies, etc. You have radio. Hell you can even write the ransom note from your car. And more importantly...if anything is awry...you can leave the vicinity quickly without anyone having any idea what you were up to!!!

To me it makes no sense to stay in the house if the intruder came by car.



To be honest, I think the IDI theory makes more sense if the killer arrived by foot from a location...that was VERY close to the Ramsey home.

 

[THE BUNK]

A great question a cop friend of mine brought up.

Why would an experienced criminal be afraid to confront a middle aged man and his cancer survivor wife? A middle aged man that he hates so much that he wants to kill his daughter. Why all the sneaking around and hiding and writing ransom notes?

Just get a pistol.
Wait till the Ramsey's are asleep. Sneak into the house, threaten both John and Patsy.
Have one of them tie up the other with the rope you brought. Tie up the other one.
Say all the things you wanted to say to him in your alleged ransom note to John Ramsey.
Stun both of them with the stun gun. (or bludgeon them)
If Burke is awake, you can deal with him. If not, head to JonBenet's room.
Stun her with the gun, rape her, kill her, do whatever you want to her (it's not like anyone is going to stop you!)
Then leave the residence in your own good time with the knowledge that you just raped and killed your worst enemies daughter and you told him so right to his face.
Even if the cops catch you, you have the satisfaction of letting John know that it was YOU that did this to him.

This is why any intruder was not an experienced criminal or had any record prior to this murder.
This is also the reason why the killer could not be an adult man.

 

[kjpaw]

Unfortunately as history and human nature has proven, kids can kill as well.

Just cause your an old lady, a crippled person, a woman, a mentally handicapped person...or a little boy, doesn't mean you can't commit murder. Burke needs to be treated as a suspect as much as his parents would.

Burke's also not only a suspect, but a witness and potentially a victim. So, no. I think we are right to analyze his statements and any bizarre behavior on his behalf.


Especially since you don't have any evidence that these kidnappers have left the house.
Think about it? Why would the Ramsey's not assume this psychopath is not in their basement waiting for them to search it so he can kill them too?

You make excellent points. I'm not arguing a child can't be a killer and I definitely believe his interviews are important. I work w kids (as a school counselor) and I'm highly educated on grief, particularly in children. I was only pointing out that we can't always evaluate child statements once we are in our adult minds . They say things that don't always match what might make sense and/or say things that may seem suspicious to our adult brains. You guys have been very polite and informative so 👏! I'm still reading and catching up on this particular forum and after reading all the books I can say WS has the best info out there !

While I understand the plausible alternatives to leaving BR in his bed it goes against what I consider the "normal" (whatever that means reaction. And reactions against the norm can and should be considered as part of the full picture...that said, as one little piece of a HUGE pie it's not the most incriminating thing ever and y'all have made great points.

 

[Mama2JML]

Having lived in both urban and rural areas, I can tell you the difference in walking at night is stark!! Even with moonlight. The Ramsey's neighborhood is very similar to the one I grew up in during my teens. It was near impossible to see at night without lights! It's not unusual to see people walk with flashlights to one anothers house or for joggers to wear jackets with reflectors. Heck dogwalkers usually head out with a flashlight often. So the intruder walking normally with a flashlight would not be a unique sight in that neighborhood.



That's actually a very critical question that needs to be answered in regards to the IDI theory. How did the intruder arrive and escape from the crime scene.

A safety light (lamp post) located in the SE corner of the lot was not lit the evening of the 25th/early morning of the 26th, according to neighbors. This was the first time the light was noticed to be "out"/off. Other neighborhood residents likely had "safety lights? Were there street lights? ...alley lights? I think it's likely an intruder would assume a flashlight might draw unwanted attention, but that's JMO.

in regards to his modes of transportation

1. By foot - if the killer travelled by foot, that narrows down the suspect list. That gives us a very limited radius from which the killer could leave from his home and walk a reasonable distance to the Ramsey house. The killer then has to have resided in the Ramsey neighborhood at the time of the murder.

It also eliminates the kidnapping motive, since I don't think the killer would be that stupid to risk bringing a struggling little girl with him on foot. Unless his house was really close.

It could also be the answer as to why the killer never bothered to move the body. He had no transport. Perhaps also why he abandoned the kidnapping plan, as well

It would also explain why the killer chose to stay in the house for so long. Without the comfort of a car, he really didn't have a good place to wait in for the Ramsey's to come home.


2. (himself as the driver)

The killer couldn't leave his car in front of the ramsey residence, so he had to leave it somewhere within reasonable distance. This would also mean the car was parked in this location....the whole time from when the Ramseys left the house to when the killer escaped after the murder.

Course this brings up this point. If you have a car, why would you need to stay in the house till the Ramsey's arrived? It is much easier to stake out their place from inside the car. You can always leave every now and then to get food, supplies, etc. You have radio. Hell you can even write the ransom note from your car. And more importantly...if anything is awry...you can leave the vicinity quickly without anyone having any idea what you were up to!!!

To me it makes no sense to stay in the house if the intruder came by car.



To be honest, I think the IDI theory makes more sense if the killer arrived by foot from a location...that was VERY close to the Ramsey home.

I don't disagree, but we can't know for sure until/unless...

 

[THE BUNK]

A safety light (lamp post) located in the SE corner of the lot was not lit the evening of the 25th/early morning of the 26th, according to neighbors. This was the first time the light was noticed to be "out"/off. Other neighborhood residents likely had "safety lights? Were there street lights? ...alley lights? I think it's likely an intruder would assume a flashlight might draw unwanted attention, but that's JMO.

I don't disagree, but we can't know for sure until/unless...

Since your more familiar with the neighborhood than I, if you had to draw a perimeter within walking distance to the Ramsey house. What would be the border? What streets would they encompass?

 

[Mama2JML]

Since your more familiar with the neighborhood than I, if you had to draw a perimeter within walking distance to the Ramsey house. What would be the border? What streets would they encompass?

I'm not familiar with the neighborhood, and I'm not a criminal investigator. I don't know.

 

[kjpaw]

Since your more familiar with the neighborhood than I, if you had to draw a perimeter within walking distance to the Ramsey house. What would be the border? What streets would they encompass?

I'm very familiar with Boulder and it's such an incredibly active town I think it's difficult to define the walking perimeter because people in Boulder walk to places like its NYC . The R's house is nestled into one of the most expensive portions of boulder, and surrounded by other very expensive houses. On the other hand its only blocks away from apartments and student housing and the fraternity and sorority houses at CU (as well as a very active youth hostel). It's about 4 blocks (and these aren't NYCsize blocks, smaller) from the university and The Hill (a restaurant/bar/shopping area that borders CU). On the flip side, it's also possible to walk to chataqua park (full of hiking trails and the occasional mountain lion) from there, even though from memory that's a steep tough walk, you could do it. Soooo, my 2 cents is defining a walking perimeter is very tricky in boulder bc people there walk a lot. If you want me to pull up a map to help define what I think is possible in x amount of time I'd be happy to help if you give me the x .

As an add on, I never found Boulder dimly lit overall. I ran 15th street at night in the summer (Boulder is CRAZY hot in the summer) and it was by choice bc it was well lit. Even the alleys behind the houses are decently lit at night, snow actually helps with lighting bc it creates a glow/reflection. And students and walkers use the alleys all the time. I will say at the time of year this happened w classes being out it would've seemed like a ghost town.

 

[THE BUNK]

I'm not familiar with the neighborhood, and I'm not a criminal investigator. I don't know.

You don't need to be a criminal investigator to get that information.
You told me in previous posts that you were looking into suspects. That qualifies as investigating.
You are interested in solving this case, right? Not just in seeing the Ramsey's innocent at all costs?

 

[THE BUNK]

I'm very familiar with Boulder and it's such an incredibly active town I think it's difficult to define the walking perimeter because people in Boulder walk to places like its NYC . The R's house is nestled into one of the most expensive portions of boulder, and surrounded by other very expensive houses. On the other hand its only blocks away from apartments and student housing and the fraternity and sorority houses at CU (as well as a very active youth hostel). It's about 4 blocks (and these aren't NYCsize blocks, smaller) from the university and The Hill (a restaurant/bar/shopping area that borders CU). On the flip side, it's also possible to walk to chataqua park (full of hiking trails and the occasional mountain lion) from there, even though from memory that's a steep tough walk, you could do it. Soooo, my 2 cents is defining a walking perimeter is very tricky in boulder bc people there walk a lot. If you want me to pull up a map to help define what I think is possible in x amount of time I'd be happy to help if you give me the x .

As an add on, I never found Boulder dimly lit overall. I ran 15th street at night in the summer (Boulder is CRAZY hot in the summer) and it was by choice bc it was well lit. Even the alleys behind the houses are decently lit at night, snow actually helps with lighting bc it creates a glow/reflection. And students and walkers use the alleys all the time. I will say at the time of year this happened w classes being out it would've seemed like a ghost town.

Thanks, did you live there during 1996? Towns can expand rapidly in 10 years.

I would work on getting a map with a distance barrier for walking. Maybe even determine the possible suspects in the area that fit within that perimeter. But, I think the true hardcore IDI's on this thread should do it. If they are really interested in seeing an intruder suspect, then I think they should put in the detective work.

 

[Mama2JML]

You don't need to be a criminal investigator to get that information.
You told me in previous posts that you were looking into suspects. That qualifies as investigating.
You are interested in solving this case, right? Not just in seeing the Ramsey's innocent at all costs?

I can try. FWIW, my interest in this case has nothing to do with "seeing the Ramsey's innocent". ...not even close to " at all costs". I'm just not sure how we should go about determining an appropriate boundary for a neighborhood map.

 

[Anti-K]

In response to The Bunk’s post #748 on the “RDI...” thread: http://tinyurl.com/q9alnd4

I thought about it.

It could have happened like this: the killer sees the notepad. He picks it up. He takes it to wherever he writes the note. He opens it up and writes the supposed draft, the so-called practice note and the ransom note. So far, nothing done any differently than if a Ramsey or anyone else had done it.

Let’s say this is all done in advance.

Now, the killer closes the notepad and leaves it where it is, or moves it to the table where it was later found. Then, the crime is committed and staged and then the killer returns to the notepad and opens it, rips out the pages, closes it and leaves it on the table where it was later found.

Every step exactly the same as how a Ramsey, or as anyone, would do it.

Now, let’s say that this is all done AFTER the crime is committed and staged. Every step could still have been done virtually the same as outlined above.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

In response to The Bunk’s post #748 on the “RDI...” thread: http://tinyurl.com/q9alnd4

I thought about it.

It could have happened like this: the killer sees the notepad. He picks it up. He takes it to wherever he writes the note. He opens it up and writes the supposed draft, the so-called practice note and the ransom note. So far, nothing done any differently than if a Ramsey or anyone else had done it.

Let’s say this is all done in advance.

Now, the killer closes the notepad and leaves it where it is, or moves it to the table where it was later found. Then, the crime is committed and staged and then the killer returns to the notepad and opens it, rips out the pages, closes it and leaves it on the table where it was later found.

Every step exactly the same as how a Ramsey, or as anyone, would do it.

Now, let’s say that this is all done AFTER the crime is committed and staged. Every step could still have been done virtually the same as outlined above.

...

I'm sorry, I may have read it too fast, but could you point out when in the series of events the 4 pages were removed from the pad? Again, my apologies if I missed it.

 

[THE BUNK]

I can try. FWIW, my interest in this case has nothing to do with "seeing the Ramsey's innocent". ...not even close to " at all costs". I'm just not sure how we should go about determining an appropriate boundary for a neighborhood map.

Step 1 - determinine what an appropriate walking distance would be.
Step 2 - get a map of the Ramsey neighborhood. I think Google Maps would be a good choice.
Setep 3- Might be a little harder, but I think in Google maps you can scale to a particular distance.

You may want to check other investigative sites. I believe the EAR-ONS site has such a map of the murders that took place.

I should point out that the purpose of this exercise is that it may narrow down your suspect list.
If you buy the theory that the killer walked to the crime scene, then maybe it makes more sense to focus on suspects within that perimeter.

 

[Anti-K]

...

I'm sorry, I may have read it too fast, but could you point out when in the series of events the 4 pages were removed from the pad? Again, my apologies if I missed it.

I copied the original post below and put in BOLD the parts which you missed because, as you say, you “may have been reading too fast.”

It could have happened like this: the killer sees the notepad. He picks it up. He takes it to wherever he writes the note. He opens it up and writes the supposed draft, the so-called practice note and the ransom note. So far, nothing done any differently than if a Ramsey or anyone else had done it.

Let’s say this is all done in advance.

Now, the killer closes the notepad and leaves it where it is, or moves it to the table where it was later found. Then, the crime is committed and staged and then the killer returns to the notepad and opens it, rips out the pages, closes it and leaves it on the table where it was later found.

Every step exactly the same as how a Ramsey, or as anyone, would do it.

Now, let’s say that this is all done AFTER the crime is committed and staged. Every step could still have been done virtually the same as outlined above.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

I copied the original post below and put in BOLD the parts which you missed because, as you say, you “may have been reading too fast.”

Why the quotation marks? Are you offended or something? Don't take this personal. Be objective.

It could have happened like this: the killer sees the notepad. He picks it up. He takes it to wherever he writes the note. He opens it up and writes the supposed draft, the so-called practice note and the ransom note. So far, nothing done any differently than if a Ramsey or anyone else had done it.

Let’s say this is all done in advance.

Now, the killer closes the notepad and leaves it where it is, or moves it to the table where it was later found. Then, the crime is committed and staged and then the killer returns to the notepad and opens it, rips out the pages, closes it and leaves it on the table where it was later found.

So the killer didn't return the pad and pen before the Ramsey's arrived? He was careful enough to hide carefully attempt to hide his handwritten, but did not think to leave the pad back where it is as not to risk the Ramsey's being tipped off that he was there?

And for that matter why even bring the pad and pen back to where it was after the crime was committed. Just leave the damn thing anywhere. He already used the paper and pen, what is the point of putting it back?

 

[THE BUNK]

Now, let’s say that this is all done AFTER the crime is committed and staged. Every step could still have been done virtually the same as outlined above.

You mean the letter being written AFTER the crime, why would the killer waste valuable time on a letter that serves no purpose rather than just escape?

In IDI the letter has to be written before the crime. That is a prerequisite. In the RDI, the letter can only be written after.

If your referring to when the pages where ripped off the pad. The pages had to be ripped off just after the killer placed the pages on the stairs.

No as to when the pages were placed on the stairs, that is another thing. That's a timeline that needs to be discussed.

 

[Mama2JML]

Step 1 - determinine what an appropriate walking distance would be.
Step 2 - get a map of the Ramsey neighborhood. I think Google Maps would be a good choice.
Setep 3- Might be a little harder, but I think in Google maps you can scale to a particular distance.

You may want to check other investigative sites. I believe the EAR-ONS site has such a map of the murders that took place.

I should point out that the purpose of this exercise is that it may narrow down your suspect list.
If you buy the theory that the killer walked to the crime scene, then maybe it makes more sense to focus on suspects within that perimeter.

The killer likely walked to the crime scene, IMO. This doesn't really narrow down an IDI suspect list if he drove to an area nearby, parked his vehicle somewhere "inconspicuous", THEN walked to the crime scene. Regardless, here's an option:



*Chautauqua Park, U of C, and the Pearl Street Mall produce "nice", obvious boundaries. The Ramsey's home was ~0.5 mi from U of C & Chautauqua Park and ~1 mi from Pearl Street mall.

 

[tovarisch]

I was thinking for a while about that JAR made a statement about he could pay the ransom amount, according to Steve Thomas`s book. ST described JAR as a sincere and smart young man.

The more I think, the more I feel it need to be answered one way or another, because it directly connected to the ransom. I want other people opinions.
JAR, 20 y.o. student of a divosee mothers with two more siblings, all three attending colleges. When John was a bread winner for the former family, he was not wealthy at that time. He had built his millions years later, with the help of his second wife Patsy. It`s reasonable to suggest that John had not shared with his former family chunks of his growing wealth. He, no doubt, supported their education in some proportion, but for JAR to state that he could pay the ransom himself, it`s a big eyes opener. At least my eyes. I don`t know if others are very interested in it. I really do.

My first thought was - he had lied. But why would he lie? Why to lie such an obvious lie into the face of investigator who was working day and night to find the perp who killed his little sister? It would be obvious lie if it was lie because who could believe that he had such money in his account? Surprisingly, JAR had been asked no further questions in this respect- How come, dear Andrew you said right now you could pay $118,000? Like always in this mystery, as soon it`s becoming “hot”, questions stopped being asked.
My second thought-no, he would not lie. He was sincere and honest young man, trying his very best to help investigation, he had $118,000 in his account. He had it!

Anybody—can you help me with this?
The only way he could have it because his father JR gave his bonus to him 10 months prior to the tragedy.

If it was so, it turns everything upside down. Patsy could not know about the bonus indeed, and she insisted she had not. Surprisingly, at that her statement, when she said it, no further questions had been asked. Questions like—Mr. Ramsey -What bank account your bonus went to? Why would they ask? It`s becoming too “hot”, questions abruptly stopped.
If JAR Ramsey said the truth, it`s change all dynamics of the participants. Patsy had not known about the amount $118,000 and JAR`s friends could had known.

One way or another I want RDI people`s opinion. Please, help me – Was JAR a liar? Why would he lie? Had he said the truth?

 

[Anti-K]

Why the quotation marks? Are you offended or something? Don't take this personal. Be objective.

I use quotation marks when I quote someone. I used the quotation marks because I was quoting you; you wrote that you “may have been reading too fast.”

It could have happened like this: the killer sees the notepad. He picks it up. He takes it to wherever he writes the note. He opens it up and writes the supposed draft, the so-called practice note and the ransom note. So far, nothing done any differently than if a Ramsey or anyone else had done it.

This text in the above quote box was actually written by me, but you didn’t use quotation marks or anything else to show that this was quoted text; so my words look like they were written by you. That’s misleading, and one of the reasons why I use quotation marks.

So the killer didn't return the pad and pen before the Ramsey's arrived? He was careful enough to hide carefully attempt to hide his handwritten, but did not think to leave the pad back where it is as not to risk the Ramsey's being tipped off that he was there?

You missed something else: Now, the killer closes the notepad and leaves it where it is, or moves it to the table where it was later found. Then, the crime is committed and staged...

And for that matter why even bring the pad and pen back to where it was after the crime was committed. Just leave the damn thing anywhere. He already used the paper and pen, what is the point of putting it back?

There may be other explanations, but you answered your own question with your previous comment, “...as not to risk the Ramsey's being tipped off that he was there[.]”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You mean the letter being written AFTER the crime, why would the killer waste valuable time on a letter that serves no purpose rather than just escape?

In IDI the letter has to be written before the crime. That is a prerequisite. In the RDI, the letter can only be written after.

If your referring to when the pages where ripped off the pad. The pages had to be ripped off just after the killer placed the pages on the stairs.

No as to when the pages were placed on the stairs, that is another thing. That's a timeline that needs to be discussed.

I am saying that an intruder or a Ramsey or anyone could have handled the notepad/pages in exactly the same way. So, it doesn’t matter why an intruder would waste his time writing the letter AFTER the crime. The point is that in either case he would handle the notepad and the pages exactly the same as the Ramseys, or anyone, would. And, the handling of the notepad/pages is what we were talking about.
.

The evidence is the evidence. Forget IDI/RDI. The consensus should be that the note shows a degree of composure and reason one would not expect to be present in someone who had just sexually assaulted and asphyxiated to death a critically wounded child. Regardless of who we are talking about; it would be a rare individual who could write a note such as this one after committing this crime.

On the other hand, a note such as this one could be easily written beforehand. So, to say that “In the RDI, the letter can only be written after” is one (of many) reasons to doubt RDI.
...

AK