Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[Edmond.DantesIII]

yes, it's possible, I'll admit that because anything is possible, but there's really only 1 scenario where I might believe the intruder theory. 1st of all, this intruder would have to be 1 lucky son of a gun, to pick a house where the family had so many secrets to cover up. Say there was a botched robbery and for some reason, JB was killed. Heck, maybe they broke in while JB was eating pineapple and out of shock and fear she was bashed. Once they realized she would die, they finished her off. But what then? Did PR find JB and stage the rest? stage the rape to cover prior abuse, (because prior abuse was found), and then write the note to point to kidnappers, instead of a botched burglary? because she didn't want cops to find the body? but if she didn't want cops to find the body, why bother staging a rape? (which is actually 1 of those points that I can't figure out, no matter what the theory), Actually, there is too much evidence that points to PR's involvement for me to seriously consider that she didn't know a thing until she woke up and found the note, so any intruder theory, IMO, would have to involve her somehow. MOO.

Was this a staged rape? The evidence for sexual abuse is not glaringly apparent, as one might expect it to be in the case of a "staged rape."

Even still, who and what sort of person would think to do such a thing, and why?

"To cover prior abuse?" What sense does that make?

And actually, there is practically no evidence pointing to PR's involvement, and for the life of me, I cannot fathom why you think this to be the case.

Would you mind explaining yourself?

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Well, that's assuming you accept the wet the bed scenario.

I don't. I think it is preposterous.

And since when did IDI folks suddenly have to start talking about there being more than one intruder?

I cannot speak for other IDIs, but I have thought there was at least two intruders ever since I read the ransom note.

Oh that's right, when it was established that there was touch DNA from 5 different people...now I remember.

Nope.

 

[SunnieRN]

Two nut jobs grab me out of my bed in the middle of the night and proceed to hold me against my will in the basement of my own home, and one of them kindly offers me some pineapple (which I accept and eat, rather than screaming in terror while my mouth is free to move) to help calm me down.

I hope you see how absolutely ridiculous that sounds.

That would be Patsy.

Thing about the pineapple, it was in a bowl that had PR and BR's fingerprints on it. No strangers fingerprints, or smudges from a stranger which made PR and BR's fingerprints from being read.

 

[wonderllama]

Thing about the pineapple, it was in a bowl that had PR and BR's fingerprints on it. No strangers fingerprints, or smudges from a stranger which made PR and BR's fingerprints from being read.

C'mon Sunnie, it's much more believable that 2+ intruders wouldn't leave any DNA anywhere except in the brand new underwear, and even then in such small amounts so as to not even form a complete DNA signature.

They clearly were dressed in radiation suits to avoid contaminating the scene so well.

 

[wonderllama]

I don't. I think it is preposterous.

I cannot speak for other IDIs, but I have thought there was at least two intruders ever since I read the ransom note.

I don't believe the wet the bed scenario either, but not because it is "preposterous".

At least two intruders. So you think there's more or two?

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I don't believe the wet the bed scenario either, but not because it is "preposterous".

At least two intruders. So you think there's more or two?

I suspect that there was at least two intruders but I do not suspect that there was more than three.

 

[UKGuy]

I suspect that there was at least two intruders but I do not suspect that there was more than three.

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is no forensic evidence, absolutely none linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household.

In contrast there is forensic evidence linking directly to all three Ramseys resident in the house, on the night of JonBenet's death.


.

 

[Whaleshark]

I'm just trying to picture 3 people sitting around the Ramsey house downstairs working on a ransom note with no concern of the parents or Burke discovering them during any of that time... Especially since they were already
stumbled upon by JonBenet, when they thought the family was supposed to be gone in the first place. So they have no trouble hanging around, these 2 or 3 burglars, downstairs writing the note, with the family upstairs...

 

[wengr]

I'm just trying to picture 3 people sitting around the Ramsey house downstairs working on a ransom note with no concern of the parents or Burke discovering them during any of that time... Especially since they were already
stumbled upon by JonBenet, when they thought the family was supposed to be gone in the first place. So they have no trouble hanging around, these 2 or 3 burglars, downstairs writing the note, with the family upstairs...

Yeah really. And further, what is the advantage of murdering and sexually asaulting a six year old, writing multiple pages, walking around the house collecting things, etc. versus the simple act of turning around and leaving?

 

[UKGuy]

I'm just trying to picture 3 people sitting around the Ramsey house downstairs working on a ransom note with no concern of the parents or Burke discovering them during any of that time... Especially since they were already
stumbled upon by JonBenet, when they thought the family was supposed to be gone in the first place. So they have no trouble hanging around, these 2 or 3 burglars, downstairs writing the note, with the family upstairs...

Whaleshark,
All without anyone depositing any touch-dna anywhere, except for JonBenet's longjohns, which were new on her that night, but were they clean or had someone else wore them or stored them elsewhere?



.

 

[Darlene733510]

The white blanket was not on the bed of JB. Who else, but Patsy, would know to look in the dryer for the blanket?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah really. And further, what is the advantage of murdering and sexually asaulting a six year old, writing multiple pages, walking around the house collecting things, etc. versus the simple act of turning around and leaving?

To make it look like someone in the house did it. To leave a message for the Ramseys. Make them feel guilty for not preventing it.

 

[wengr]

To make it look like someone in the house did it. To leave a message for the Ramseys. Make them feel guilty for not preventing it.

That is a really antisocial personality with a really serious vendetta coupled with an extreme tolerence for risk. And yet 16 years later no ideas? Not likely imo.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Who ever said that both intruders were necessarily strangers? Indeed, it appears that at least one of them may have a had a key to the Ramsey residence, knew the approximate figure of JR's bonus, knew her way around the Ramsey residence, and had heard that the Ramseys were vacationing in Michigan over the Christmas holidays. Therefore, at least one of the intruders may not have been a stranger at all. She might have been someone that JonBenet knew and believed she could trust.

We have a riddle here, folks!

- person(s) with Ramsey key;
- person(s) who knows Ramsey's financials;
- person(s) who knows all the rooms in the house, including WC;
- person(s) who can 'maneuvered' QUITELY through-out the rooms with the toys on the floor, in the DARK;
- person(s) who knows Ramsey's vacation schedule;
- person(s) whom JonBonet knew very well and trust;
- person(s) who knew JonBonet very well and knows that she likes pineapple.

Question: WHO IS THIS PERSON(s)???
Answer: RAMSEYs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


..............Couldn't help myself, sorry...:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That is a really antisocial personality with a really serious vendetta coupled with an extreme tolerence for risk. And yet 16 years later no ideas? Not likely imo.

Well lets think about that. What else could it be. We have not seen something like this since. And I know some will say because the ramsey's only had one daughter.. How ever this was not true for John.

So if we are going on why it was like this and not the Ramsey's, It has to be personal. It has to be to hurt John as much as they can. Destroy his life, his family, his marriage.

ETA: this is not what I believe happened. Just following train of thought here.

 

[BOESP]

a quick google says lin wood made the assertion on LKL in april 2000... is he repeating what someone else said? i don't know...

(about 3/4 of the way down the interview)

And here's a very significant point, Larry. This child's skull was crushed. She suffered a 8 1/2 inch displaced fracture of the right side of her skull. Now, Patsy Ramsey didn't accidentally push a child into the bathtub edge. If his (ST) theory holds water, which it doesn't, Patsy Ramsey would have had to pick up her 45-pound daughter and swing her like a sledgehammer to crush her skull like this. This was a blow that would fall a 300-pound man.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/14/lkl.00.html

And we are to believe Lin Wood on this particular statement but not on others? The type of action Wood describes doesn't match the autopsy report.

What does a person's weight have to do with anything. If a 300-pound man or 150-pound man or 500-pound man or 135-pound woman or 45-pound child were hit on the occipital region with a baseball bat it seems to me the damage to the head would be just about the same. So I guess what Wood said is true ... cagey, but true.

I still think Thomas knew what he was talking about.

 

[geojeffrey]

Aunt Pam/HOTYH/Edmond.DantesIII--

What did you see in the note that made you think 2 to 3 kidnappers came into the Ramsey's house on Christmas night and gave JonBenet a tasty pineapple treat?

Though, i have no doubt that whatever answer you provide will be an illogical jump to your point--and of course--your point is purposefully intended to muddy the waters and confuse people. Unfortunately, your silly tactics won't work here.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Aunt Pam/HOTYH/Edmond.DantesIII--

What did you see in the note that made you think 2 to 3 kidnappers came into the Ramsey's house on Christmas night and gave JonBenet a tasty pineapple treat?

Though, i have no doubt that whatever answer you provide will be an illogical jump to your point--and of course--your point is purposefully intended to muddy the waters and confuse people. Unfortunately, your silly tactics won't work here.

FORTUNATELY...FORTUNATELY....!!!!:great:

 

[midwestphd]

The motive for any IDI theory is totally contrived. It sounds like the plot of a movie because it is a product of PR's imagination, IMO. Criminals enter a home, get what they want, and get out as quickly as possible. To believe the IDI theory, you have to believe that an intruder entered the house, purposefully left behind a bunch of evidence, somehow failed to leave any accidental evidence implicating him/herself, and then took off with absolutely nothing. No money, no kid. IT DOES NOT ADD UP.

I just keep coming back to Occam's razor. The PDI scenario is really the most simple explanation. It requires the fewest leaps and assumptions. The little detail that she did not want to go to Michigan is important. I can see PR getting ultra-stressed as a result of having to take care of everyone else. She reaches a breaking point and frames herself as a victim.

Who knows if PR and JR even talked about what actually happened? If PR sees JR buying the story, what better reason to keep it going?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The motive for any IDI theory is totally contrived. It sounds like the plot of a movie because it is a product of PR's imagination, IMO. Criminals enter a home, get what they want, and get out as quickly as possible. To believe the IDI theory, you have to believe that an intruder entered the house, purposefully left behind a bunch of evidence, somehow failed to leave any accidental evidence implicating him/herself, and then took off with absolutely nothing. No money, no kid. IT DOES NOT ADD UP.

I just keep coming back to Occam's razor. The PDI scenario is really the most simple explanation. It requires the fewest leaps and assumptions. The little detail that she did not want to go to Michigan is important. I can see PR getting ultra-stressed as a result of having to take care of everyone else. She reaches a breaking point and frames herself as a victim.

Who knows if PR and JR even talked about what actually happened? If PR sees JR buying the story, what better reason to keep it going?

I think that depends where you are coming from and your thought process. For me the easiest solution is IDI. I have a much harder time working out the RDI theory.