SleuthingSleuth
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 3
In examining the idea of the IDI theory, and in light of the recent debacle in Boulder, I feel one is forced to assume if it was an "unknown intruder" who did it...they were absolutely perfect.
It would appear to be clear the DNA in the panties does seem like a red herring, and most likely has no connection to the killer. If the DNA under the nails ever had a use...it appears to be useless now.
So, this intruder left no DNA, left no prints, and it would also seem left no fibers on Jonbenet's body or the clothes on her.
He doesn't appear to have left any footprints either, it would seem.
It also would appear likely this intruder brought no items or tools of his own...it would seem only items in the house were used by him. This is an assumption, to note...but it feels like a likely one.
As for how he got into the house...I have to come to feel no one came in through the basement window nor did anyone escape through it.
I found this link very helpful:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
I do not believe he could have entered through the butler's door either...as I believe when the police first came an officer tried all of the doors outside of the house and found them locked...therefore, the butler's door was most likely left ajar on the 26th.
Which means of course...either this intruder walked through walls, or was let into and out of the house. Or...had his own key.
This intruder would certainly be perfect...and such an intruder plainly will never be caught unless he comes forward, confesses, and presents evidence of his own to prove he truly was the perp. Unless he himself presents evidence...there would be no evidence to use against him.
The snafu in this perfect intruder is that such a perp would not leave his handwriting behind at the crime scene, considering no other trace of himself was left. It doesn't fit.
The idea of this intruder stretches the imagination...and this is without taking into account the other details of the case.
While it is possible of course there was such an intruder who was perfect in his ways, I would not know how he got into the house...or why he left his handwriting behind, much less make sense out of the other details of the case.
On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?
It would appear to be clear the DNA in the panties does seem like a red herring, and most likely has no connection to the killer. If the DNA under the nails ever had a use...it appears to be useless now.
So, this intruder left no DNA, left no prints, and it would also seem left no fibers on Jonbenet's body or the clothes on her.
He doesn't appear to have left any footprints either, it would seem.
It also would appear likely this intruder brought no items or tools of his own...it would seem only items in the house were used by him. This is an assumption, to note...but it feels like a likely one.
As for how he got into the house...I have to come to feel no one came in through the basement window nor did anyone escape through it.
I found this link very helpful:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764
I do not believe he could have entered through the butler's door either...as I believe when the police first came an officer tried all of the doors outside of the house and found them locked...therefore, the butler's door was most likely left ajar on the 26th.
Which means of course...either this intruder walked through walls, or was let into and out of the house. Or...had his own key.
This intruder would certainly be perfect...and such an intruder plainly will never be caught unless he comes forward, confesses, and presents evidence of his own to prove he truly was the perp. Unless he himself presents evidence...there would be no evidence to use against him.
The snafu in this perfect intruder is that such a perp would not leave his handwriting behind at the crime scene, considering no other trace of himself was left. It doesn't fit.
The idea of this intruder stretches the imagination...and this is without taking into account the other details of the case.
While it is possible of course there was such an intruder who was perfect in his ways, I would not know how he got into the house...or why he left his handwriting behind, much less make sense out of the other details of the case.
On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?