Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[questfortrue]

Questfortrue:

Yours is one of the more fascinating examples of Ramsey doublespeak and obfuscation. Actually, John and Patsy carefully claim in their book that an "urban legend floated by the media" is John's call to his pilot early in the morning on 12/26. This is false. No one perceived anything suspicious or newsworthy about that call, in which he informed pilot Mike Archuleta of the kidnapping and presumably postponed/cancelled their flight to Michigan. No news outlet I know of claimed that the early AM call was made to schedule a flight to Atlanta. There was no legend, no interest in THAT call. That call made complete sense, and one would suppose that the Ramseys knew that, which is why they could use THAT call to imply there was no call made to the pilot to travel to Atlanta.

From DOI:
"Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)"

The real news story, the one people still talk about, is that John called his pilot to go to Atlanta less than an hour after his daughter's body was found, while she lay cold on his living room floor. And that story, the real news story, John Ramsey does admit is true. Not in their book, where they very intentionally throw out the red herring of the early morning call, but on television, in an interview with Barbara Walters on 3/17/2000:

BARBARA WALTERS It was reported also Mr. Ramsey that shortly after you found your daughter's body, that you called the pilot of your plane to arrange a flight to Atlanta. Is that true?
JOHN RAMSEY I did. We had um… been asked to leave the house. Within minutes of that happening the police took the house over. We had no where to go. Atlanta was our home. Uh, we lived in Atlanta for 25 years. That's where our family was. We wanted to go home.

That information, that call, will forever be a salient point for amateur detectives. We can't help ourselves; it is just too weird. Because when you are a multi-millionaire and, surrounded by your best friends and your minister you have just discovered the dead body of your precious little daughter, you don't quick get on a plane, leave her body all alone and fly across the country. If you are told you cannot stay in your house, you go to the Boulder equivalent of the Ritz. You fly your Atlanta relatives to you. You have options.

The fact that the Ramseys took the trouble to obfuscate the call by deliberately confusing it with the early morning call in their book makes it all the more important.

I don't usually care for Barbara Walters' softball interviews, but once in awhile she lands one.

​

Thank you, Fides, for this thorough dissection of the obfuscation which confuses so many people and drives those of us in the RDI camp crazy. There are so many instances of camouflage, some minor, some brazenly jarring. But the bid to leave the state was not just weird for me. When I read up on this case and learned about their attempted action to fly away, I was both saddened and angered by it. I doubt I’m alone in that reaction.

 

[BoldBear]

There's no point in arguing it with you.[Snip]

This is good advice.

1 For your own sanity, use ignore. You'll get enough of the subterfuge echoed back in quotes to know what's going on.

2 Start to recognize techniques used to distract you--to start you arguing endlessly and needlessly point by point. Pay more attention to people who sincerely want to explore this case.

None of these IDI arguments further your understanding of the case. Learn them and then learn the other theories. If you're like me, you already have a good grasp on the IDI theory and no one is presenting you with anything new. It actually takes you away discussing other theories with members who aren't trying to get in your way. It's simply a manipulation to distract honest discussion.

* * *​

Lou Smit was a very intelligent detective who solved many murder cases. When he worked on the Ramsey case, he tried to prove to the world that this was an intruder case. He failed. He couldn't convince the world that there was an intruder and he couldn't even get a trail on an intruder. (Don't let anyone muddy this fact. You have a very smart detective who posed for a camera trying to prove that the window well was used as a point of entry and exit. Really take a look at those photos and see how acquard he was in that window well. Next question why so little in the window well was disturbed. [And I'm not arguing this. I've already made up my mind.])

Next think about the DNA evidence. Several people from LE don't understand how Mary Lacy apologized to the Rs for being suspects. We don't have DNA experts making the same bizarre case that the DNA evidence means that it only came from the killer--case closed. Let me say that again to be clear: "Find a DNA expert who will put their reputation on the line and attest with certainty that the DNA evidence came from the killer." If you can't, shut up. You don't know what you're talking about. The DNA evidence may or may not have come from the killer. That's all that anyone really knows. It's really pointless to argue any differently.

Finally, I'm not going round and round over this. I stopped posting here because I realized that it was distracting me from working on a theory. (I've studied the photos so much that I can spot the differences between the Ramsey home 1994, 1996 and the movie set.) I suspect that when I finally get it posted someone's going to be screaming foul. I wonder who that could be? :what:

Well, that's all my opinion of course. Just don't waste your time with someone who refuses to see other sides.

 

[andreww]

Not sure why you mention these things here when you’re supposedly addressing what i wrote, as these are things i’ve not mentioned.

I don't care what you mentioned because you intentionally omit things. It's what the Ramsey's mentioned that's important.

And if investigators hadn't already discovered the lies behind those items, you can bet your *advertiser censored* that you would have mentioned them too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

You want to know how Ramsey fibers got all over the murder scene? If you can understand how fibers not traced to the home can get into incriminating locations than it should be child’s play to understand how fibers traced to the house can get into the same places. Fibers all behave according to the same rules and principles. The victim was in the Ramsey home and had regular, frequent and recent contact with Ramsey people and Ramsey items in the Ramsey home.

This is one aspect of RDI reasoning that is almost laughable – we’re supposed to believe that IDI fibers can be present without meaning, but that RDI fibers – fibers the victim was known to have innocent contact with – MUST be RDI evidence. This is a very clear example of biased and theory-driven reasoning (aka cherry picking).


AK

This is asinine. First off a house is not a sterile environment. Its full of decades worth of unidentifiable fibres, and in this case where the body shows signs of being dragged, one would expect there to be unidentifiable fibres, kind of like a vacuum cleaner. Now on the other hand we have very specific clothing, a Christmas sweater in Patsy's case, that had never been in the basement. Yet her fibres are in the paint tote and on the duct tape. Stop trying to confuse people with unidentified fibres, it means nothing.

 

[andreww]

I’ve challenged you in this before, because I do not recall anything about any flashlight drawer being open. I think this is another thing that you’ve gotten wrong. The flashlight found is not known to have been used in the crime. (Thomas offered three theories for the flashlight, 1) it belonged to the family, 2) it was left behind by an intruder, and 3) it was left behind by “some cop.” He writes, “that it bore no fingerprints was consistent with a piece of equipment being handled in cold weather by a cop wearing gloves.” P. 240).

AK

Somewhere there is a photo of the hutch and the drawer is wide open. I can't find it at the moment.

 

[andreww]

Andreww, you’re confused. I’ve never said that he left through a self-locking door, I consistently say that I think he left through the butler door. I’ve never been asked to explain why the suitcase was moved under the window (White moved the suitcase), I’ve only been asked to explain why Ramsey didn’t mention it. IMO, the suitcase is probably not related to the crime.

AK

What? For one, John checked all the doors were locked. Nobody left through there. And if Fleet moved the suitcase, John certainly didn't know he did. So Whey didn't he point it out to detectives?

 

[Anti-K]

There's no point in arguing it with you. I mean from a skeptical perspective. Obviously you're a true believer type, so you won't understand. For anyone else who cares, when everything is a complicated and convoluted series of rare events, then you have to see if another explanation fits. The other explanation is that one of the Ramsey's did this and the others covered up. When seeing what fits and doesn't in this above, I see that just about everything fits if RDI and there is no longer any need for crazy theories.

But, a skeptical perspective is all I have!

What do you mean by a “true believer type?”

A little amused, because IMO complicated and convoluted describes RDI.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Okay I just can't let this one go unnoticed. It's obvious why there is a ransom note. It literally is there to pin the blame on someone else. That's its entire purpose. It tells us WHO ('sbtc') and WHY (they don't like America even though they think John's business is pretty awesome!) and the note even tells LE to pretty much expect a corpse (99% chance she dies.)

Without a fake note, all they got is a dead child in their house and no explanation. The note is the only thing that attempts to 'explain' what happened and that some other 'foreign group' did it, and it's written inside the house by hand on Patsy's tablet with Patsy's pen. They expected LE to just buy their bull**** based on a note alone. Probably they expected LE to start canvasing the neighbourhood so they could go dump the body. But they made John search twice, and the second time White was RIGHT NEXT TO HIM so he couldn't just pretend there wasn't a dead body there or else he'd look even MORE guilty.

The note is all they thought of to do to explain, to EXCUSE themselves of the entire thing. That's its purpose, and this isn't a crazy theory here. Guilty people try to blame someone else. That's the most common thing in crime there is.

Some random guy taking at least an hour or two to create two practices and one note? At the scene of the crime? And them blames a foreign faction, even though he's writing in normal American English and making normal English-speaking mistakes here and there? This right here is when you get into crazy town.

Ah, yes, let the contradictions begin!

While the note and the body will always be a contradiction it all comes down to motive. With IDI we have an unknown motive so it’s hard to know where to go with this; but with RDI the motive is to explain why there is a dead body in the house – the note contradicts this RDI motivation.

If the Ramseys had disposed of the body than that would make complete sense of the note. But, they didn’t and most RDI say that they couldn’t or wouldn’t and they simply had no intention of getting rid of it for one reason or another, so, on this point you are in disagreement with many of your cohorts.
.

IDI doesn’t say some random guy, it says some specific unknown guy. Yes, the note is crazy. It’s fake!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sometimes one simply feels it’s time to stop searching for zebras. Explanation follows.

We know many of the facts of the case through Kolar and Thomas. Once one begins to listen to someone spinning an ‘alternate realty’, it can lead anyone through the looking-glass into many alternate conclusions. Henry Lee who looked at all the evidence stated his belief that this was a tragic domestic event followed by a cover-up. The FBI, short of Lanning who did not know all the facts of the case and only sat in briefly on one meeting, believed the evidence pointed to the family.

According to the law books all circumstantial cases are comprised of facts which can be used to infer another fact. This is why some who believe in the intruder theory take apart each and every piece of evidence (like digestion of pineapple), because when these pieces accumulate, it only points to the Rs’ involvement. It’s also why one can find JR and PR pulling apart facts. There are some pretty good examples of this in DOI (and also in JR’s book TOSOS.) One of my favorite examples was JR claiming in DOI that it was an “urban legend” that he called his pilot to arrange for his trip to Atlanta. Yet, two detectives were involved in hearing this; one of them explained to JR that the Rs couldn’t leave the state and investigation. At a trial jurors would have made the determination whose version to believe.

Imo, one can only rely on facts substantiated by the detectives involved and by one’s personal judgement pertaining to the validity of the R statements in their interviews. Alternate realities do not honor the truth in the case, but it is obvious who will benefit in the realm of public opinion from the tearing down of well-established facts.

One might remember the aphorism, “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” Supposedly this precept was coined by a doctor teaching interns how to evaluate a patient. . . a physician must consider common diagnoses before rare ones because “common things are common.” So when a physician “hears” about symptoms that can be explained by a common diagnosis, the common diagnosis is usually the correct one — not the rare diagnosis. (http://michaelaaronsonmd.com:8080/2010/07/occams-razor-parsimony-quacks-hoofbeats.html).

The problem is not so much in someone’s reasoning capability. The problem is that some simply will never concede well-established facts in the case and will look for the circus semi truck carrying zebras.

Although paranoia has me convinced that this post was “about” me, I fail to recognize myself so am not sure how to respond.

Your comments that IDI like to “take apart each and every piece of evidence” seems fair but i get the impression that you think this is not a reasonable thing to do, or, worse, that there is some sort of insincerity attached. That’s sad, and wrong. To some large degree, IDI are sort of like defence attorneys and RDI are like prosecutors. You make the accusation, present your case, and we challenge you on it. If an IDI suspect is ever identified, then the shoe will be on the other foot.
.

Of course, the FBI (did not investigate) were offering an opinion based on what BPD – RDI – had to tell them, but, I don’t remember anyone in the FBI (not retired) publicly saying anything; and, I know that, for example, the Schiller version and the Thomas version of what the FBI had to say differs somewhat. For instance, Thomas has them saying this as staging (I agree!!) But Schiller has them saying IF IF IF this was staging than it was staging unlike any that they had seen before.

Anyway, yes, of course, in the beginning the FBI and, I think, I hope, everyone said look at the parents. But, even (retired) FBI profiler (the closest to complete-RDI profiler that comes to mind) said that he thought, “someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime.” Http://tinyurl.com/hwpngf5

I think that this is something that is often glossed over, this “very, very close to the family.” Ressler (retired) in addition to the family, included “neighbors, friends of the family, Ramsey houseworkers, adolescent boys who live in the neighborhood or members of her half-brother's nearby fraternity house.” Http://tinyurl.com/j8dh2qg
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Questfortrue:

Yours is one of the more fascinating examples of Ramsey doublespeak and obfuscation. Actually, John and Patsy carefully claim in their book that an "urban legend floated by the media" is John's call to his pilot early in the morning on 12/26. This is false. No one perceived anything suspicious or newsworthy about that call, in which he informed pilot Mike Archuleta of the kidnapping and presumably postponed/cancelled their flight to Michigan. No news outlet I know of claimed that the early AM call was made to schedule a flight to Atlanta. There was no legend, no interest in THAT call. That call made complete sense, and one would suppose that the Ramseys knew that, which is why they could use THAT call to imply there was no call made to the pilot to travel to Atlanta.

From DOI:
"Patsy and I heard that Mike Archuleta was subpoenaed to testify, and I knew he would clarify one of the urban legends that had been floated by the media, if he were asked. They had reported that I had called Mike early on the morning of December 26, 1996, to arrange a hasty trip to Atlanta. Of course, that wasn't true. I had called Mike to tell him what had happened. (p. 324)"

The real news story, the one people still talk about, is that John called his pilot to go to Atlanta less than an hour after his daughter's body was found, while she lay cold on his living room floor. And that story, the real news story, John Ramsey does admit is true. Not in their book, where they very intentionally throw out the red herring of the early morning call, but on television, in an interview with Barbara Walters on 3/17/2000:

BARBARA WALTERS It was reported also Mr. Ramsey that shortly after you found your daughter's body, that you called the pilot of your plane to arrange a flight to Atlanta. Is that true?
JOHN RAMSEY I did. We had um… been asked to leave the house. Within minutes of that happening the police took the house over. We had no where to go. Atlanta was our home. Uh, we lived in Atlanta for 25 years. That's where our family was. We wanted to go home.

That information, that call, will forever be a salient point for amateur detectives. We can't help ourselves; it is just too weird. Because when you are a multi-millionaire and, surrounded by your best friends and your minister you have just discovered the dead body of your precious little daughter, you don't quick get on a plane, leave her body all alone and fly across the country. If you are told you cannot stay in your house, you go to the Boulder equivalent of the Ritz. You fly your Atlanta relatives to you. You have options.

The fact that the Ramseys took the trouble to obfuscate the call by deliberately confusing it with the early morning call in their book makes it all the more important.

I don't usually care for Barbara Walters' softball interviews, but once in awhile she lands one.

​

Nice post.
…

AK

 

[InstantProof]

Ah, yes, let the contradictions begin!

While the note and the body will always be a contradiction it all comes down to motive. With IDI we have an unknown motive so it’s hard to know where to go with this; but with RDI the motive is to explain why there is a dead body in the house – the note contradicts this RDI motivation.

If the Ramseys had disposed of the body than that would make complete sense of the note. But, they didn’t and most RDI say that they couldn’t or wouldn’t and they simply had no intention of getting rid of it for one reason or another, so, on this point you are in disagreement with many of your cohorts.
.

IDI doesn’t say some random guy, it says some specific unknown guy. Yes, the note is crazy. It’s fake!
…

AK

I don't think the motive is to explain the body in the house. Then the note could have just said I killed your daughter. The RN puts the blame of her murder on someone outside the 3 people alive in the house and it gives whoever wants to believe the R's an excuse. As for police, I guess they were gonna go to another state and throw money at it?
But what if they staged a situation that made more sense? Would it be more believable that they did it?

 

[Anti-K]

This is asinine. First off a house is not a sterile environment. Its full of decades worth of unidentifiable fibres, and in this case where the body shows signs of being dragged, one would expect there to be unidentifiable fibres, kind of like a vacuum cleaner. Now on the other hand we have very specific clothing, a Christmas sweater in Patsy's case, that had never been in the basement. Yet her fibres are in the paint tote and on the duct tape. Stop trying to confuse people with unidentified fibres, it means nothing.

The body being dragged is mere speculation, and – like a vacuum cleaner? Really?

So, you think fibers not traced to the home can be vacuumed up but fibers known to be in the home can’t. Interesting. I wonder what was preventing those RDI fibers from transferring to jbr, at some earlier time? Because if these fibers were already on her when the killer arrived, then he could have transferred them from her to the paint tote, to the ligature, etc.

It seems that your dismissal of these fibers is theory driven.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Somewhere there is a photo of the hutch and the drawer is wide open. I can't find it at the moment.

Okay. If I find time, I’ll look, too. But, the only drawers that I remember being open were in JAR’s room.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

What? For one, John checked all the doors were locked. Nobody left through there. And if Fleet moved the suitcase, John certainly didn't know he did. So Whey didn't he point it out to detectives?

The butler door was found ajar by someone who was called over that morning. Maybe it was Fernie. I don’t know. But, Beckner, somewhere, said that the door had been left open by a crime tech. However, Fernie, iirc, arrived before the crime techs.

So, if IDI, the door being ajar and the note on the stairs describes a possible path (imo, the note was left last).
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

What? For one, John checked all the doors were locked. Nobody left through there. And if Fleet moved the suitcase, John certainly didn't know he did. So Whey didn't he point it out to detectives?

ah, yes, the Argument from Selective Memory

1) RDI asks “stumper” question
2) IDI answers question
3) Time passes
4) RDI repeats question
5) IDI answers question
6) Time passes
7) RDI repeats question
8) IDI answers question
9) Time passes
10) RDI repeats question
11) IDI gives up
12) RDI, “IDI can’t answer the question.”
13) Therefore RDI
….

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don't think the motive is to explain the body in the house. Then the note could have just said I killed your daughter. The RN puts the blame of her murder on someone outside the 3 people alive in the house and it gives whoever wants to believe the R's an excuse. As for police, I guess they were gonna go to another state and throw money at it?

But what if they staged a situation that made more sense? Would it be more believable that they did it?

They had a dead body in the house. They needed to explain it in some way or they needed to get rid of it and then explain why it was missing. A kidnapping explains why it was missing. It explains the opposite of what they needed to explain. This is a contradiction.

If the Ramseys, against all odds and reason, decided to go ahead with the fake kidnapping than why didn’t they provide an entry point? Unlock a door, let the police find it. Lie if they have to. If you want someone to believe that another someone came into your home, the first thing you think of is, how did they get in?

IMO this is an almost unbelievable aspect of RDI theories. I know that some RDI recognize this, too, and so arises the idea that the basement window/suitcase was intended as an entry, but the police never noticed it and Ramsey never pointed it out or mentioned it to them!

Wanting the police to think someone came into their home, not pointing out the window/suitcase and telling the police that all the doors were locked contradicts the Ramseys wanting the police to think that someone came into the home.
…

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

For anyone who's interested, here's an excerpt from an interview of JR by police about his checking of the doors:

John Ramsey BDA interview - June 23, 1998

19 MIKE KANE: Okay. I don't know if
20 this is any particular -- I tried to keep this
21 in order, but it's now totally out of order, but
22 I will just jump as I go through a page here.
23 On that morning I think before last April, when
24 you gave a statement about this, you were
25 describing, I mean there were some disagreement
0496
1 or confusion about if you checked the doors that
2 night and you said that you hadn't checked the
3 doors that night.
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, you know, one
5 of the things that perplexed me is how did this
6 person get in. When Linda Arndt was there, I
7 used to say I don't know how they got in. The
8 doors are locked. Well, these guys said did you
9 check all the doors, I said yeah. Well, did you
10 check all the doors? Well no, I didn't, there
11 is doors on the second floor, you know, I guess
12 I didn't check all the doors.
13 So you know, if -- I don't remember
14 specifically what you're talking about, but I am
15 sure I told Linda Arndt the doors are all
16 locked. I don't know how they got in. But the
17 fact of the matter is I didn't check the door in
18 JonBenet's room, I didn't check the door in the
19 TV room, I didn't check the door on the third
20 floor bathroom, I don't remember checking the
21 pantry door. So I mean, I checked the doors
22 that we normally used, and would have left open,
23 you know, accidentally, perhaps, but.

JR originally told Linda Arndt that he checked all of the doors on the first floor, but he didn't mention that he did not check the "pantry door", located in the "Butler's Pantry" room of the house. Coincidentally (or not), this door was the only one open on the first floor:

​

 

[questfortrue]

Although paranoia has me convinced that this post was “about” me, I fail to recognize myself so am not sure how to respond.

Your comments that IDI like to “take apart each and every piece of evidence” seems fair but i get the impression that you think this is not a reasonable thing to do, or, worse, that there is some sort of insincerity attached. That’s sad, and wrong. To some large degree, IDI are sort of like defence attorneys and RDI are like prosecutors. You make the accusation, present your case, and we challenge you on it. If an IDI suspect is ever identified, then the shoe will be on the other foot.
.

Of course, the FBI (did not investigate) were offering an opinion based on what BPD – RDI – had to tell them, but, I don’t remember anyone in the FBI (not retired) publicly saying anything; and, I know that, for example, the Schiller version and the Thomas version of what the FBI had to say differs somewhat. For instance, Thomas has them saying this as staging (I agree!!) But Schiller has them saying IF IF IF this was staging than it was staging unlike any that they had seen before.

Anyway, yes, of course, in the beginning the FBI and, I think, I hope, everyone said look at the parents. But, even (retired) FBI profiler (the closest to complete-RDI profiler that comes to mind) said that he thought, “someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime.” Http://tinyurl.com/hwpngf5

I think that this is something that is often glossed over, this “very, very close to the family.” Ressler (retired) in addition to the family, included “neighbors, friends of the family, Ramsey houseworkers, adolescent boys who live in the neighborhood or members of her half-brother's nearby fraternity house.” Http://tinyurl.com/j8dh2qg
…

AK

As far as what the FBI said publicly, you’d be correct they included close friends and other family in their analysis. But in a private meeting, they claimed this crime was not a “Who Done It.” And if they really thought it was perpetrated by someone outside of JB’s immediate family they would not have scorned Lanning’s opinion.

But to your original query, paranoia unnecessary. I think your perseverance is impressive and your debate skills are obvious. This is simply an opinion forum with no legal ramifications. It is not a court of law where as a prosecutor I must prove evidence which has been stated by detectives or confirmed by experts hired by the BPD. From what Tricia posted last June, I believe it is the other way around. “If you are going to say an intruder wrote the note guess what? You have to show us something that backs up your claim. The Ramsey forum is different than all the other forums on Websleuths.” BTW, I hate the whole handwriting discussion, for a variety of reasons which SuperDave has gone over. My understanding is that, if an IDI proponent thinks a close friend of the family wrote the note, they must prove this.

When Fides dissects JR’s story it enables RDI to experience JR working something akin to a “shell game”. Do you know, moreover, that JR changed his window story four times regarding whether he told a detective about the window being open? But an IDI here would counter that memory is fallible. That’s true. Point 1 to the IDI member. For certainly I cannot disprove that it is only memory failings which contribute to JR’s evolving statements. But is the counter argument proof and does it advance us any further in understanding JR’s mindset in changing his windows story or confuzzling his claim about calling the pilot? For me, no. IIRC past poster Meara put it very succinctly: In providing an alternate out-of-the-ordinary point, one can miss the forest for the trees.

I’m only speaking for myself here, and for anyone else who finds IDI posts compelling to answer,or to respond to with different facts, and many do, that’s cool. I’m nobody special on the forum, barely here at all.

 

[andreww]

For anyone who's interested, here's an excerpt from an interview of JR by police about his checking of the doors:



JR originally told Linda Arndt that he checked all of the doors on the first floor, but he didn't mention that he did not check the "pantry door", located in the "Butler's Pantry" room of the house. Coincidentally (or not), this door was the only one open on the first floor:

View attachment 85487View attachment 85488​

Haha, coincidentally? You think? There is that word again lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

Wow this MacGyver of an intruder manages to use so much from the house, not make a sound, stay around for hours undetected, and leave barely any evidence except possible degraded trace DNA. But then leaves the door open? Just enough to look funny but not enough to make the entire first floor freezing cold?

Am I getting this right? I have not heard about this door thing until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk