Evidence Of An Intruder

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab Ah thanks for the information. So its not blocked in a deliberate sense but in a general sense of the barstool and boxes being obstacles to entry?

So in JR's attempt not to "contaminate" his evidence , he is remembering how it appeared originally.

Does this mean he found the body then or had placed the body there ?

 

[sissi]

What significance does this have? I have to agree with UK and Twizzler on this one.
The only significance IMO would be if Fleet,being the last in the basement before John,put the chair there and for some reason is suggesting to the police otherwise. I remember Fleet saying he was down there before John and then again right after Arndt told him to guard the door and to let NO ONE down. He didn't have to follow a police request? I see it as normal for John, see the chair, move the chair, check out the area and come back upstairs. Putting the chair back under the door for the police phot op, doesn't make sense? I am baffled, as well, that the police ,in interview ,used this picture ,knowing that many many had been in that room before it was taken, and applied any significance.
We do know that after Jonbenet was found, Fernie and White had to follow him back upstairs, White went back down, does this not suggest he "straightened up the area", he was down there touching tape, looking at the suitcase, etc. John did not go back down after he found Jonbenet. Soooo...who put the chair in front of the door? IMO it doesn't look good for White, no I don't think he is a murderer, but he is the one that was over the top interjecting from the beginning, does that look odd to anyone else?

 

[UKGuy]

sissi:

I agree, there are a lot of odd things to do with that basement. Just why if it was meant to be a kidnapping, did she end up down there. Then once down there, why did it continue to be a kidnapping. Is it so difficult to factor the basement evidence in because she was killed elsewhere and the basement evidence is the scene of a disordered hide-the-body affair?

If JR is involved then did he realise mid-morning , some part of the scene of the body, needed to be embellished or added to? Otherwise the suspicion would be firmly upon the family, if so my guess would be he removed or re-located evidence.

 

[sissi]

That is my guess too, UK!
The only difference between our thoughts on this are the suspects involved, as I don't think it was JAR.

 

[UKGuy]

sissi:

I dont have any real suspect since I've yet to see how it all fits together, but I guess what makes people think its an easy whodunnit, i.e. either an intruder or a family member, and whilst its conceivable that an intruder did it. The behaviour of the Ramsay family after the event leave a lot of explaining.

 

[sissi]

sissi:

I dont have any real suspect since I've yet to see how it all fits together, but I guess what makes people think its an easy whodunnit, i.e. either an intruder or a family member, and whilst its conceivable that an intruder did it. The behaviour of the Ramsay family after the event leave a lot of explaining.

I see a family that felt hopeless, they had just lost a child in a brutal murder, and saw the police looking at them instead of finding the killer. But this is just my opinion.
If the police would have gone house to house in the way of the westerfield case they may have interviewed the RIGHT person, one who could tell of a person with unusual interests in crime , strange religious practices or political ideals that were anti American, a loner who manipulates a few drones into being his allies, one who is indeed sick enough to sacrifice a child for his beliefs and smart enough to stage a crime that threw the motive.

 

[UKGuy]

sissi

Murders particularly of children are normally done by someone local, and statistically someone known to the family.

I can see an intruder doing this who has a plan, but its badly carried out, so his backtracking becomes disordered evidence. But what is there in the murder that shows the killers motive, or if the person is mentally ill, we dont need one, just an aspiration to do something similar to what transpired ?

 

[sissi]

sissi

Murders particularly of children are normally done by someone local, and statistically someone known to the family.

I can see an intruder doing this who has a plan, but its badly carried out, so his backtracking becomes disordered evidence. But what is there in the murder that shows the killers motive, or if the person is mentally ill, we dont need one, just an aspiration to do something similar to what transpired ?

I had always thought, and maybe way off , that the person who murdered her was close,as you said, known or family, and that this person fantasized about the child, stalked her if you will, took her as prey,yet to put his own mind at peace he constructed a political stand ,one of hate for the "dirty dozen"to feel vindicated. He didn't want to bear the blame and guilt he wanted to feel somehow "justified".
I don't believe he sacrificed her for any ideology, but in some way I think he thinks this, and wants others to "think" it.
If true, then I would consider as I said above, a person who wears the facade of perhaps anti-American, unusual religion..etc.?
IMO

 

[UKGuy]

Well since nobody has found a "smoking gun" yet, your intruder theory is just as good as the others.

 

[twizzler333]

I really think significant clues that need to be looked at closer are the Barbie Pajamas that were placed with her (IF this is true), the garotte, the animal hair found (IF this is true), and the marks left on her (stun gun or other marks?). The rest of the evidence found I think is probably insignificant in finding out who did this. The DNA may also be important, but like someone suggested, it could have come from an innocent source too.

The ransom note is also a significant clue, but as we all know, we cannot agree on that subject, so we will just agree to disagree there.

 

[sissi]

I agree Twizzler, those clues could be discussed and maybe give us some insight as to "what kind" of person. I sure wish they would tell us the kind of animal hair found on her hands. The pj's...was the person having her pack for a fantasy trip, were they going to photograph her "asleep" in them, was it part of a barbie fetish? or more........

 

[BlueCrab]

I'm gonna stop posting about the "chair" on this thread because the chair discussion is really off topic. The chair is evidence AGAINST an intruder since it suggests John lied when he said he didn't search the basement prior to calling 911, and this thread is primarily intended to list evidence FOR an intruder.

I'll start a separate thread, but I hope those who believe an intruder did it continue to post their evidence of an intruder on this thread.

JMO

 

[tezi]

I agree Twizzler, those clues could be discussed and maybe give us some insight as to "what kind" of person. I sure wish they would tell us the kind of animal hair found on her hands. The pj's...was the person having her pack for a fantasy trip, were they going to photograph her "asleep" in them, was it part of a barbie fetish? or more........

Please give a source about the animal hair. I have never heard of this in the 7+ years I have been following this case. TIA

 

[sissi]

Please give a source about the animal hair. I have never heard of this in the 7+ years I have been following this case. TIA

Page 15

of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF 171; PSMF 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF 172; PSMF 172.) Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF 53.) Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)

The Wolf/Ramsey thing..Carnes

 

[DocWatson]

I'm gonna stop posting about the "chair" on this thread because the chair discussion is really off topic. The chair is evidence AGAINST an intruder since it suggests John lied when he said he didn't search the basement prior to calling 911, and this thread is primarily intended to list evidence FOR an intruder.

I'll start a separate thread, but I hope those who believe an intruder did it continue to post their evidence of an intruder on this thread.

JMO

But as Twizzler has pointed out, the chair is clear evidence AGAINST your claim that John Ramsey was involved in staging this scene. It makes no logical sense to put a chair against that door if you're trying to convince police that an intruder came and left through the basement window. This is a terrific example of your very biased and selective use of evidence. YOUR theory requires that the parents staged the scene and that they lied about events that morning. You have a set of "factoids" (I call them factoids only in the sense that it's not clear which accounts to believe) and use these to "deduce" that John inadvertently betrayed that he'd been down to the room much earlier. But what does he gain by claiming there was a chair blocking the door? If that is an invented claim, then it merely raises serious questions about the very fabricated scenario that you are claiming that John is trying to foist upon LE. It means that LE will say to themselves "but if an intruder went out by the window, then how come the chair was blocking the door?"

In short, while John has plenty of motivation to lie according to this theory, he sure has no motivation to invent this fact, suggesting he really did find that chair. Given the chaos of the morning, I see no reason we can't believe that in the course of looking around the basement, someone such as Fleet White may have inadvertently moved the chair, which fully explains why it wasn't reported by the officers and why it was reported by John after 10:00 AM etc.

 

[BlueCrab]

DocWatson,

I didn't say John was staging the chair scene. I'm convinced the chair was in front of the door because John admitted it was there. Where John blew it was when he admitted it in the first place. He didn't mean to say it. The chair wasn't there at 6 A.M., so when John admitted he moved it out of the way it had to have been BEFORE 6 A.M., not 10 A.M.

JMO

 

[Jayelles]

DocWatson,

I didn't say John was staging the chair scene. I'm convinced the chair was in front of the door because John admitted it was there. Where John blew it was when he admitted it in the first place. He didn't mean to say it. The chair wasn't there at 6 A.M., so when John admitted he moved it out of the way it had to have been BEFORE 6 A.M., not 10 A.M.

JMO

BC = check your IB

 

[sissi]

Hoffman doesn't deny that his client Chris Wolfe's handwriting is more similar to the ransom note than Patsy's, he just wants to know if the "big guys" leaked this information to John..IMO very telling!

Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Do you know if she

21 was the only one that law enforcement could not

22 completely eliminate as the author of --

23 A. No. In fact, I was told that your

24 client had fewer dissimilarities than Patsy had

25 with the note.

0064

1 Q. Without revealing an attorney/client

2 privilege, do you know who told you that? Was

3 it a law enforcement source, or was it your

4 private investigators?

5 A. I don't recall. I don't recall.

6 MR. WOOD: I do know --

7 THE WITNESS: I was told that there

8 were other people that were tested that were much

9 more interesting than Patsy in terms of a

10 comparison.

11 Q. (By Mr. Hoffman) Now, how do you

12 know that?

13 A. I was told that. I don't recall by

14 whom. It is general knowledge that I have in my

15 head.

16 MR. WOOD: Plus I want to point out,

17 and I have not shared with Mr. Ramsey Alex

18 Hunter's testimony on that very point, which I

19 think you were aware of --

20 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.

21 MR. WOOD: -- who has stated there

22 were a number of people who had not been

23 eliminated that were under suspicion.

24 MR. HOFFMAN: I just want to know

25 how Mr. Ramsey, if he remembers how he knows

0065

1 that, with respect to that.

 

[tezi]

Page 15

of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF 171; PSMF 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF 172; PSMF 172.) Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF 53.) Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF 183; PSMF 183. ) Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PSMF 184.)

The Wolf/Ramsey thing..Carnes

Thank you. Well, Judge Carnes did not have all the evidence available when she came to her decision. And that is all I'm going to say about the "decision."

Patsy never turned over her beaver hair boots to the BPD.