Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[tezi]

Another poster posted this about 10 years ago here.

Other than the horrible manner of the reporter rude and sarcastic, I have to look into what this man says more.

I am curious about the handwriting thing and will be looking into that.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm

Link to discussion about said reporter here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17714"]48 Hours Mystery: Screw-up Exposed - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Keys are easy to reproduce, anyhow, so anyone connected to anyone who had a key at any time prior to JB's death could have had a copy...

I'm not that interested in focussing on particular suspects by name right now, but rather looking at the HOW of an intruder, and the potential WHY.

Either a theory will hold water and be valid as a potential scenario, or it won't, in the end. Some RDI theories do seem likely to me, others are really not - I think it's worth scrutinising IDI theories in much the same detail. I'm okay with there being two opposing theories which fit - we'll likely never know who killed her, and I highly doubt a theory will solve this crime. But it'd be nice to pin down the likely scenarios with clear eyes, no matter where they lead.

A couple pages back, I posted a rather half assed 'enemy of John' theory. I'd like to assess it for flaws and possibilities. Right now, I am seeing the note as very possibly being a taunt at John (I think it being an actual ransom note is pretty far from any kind of reality - so I'm looking into non-RDI why's of it being there at all).

As for windows.. I broke into my own supposedly well locked home a couple weeks ago having locked myself out (AGAIN, sheesh). Through a window. But blind Freddy could have seen somebody'd been through there, as I am lazy about dusting the sills in that room, we hardly use it.. I doubt Patsy was anal about dusting her basement window sills, either (but that's a tidbit I should research). It'd be a crafty intruder who could get through a window in a little-used room without leaving significant marks in the dust on sill or glass. I'm pretty sure that'd be an obvious thing for police to look for.

Keys are super easy to reproduce. DH has a key machine in his work shop, Anyone could easily walk in that worked there and make keys. What is it 1.-3.00 for a new key??

I have gotten in my house also by jimmying windows and working myself in.

I would like to see pictures of that window from that day. I would like to see the webs.

I just knocked down a spiderweb last night. It was back this morning. Fully made and intact. If the spider was living INSIDE The house and NOT OUTSIDE, But ventured there, It could have indeed made a full web quickly.

It has been cold here at night also. There is a spider that has been out there even with temps have dipped to the 30's.

I don't see the spider web as any big proof of anything.

I don't have any problem picturing someone going through that window especially since it was broken.

And once you come in that way, You don't have to leave that way. They could have walked out any door after that, right?

I still believe that this person was in that house for a long time. Waiting.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

http://investigation.discovery.com/...-aphrodite-jones-jonbenet-ramsey-evidence.htm

Since we were talking about the window and the possible entry and exit.. And then there are the two different foot prints.

There is that hitech boot impression that does not belong to the R's and then the other foot wear impression.

These are big clues that says someone else was there.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"The shoe imprint found near JonBenet's body was the second piece of evidence. Ron Gosage had compiled a list of more than six hundred people who had been in the Ramseys' house during the six months prior to JonBenet's death."

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

WOW. That many people. That many people had access to the house, keys, doors, windows, jonbenet, paper pads, markers, the basement..

Incredible.

 

[2 percent]

As for windows.. I broke into my own supposedly well locked home a couple weeks ago having locked myself out (AGAIN, sheesh). Through a window. But blind Freddy could have seen somebody'd been through there, as I am lazy about dusting the sills in that room, we hardly use it.. I doubt Patsy was anal about dusting her basement window sills, either (but that's a tidbit I should research). It'd be a crafty intruder who could get through a window in a little-used room without leaving significant marks in the dust on sill or glass. I'm pretty sure that'd be an obvious thing for police to look for.

I've locked myself out countless times and have two windows I use. One is ground level with a screen. First I have to wrestle the screen to the ground, getting both dust from the screen on me and fingerprints all over the screen as well as pry marks from the tool I use pop it out. Then I step through, usually bracing myself by hanging on to the frame.

The other window is a small screenless window over the w/d. I have to climb up to the window and climb down bumping and scraping various things along the way. Plenty of forensic evidence in both instances.

But I actually have a very similar experience to the basement windows. I was at a party in college and got locked in the bathroom. It was dark, very little light outside the window or in the bathroom so I had no clue how far I would drop. I tried straddling the window and touching with one foot but when ground was nowhere to be felt I pulled my leg up and tried to slide out feet first. I dropped about three feet, scraping the sill the whole way down. There is no way an intruder could drop through a window like that, dropping "blind" too, and not leave evidence.

A key is the best theory. There are several unaccounted for and easily obtained if you have access.
Plus it's less conspicuous to use a key than slide through a basement window presumably with fiberless clothes and gloves.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I've locked myself out countless times and have two windows I use. One is ground level with a screen. First I have to wrestle the screen to the ground, getting both dust from the screen on me and fingerprints all over the screen as well as pry marks from the tool I use pop it out. Then I step through, usually bracing myself by hanging on to the frame.

The other window is a small screenless window over the w/d. I have to climb up to the window and climb down bumping and scraping various things along the way. Plenty of forensic evidence in both instances.

But I actually have a very similar experience to the basement windows. I was at a party in college and got locked in the bathroom. It was dark, very little light outside the window or in the bathroom so I had no clue how far I would drop. I tried straddling the window and touching with one foot but when ground was nowhere to be felt I pulled my leg up and tried to slide out feet first. I dropped about three feet, scraping the sill the whole way down. There is no way an intruder could drop through a window like that, dropping "blind" too, and not leave evidence.

A key is the best theory. There are several unaccounted for and easily obtained if you have access.
Plus it's less conspicuous to use a key than slide through a basement window presumably with fiberless clothes and gloves.

That would depend on the person breaking in. My brother could get in anywhere and it would never look like he had gotten in. It would depend on who was coming in, How tall they were, how comfortable they were doing it.

My son broke into my neighbors for them. They locked their keys in the house and came to borrow one of my kids to sneak in her high small window. He did it, Nothing disturbed, no falling.

I just don't think there is an absolute about this. It would depend on too much.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

that is really interesting to me and does make sense if you think about it. i wonder if the police ever looked into the guy

I don't know. It is just one person's opinion and really, I have seen so many names thrown into the ring and I don't ever want to do that without real cause. I don't see anyone that stands out to me as the perp in this case. I still have a feeling more than one person was involved.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Another poster posted this about 10 years ago here.

Other than the horrible manner of the reporter rude and sarcastic, I have to look into what this man says more.

I am curious about the handwriting thing and will be looking into that.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm

That is in 1999.

Also he never states that the Assailant of Amy was the old boyfriend. That entire clip is off the mic and answering other questions it is obvious when you read it over again.
He is talking it seems about why he started investigating.
"Peterson: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house./ "

This is obviously the answer to another question.. from someone else. This is off mike to other reporters.. " He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder."


Then in 2009 Still no one was caught or they would have been mentioned in the show. Nothing.. No one has ever been caught for the assault on Amy.

There would be no reason for them to continue to look for the assailant if they knew who it was..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-661569.html

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That is in 1999.

Also he never states that the Assailant of Amy was the old boyfriend. That entire clip is off the mic and answering other questions it is obvious when you read it over again.
He is talking it seems about why he started investigating.
"Peterson: (OFF MICROPHONE) ...home, yes. He was out of town. The wife was there and the wife kept on bringing the guy into the house./ "

This is obviously the answer to another question.. from someone else. This is off mike to other reporters.. " He went out, went off the balcony. There were a lotta similarities there. This was about three months after the Ramsey murder."


Then in 2009 Still no one was caught or they would have been mentioned in the show. Nothing.. No one has ever been caught for the assault on Amy.

There would be no reason for them to continue to look for the assailant if they knew who it was..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-661569.html

Thank you for giving me an answer to my questions. No mention of a boyfriend anywhere. And the case is not solved as far as we can tell.

Thanks again Scarlett for keeping the truth forefront.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Thank you for giving me an answer to my questions. No mention of a boyfriend anywhere. And the case is not solved as far as we can tell.

Thanks again Scarlett for keeping the truth forefront.

There would be no point for him to point out the similarities to the Ramsey case if in fact they knew exactly who had assaulted Amy. It is just the answer to two different questions off mike. It is obvious the reporter thinks little of Peterson. He openly mocks him. I would love to see other reports of the event.. Off to look..

 

[Deleted member 39678]

There would be no point for him to point out the similarities to the Ramsey case if in fact they knew exactly who had assaulted Amy. It is just the answer to two different questions off mike. It is obvious the reporter thinks little of Peterson. He openly mocks him. I would love to see other reports of the event.. Off to look..

I agree. That one quote is pretty weak in saying that the Amy case is closed and has no relation to the JBR case. Let us know if you find anything else.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I guess you really have to stop and think and not just read it all together.. But it is obvious that he is talking about two different things. It does not make sense even together..

I am trying to find a contact for him.

Will keep searching.

 

[FrayedKnot]

There would be no point for him to point out the similarities to the Ramsey case if in fact they knew exactly who had assaulted Amy. It is just the answer to two different questions off mike. It is obvious the reporter thinks little of Peterson. He openly mocks him. I would love to see other reports of the event.. Off to look..

He (reporter) also mocks him (Peterson) for saying everyone had been cleared and makes him admit that the Ramseys had in fact NOT been cleared. Which Peterson should have known.

However, he is also convinced Santa Bill killed JBR.

So, he goes from being paid by Amy's dad to investigate, then the investigation is halted and the dad moves to Buffalo, NY. And then Peterson suddenly becomes involved in the Ramsey case and since he is a paid PI and not a police detective......ya know. Grain of salt.

What I can tell you is the Amy case is not pending. It was just closed. And Peterson's comments regarding that, whether he realized his mic was on or not, are telling. Plus the family did not push for the investigation to continue and Amy's dad left Boulder and his wife. He also asked for anonymity, which he was not always given in the press. Sad for him and Amy.

IMO, no relation between the two cases. Even most IDIs feel the two are not related.

 

[Ausgirl]

Plus it's less conspicuous to use a key than slide through a basement window presumably with fiberless clothes and gloves.

There were plenty of fibres. Not all of which can be attributed to the Ramsey home.

Leather doesn't shed fibres, btw. Nor does close weave nylon, which a few home invasion rapists including EAR/ONS have used.. (not that I think JB's killer was much like EAR, just making a point about the gloves).

Lots of fabrics don't shed loose fibres easily.

So if an intruder was wearing some clothes which shed a little bit, and others which don't at all, it might account for the "odd fibres out" among all the various terry-wool-fluffy-carpet-etc ones shed by various persons and things within the Ramsey home. Which then were redistributed by the act of attacking the child...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He (reporter) also mocks him (Peterson) for saying everyone had been cleared and makes him admit that the Ramseys had in fact NOT been cleared. Which Peterson should have known.

However, he is also convinced Santa Bill killed JBR.

So, he goes from being paid by Amy's dad to investigate, then the investigation is halted and the dad moves to Buffalo, NY. And then Peterson suddenly becomes involved in the Ramsey case and since he is a paid PI and not a police detective......ya know. Grain of salt.

What I can tell you is the Amy case is not pending. It was just closed. And Peterson's comments regarding that, whether he realized his mic was on or not, are telling. Plus the family did not push for the investigation to continue and Amy's dad left Boulder and his wife. He also asked for anonymity, which he was not always given in the press. Sad for him and Amy.

IMO, no relation between the two cases. Even most IDIs feel the two are not related.

Link to prove Amy's case is closed. Because in 2009 it was not.. No mention at all in the 48 hours story.
We will see. I don't have to believe his theory on the case to understand that he meant it was the boyfriend he was paid to investigate but drew the lines to the commonality on the person that broke in and assaulted amy. If it was the boyfriend that would have been it and this story never would be known. It is known because they do NOT know who assaulted amy. That is what I get from the reporting. I see nothing anywhere that says Amy's assailant was captured or identified and prosecuted.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

There were plenty of fibres. Not all of which can be attributed to the Ramsey home.

Leather doesn't shed fibres, btw. Nor does close weave nylon, which a few home invasion rapists including EAR/ONS have used.. (not that I think JB's killer was much like EAR, just making a point about the gloves).

Lots of fabrics don't shed loose fibres easily.

So if an intruder was wearing some clothes which shed a little bit, and others which don't at all, it might account for the "odd fibres out" among all the various terry-wool-fluffy-carpet-etc ones shed by various persons and things within the Ramsey home. Which then were redistributed by the act of attacking the child...

You make some good points about fibers.

Just to let people know what EAR/ONS means. It stands for East Area Rapist and Original Night Stalker. The East Area Rapist plagued Sacramento in the late 1970's. The Original Night Stalker killed several people afterwards. DNA evidence proved that the two seemingly dissimilar criminals where the same person.

The East Area Rapist was able to enter and leave peoples homes without leaving any signs of doing it. That's something that can help us understand this case. Here is a link to a website that explains the EAR/ONS case.

http://www.ear-ons.com/crimes.html

 

[2 percent]

There were plenty of fibres. Not all of which can be attributed to the Ramsey home.

Leather doesn't shed fibres, btw. Nor does close weave nylon, which a few home invasion rapists including EAR/ONS have used.. (not that I think JB's killer was much like EAR, just making a point about the gloves).

Lots of fabrics don't shed loose fibres easily.

So if an intruder was wearing some clothes which shed a little bit, and others which don't at all, it might account for the "odd fibres out" among all the various terry-wool-fluffy-carpet-etc ones shed by various persons and things within the Ramsey home. Which then were redistributed by the act of attacking the child...

A person can stand in a room in a sweater with synthetic fibers and not shed.
But can you scrape up against a rough window sill and not leave sweater fibers behind? Not likely

Shedding and scraping, rubbing, etc are different things.

 

[Ausgirl]

I don't assume the killer 'scraped up' against anything... but if I did, I would have to allow for smooth weave/hardy synthetic fabrics like those many winter jackets are made of, which would not necessarily have fibres loose enough to drop off easily. It's all conjecture, but it -was- a cold time of year, and the wearing of hardy, synthetic outer clothes and gloves is not beyond the realm of possibility.

What I -do- know is, there were anomalous fibres found at the murder scene and on Jonbenet's body, with which it can be 100% safely assumed the killer had direct contact.

 

[Ausgirl]

You make some good points about fibers.

Just to let people know what EAR/ONS means. It stands for East Area Rapist and Original Night Stalker. The East Area Rapist plagued Sacramento in the late 1970's. The Original Night Stalker killed several people afterwards. DNA evidence proved that the two seemingly dissimilar criminals where the same person.

The East Area Rapist was able to enter and leave peoples homes without leaving any signs of doing it. That's something that can help us understand this case. Here is a link to a website that explains the EAR/ONS case.

http://www.ear-ons.com/crimes.html

EAR/ONS is a bad analogy as far as shedding physical evidence goes, because he -did- leave copious DNA all over the crime scenes, sperm and fibres and gods know what else.

Problem there is, there's never been anyone found to compare to the evidence to...

Where the comparison -might- hold (and you are quite right there IMO) is that EAR/ONS was a 'creeper', someone who could get in and out of multiple homes on the same night, and leave no obvious evidence of his passing through. Sometimes there'd be a forced entry, sometimes it wasn't readily apparent. But he did creep into homes and case them, sometimes several homes in a neighbourhod, leaving ligatures hidden in some.. (the stuff of nightmares, that) .. before choosing the house he'd actually attack. The level of stalking he did, on homes he had no prior connection to, the way he broke in and familiarised himself with the family and the home layout... well, there's the precedence for a stalker-type intruder in the Ramsey case.

There are some nutjobs who -do- go to that extreme level. Rare, but they happen.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A person can stand in a room in a sweater with synthetic fibers and not shed.
But can you scrape up against a rough window sill and not leave sweater fibers behind? Not likely

Shedding and scraping, rubbing, etc are different things.

You don't have to scrape a window sill to get in on. Again it depends on the size of the person. The agility of the person.

There is just no rule here. Too many variables.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.