Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Tawny]

Yes, transferred from the panties. Or vice versa, from the longjohns to the panties. It matches nothing else, not one thing, from the crime scene. Not one hair, not one piece of saliva, not one fingerprint. It's so tiny, and so insignificant, that it rules itself out as evidence. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, transferred from the panties. Or vice versa, from the longjohns to the panties. It matches nothing else, not one thing, from the crime scene. Not one hair, not one piece of saliva, not one fingerprint. It's so tiny, and so insignificant, that it rules itself out as evidence. JMO

It is not insignificant. IT is DNA. IT is the calling card of the PERP. I have never seen a case where DNA is called insignificant no matter how little they have. EVER.

There are unsolved cases all over where someone went in and killed someone and left NO evidence. No DNA or Hair. And yet we know that someone else did it and they look for them. In this case we have DNA that matches no one tested including the R's. It is in two places so apparently the Perp was not as neat as he was trying to be. He made a mistake and left DNA.

I just have never ever seen a case where DNA is argued so hard against. Ever. We look for DNA, We look for signs of a killer and here we have it and it is treated like garbage.

IT just astounds me.

 

[Tawny]

Ok, let me rephrase. It is insignificant in comparison with the plethora of evidence that suggests someone in the house is the perp. Again, JMO. But this is the IDI thread, so I should probably exit stage left.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Ok, let me rephrase. It is insignificant in comparison with the plethora of evidence that suggests someone in the house is the perp. Again, JMO. But this is the IDI thread, so I should probably exit stage left.

Really it is not, Because the stuff that is there from the people in the house is supposed to be there. They all lived together,

There is nothing that says the R's did this. Even the Grand jury did not believe either P or J murdered JBR. They did not indict them for murder. They did not even have the DNA that we have today but they had everything, EVERYTHING else.

All along it has been the GJ got it right, Well apparently they did not believe that J or P killed JBR. That says more than anything.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Really it is not, Because the stuff that is there from the people in the house is supposed to be there. They all lived together,

There is nothing that says the R's did this. Even the Grand jury did not believe either P or J murdered JBR. They did not indict them for murder. They did not even have the DNA that we have today but they had everything, EVERYTHING else.

All along it has been the GJ got it right, Well apparently they did not believe that J or P killed JBR. That says more than anything.

Can you please provide a link that the Grand Jury had access to "everything"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Can you please provide a link that the Grand Jury had access to "everything"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I am sure I can find multiple posts in the RDI threads where they say that the GJ had access to everything, before the indictment papers were actually released. IT seemed to be a common theme before the actual findings were released. Now that seems to have shifted.

A Grand jury is provided with all the evidence that is collected to see if there is enough for a trial for that person. That is standard.

"Grand juries can use the court's power to subpoena evidence. A court can issue a document known as a subpoena (a word which translates, essentially, as "subject to sanction") which commands someone to do something. The subpoenas are actually issued by the court clerk's office.

The prosecutor will go to the court clerk's office and obtain blank subpoenas. "

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq9.htm

That would mean they have access to EVERYTHING and anything they found to be pertinent to the case.

" District attorneys often convene grand juries to develop evidence and solve difficult crimes. "
" A grand jury is equipped with powerful legal tools which can overcome the various barriers to obtaining evidence. First, the grand jury has the power to issue subpoenas to compel persons to appear before it and answer questions about the matter under investigation. "

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207

The Grand jury can have everything and anything they want to when it comes to gathering evidence. They basically are the only ones who have that Legal Carte blanche.

 

[Anyhoo]

It is not insignificant. IT is DNA. IT is the calling card of the PERP. I have never seen a case where DNA is called insignificant no matter how little they have. EVER.

There are unsolved cases all over where someone went in and killed someone and left NO evidence. No DNA or Hair. And yet we know that someone else did it and they look for them. In this case we have DNA that matches no one tested including the R's. It is in two places so apparently the Perp was not as neat as he was trying to be. He made a mistake and left DNA.

I just have never ever seen a case where DNA is argued so hard against. Ever. We look for DNA, We look for signs of a killer and here we have it and it is treated like garbage.

IT just astounds me.

Scarlett, I agree with you about the DNA being significant but I disagree with IDI. I believe there is a logical explanation for it. IMO the Ramsey's are not innocent and know who killed their daughter and why. I am interested in the theory that a non Ramsey killed JB but not an intruder and not without the parent's knowledge. Or the DNA could be staging. Would you be willing to consider either of those possibilities or are you firmly set on IDI?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, I agree with you about the DNA being significant but I disagree with IDI. I believe there is a logical explanation for it. IMO the Ramsey's are not innocent and know who killed their daughter and why. I am interested in the theory that a non Ramsey killed JB but not an intruder and not without the parent's knowledge. Or the DNA could be staging. Would you be willing to consider either of those possibilities or are you firmly set on IDI?

I do not believe that any of the R's killed Jonbenet. She was killed by a stranger. It is set because that is what the evidence reveals. There is nothing that proves she was killed or even injured by a family member.
If I felt that way before, Seeing the Indictment I feel that way 100% more. The GJ did not believe they killed her either, or they could have indicted one of them or both J or P for murder. They didn't because in all their evidence there was nothing that proved that to them even enough to just take them to trial for it.

I think there is way more to this story and a connection possibly to little Amy's case 8 months later. That person was not The BF of the mother as has been reported here. I have an email from the investigator confirming that. But I will not publish a private email without permission. I will be happy to show it to a mod to confirm my source. But Will post JMO to cover the comment.

I have looked at this case and it's twists and turns for the almost 20 years it happened. I stick to facts and evidence. I am not interested in fantasies made up about the case, Or anything else. The evidence tells me that someone else killed JBR. Not the family or anyone in it.

 

[TroyinTX]

Playing hypothetical here because I 100% believe, after reading virtually everything on this case and researching it heavily for the last several years, that the Ramsey's were involved in this murder (and knowing everything that is our there about this case, it boggles my mind that people think otherwise), even the miniscule "foreign" DNA found does not mean the Ramsey's were innocent; if an "outsider" or "intruder" really did kill JonBenet, it could have very well been someone they knew and very well knew what was happening.

I am sorry, but you cannot dismiss their actions, the ransom note, and the COUNTLESS other things that point to the fact that they were involved--somehow--in the murder of JB.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Playing hypothetical here because I 100% believe, after reading virtually everything on this case and researching it heavily for the last several years, that the Ramsey's were involved in this murder (and knowing everything that is our there about this case, it boggles my mind that people think otherwise), even the miniscule "foreign" DNA found does not mean the Ramsey's were innocent; if an "outsider" or "intruder" really did kill JonBenet, it could have very well been someone they knew and very well knew what was happening.

I am sorry, but you cannot dismiss their actions, the ransom note, and the COUNTLESS other things that point to the fact that they were involved--somehow--in the murder of JB.

I actually can. I don't trust a lot of the sources of information or investigators or book writers, So I look at the evidence as it stands. I don't believe that Patsy wrote that note. I believe someone wrote that note to make it look like she did. I believe that they were in the house a long time before the murder and hiding when the R's got home.. JMO. I don't see anything that points to them being involved in the death of their dd. Nothing. I have looked. I see lots of innuendo and stories about what if, But no concrete evidence that connects them to the crime.

I don't believe for a moment that they knew that someone was killing their DD and allowed it.

 

[txsvicki]

I'm sorry, I should know who Amy is, but I don't. Is she the girl that was assaulted in her bedroom and who attended the same dance classes?

 

[TroyinTX]

I actually can. I don't trust a lot of the sources of information or investigators or book writers, So I look at the evidence as it stands. I don't believe that Patsy wrote that note. I believe someone wrote that note to make it look like she did. I believe that they were in the house a long time before the murder and hiding when the R's got home.. JMO. I don't see anything that points to them being involved in the death of their dd. Nothing. I have looked. I see lots of innuendo and stories about what if, But no concrete evidence that connects them to the crime.

I don't believe for a moment that they knew that someone was killing their DD and allowed it.

If it was somebody who wrote the note to make it look like she did it, then it had to be someone who was VERY familiar with her writing style. That is not just something you can pick up after a few minutes of looking at an example of someone's handwriting; particularly when the matched it so perfectly that many of the top handwriting analysis experts in the country could not rule her out as the author of the note. They also had to know she would be coming down the back stairs in the morning to find the note.

Which, again, leads to the possibility that they (if they didn't themselves) kill JB, then they knew who did and assisted in the cover up of her murder.

The phantom intruder theory that involves someone being in their home for countless hours, abducting their daughter, murdering her with implements found in the home, gather blankets to wrap her in, etc.. while not waking up THREE individuals in the home, nor leaving any evidence except some tiny traces of DNA is far more far-fetched than the idea that someone in the home murdered her.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm sorry, I should know who Amy is, but I don't. Is she the girl that was assaulted in her bedroom and who attended the same dance classes?

If I remember correctly it was the same dance school. I don't think I have read it was the same class.

"Like JonBenet, she took lessons at Dance West. And like JonBenet, another girl, who is identified as "Amy," was attacked and sexually assaulted at night in her own bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.

That night, Amy's father was out of town. After catching a movie, Amy and her mother returned home late. What they didn't know when they entered the house was that there was already an intruder inside.

Amy's father, who asked that his identity be obscured, agreed to talk about what happened that night: "My feeling is he got into the house while they were out and hid inside the house, so he would have been in there for perhaps four to six hours, hiding.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonbenet-dna-rules-out-parents/

 

[AnaTeresa]

I actually can. I don't trust a lot of the sources of information or investigators or book writers, So I look at the evidence as it stands. I don't believe that Patsy wrote that note. I believe someone wrote that note to make it look like she did. I believe that they were in the house a long time before the murder and hiding when the R's got home.. JMO. I don't see anything that points to them being involved in the death of their dd. Nothing. I have looked. I see lots of innuendo and stories about what if, But no concrete evidence that connects them to the crime.

I don't believe for a moment that they knew that someone was killing their DD and allowed it.

If someone was hiding in the house when they got home, where's the evidence to support that?

I'm open to considering IDI (heck, someone on here once made a very persuasive case for JARDI), but I think you have to have more than the DNA. Yes, DNA is persuasive, but the Ramsey's actions following JB's death need to have a plausible explanation. I've not yet seen something that effectively explains their stonewalling, their lying, and other pieces of evidence from the scene which point to them.

I'm not trying to be hostile to your idea at all. Persuade me. I've got an open mind still on this case, although I lean BDI.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If it was somebody who wrote the note to make it look like she did it, then it had to be someone who was VERY familiar with her writing style. That is not just something you can pick up after a few minutes of looking at an example of someone's handwriting; particularly when the matched it so perfectly that many of the top handwriting analysis experts in the country could not rule her out as the author of the note. They also had to know she would be coming down the back stairs in the morning to find the note.

Which, again, leads to the possibility that they (if they didn't themselves) kill JB, then they knew who did and assisted in the cover up of her murder.

The phantom intruder theory that involves someone being in their home for countless hours, abducting their daughter, murdering her with implements found in the home, gather blankets to wrap her in, etc.. while not waking up THREE individuals in the home, nor leaving any evidence except some tiny traces of DNA is far more far-fetched than the idea that someone in the home murdered her.

IT could have been someone close enough to them to have access to certain things. I have read the information on the note and do not have anyone one who says it was Patsy. The probability was not even high.. IT was just higher than the next down the line..

It is subjective to me that some experts think it is possible she wrote it and some don't. There is no one that can say definitively she wrote it. And that is a big problem. Handwriting is not perfect. If you are trying to disguise your handwriting and fake a ransom note, would you use your own paper and pen, And not destroy the pad and pen? Would you write close to your own handwriting? Or would you write in block letters, It makes no sense. If they did it as you suppose they had all the time in the world to get rid of stuff, burn stuff and yet they didn't. If they were so cold as to let someone kill their daughter, they would have planned better to hide it all.

To me common sense takes care of some of the so called evidence. JMO.. a

And again, this is a thread to talk about other theories than RDI, not support RDI.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If someone was hiding in the house when they got home, where's the evidence to support that?

I'm open to considering IDI (heck, someone on here once made a very persuasive case for JARDI), but I think you have to have more than the DNA. Yes, DNA is persuasive, but the Ramsey's actions following JB's death need to have a plausible explanation. I've not yet seen something that effectively explains their stonewalling, their lying, and other pieces of evidence from the scene which point to them.

I'm not trying to be hostile to your idea at all. Persuade me. I've got an open mind still on this case, although I lean BDI.

It makes sense to me. And it also goes along with Amy's attack where they know that person was in the house.

With the note, With the time involved in getting her and taking her down to basement, I just feel that makes sense. It is JMO but what I feel makes the most sense.

 

[TroyinTX]

IT could have been someone close enough to them to have access to certain things. I have read the information on the note and do not have anyone one who says it was Patsy. The probability was not even high.. IT was just higher than the next down the line..

It is subjective to me that some experts think it is possible she wrote it and some don't. There is no one that can say definitively she wrote it. And that is a big problem. Handwriting is not perfect. If you are trying to disguise your handwriting and fake a ransom note, would you use your own paper and pen, And not destroy the pad and pen? Would you write close to your own handwriting? Or would you write in block letters, It makes no sense. If they did it as you suppose they had all the time in the world to get rid of stuff, burn stuff and yet they didn't. If they were so cold as to let someone kill their daughter, they would have planned better to hide it all.

To me common sense takes care of some of the so called evidence. JMO.. a

And again, this is a thread to talk about other theories than RDI, not support RDI.

I AM proposing an theory other than a RDI--it just involves them covering up the aftermath for one reason or another.


And, sorry, but other theories other than RDI consist of proposing some "unknown intruder" did it without proposing much else of anything except a few small samples of unknown DNA as evidence of this.

People wouldn't keep bringing up the Ramsey's if someone actually made a substantial case AGAINST their involvement and explain their actions. Proclaiming "an intruder did it" and "this case is over" is not substantial

 

[TroyinTX]

Yeah...they were hiding in the house for hours, but left ZERO trace of this. Makes perfect sense.....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I AM proposing an theory other than a RDI--it just involves them covering up the aftermath for one reason or another.


And, sorry, but other theories other than RDI consist of proposing some "unknown intruder" did it without proposing much else of anything except a few small samples of unknown DNA as evidence of this.

People wouldn't keep bringing up the Ramsey's if someone actually made a substantial case AGAINST their involvement and explain their actions. Proclaiming "an intruder did it" and "this case is over" is not substantial

DNA is not little. IT is a big thing and cases are solved using very little DNA all the time. The DNA matters, I know that RDI don't want it to but it does and it shakes that theory to the ground.

DNA means someone else was there. And until you find that source you can not accuse anyone it does not match.

Claiming an R did it or covered it up is not substantial either. Just a theory.

How do you argue someone's non evidence??

That DNA is key.. Find that source and then the case moves forward.. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yeah...they were hiding in the house for hours, but left ZERO trace of this. Makes perfect sense.....

There are many cases where an intruder comes in and leaves no evidence. Just take a look at unsolved cases.

I think it is a big possibility.