Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[TroyinTX]

If the intruder were wearing gloves, why would he/she wipe it clean? It SHOULD have a Ramsey's fingerprints on it.

Very good point. And certainly this intruder WOULD have worn gloves for fear of getting fingerprints on anything considering how meticulous and planned he/she seemed to be to leave NO evidence in the actual house.

 

[Anyhoo]

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.

Notice I did not say that the Ramsey's killed JB in my response to you. What I said was that they know who did it and why. That is a big difference from saying they murdered their daughter. It is also a big difference from IDI. In IDI, the Ramsey's are completely innocent and don't know who murdered their daughter or why. To clarify, I think it is very possible that a non Ramsey murdered JB, but not an intruder and not without the parent's knowledge. That would indicate there is much more to this than has been revealed, as you said. I have always thought some big piece of information is missing from this case that if it were known would make all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. I sense it is there, hiding under the surface, but I do not know what it is. I believe JR knows full well what it is but he will never disclose it. The evidence does not tell us anything about what has been hidden, intentionally so. There is a big secret concerning this murder that has not been revealed. It is the key to everything. Without this key it is impossible to understand this murder. Moo

 

[Tawny]

Very good point. And certainly this intruder WOULD have worn gloves for fear of getting fingerprints on anything considering how meticulous and planned he/she seemed to be to leave NO evidence in the actual house.

He/She had to have worn gloves since there was only the tiniest bit of DNA on JBR, IMO.

 

[Tawny]

Notice I did not say that the Ramsey's killed JB in my response to you. What I said was that they know who did it and why. That is a big difference from saying they murdered their daughter. It is also a big difference from IDI. In IDI, the Ramsey's are completely innocent and don't know who murdered their daughter or why. To clarify, I think it is very possible that a non Ramsey murdered JB, but not an intruder and not without the parent's knowledge. That would indicate there is much more to this than has been revealed, as you said. I have always thought some big piece of information is missing from this case that if it were known would make all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. I sense it is there, hiding under the surface, but I do not know what it is. I believe JR knows full well what it is but he will never disclose it. The evidence does not tell us anything about what has been hidden, intentionally so. There is a big secret concerning this murder that has not been revealed.

Personally? I feel that big piece of information is the sealed medical records of both children. JMO!!!!!

 

[tezi]

Any other "evidence" does not negate DNA. Nothing does. Not unless they have the source of it. So it does not matter what other evidence is there. That DNA trumps it all.

And no offense taken..
For me cases are not personal. I don't feel anything bad toward any one who does not agree with me, I don't hold grudges, or get angry when someone posts that they think I am nuts for thinking this way.. I understand that we all see things differently sometimes and that is a good thing. I never take it personally and I never feel anything bad toward anyone here. So please know while I am passionate about my ideals, I care more about people.

I love that we have a place to discuss cases and bounce things around and share and make arguments and post our thoughts..
For me, It is never personal.
I like many people I don't agree with..

Scarlett, thank you for everything you have said. I really appreciate knowing this.

This case to me is personal. Very, very personal. I have had to walk away many times because of things that have been said.

I like many people I don't agree with too, so we will agree to disagree and I'll go back to my corner and post. LOL:blushing:

 

[Mama2JML]

Personally? I feel that big piece of information is the sealed medical records of both children. JMO!!!!!

LE has JonBenet's medical records, and they've had them since early 1997. The Ramseys handed them over willingly.

Boulder Daily Camera, March 1997:
"The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

'Police could not have obtained those things on their own, because they don't have subpoena power,' said a source. 'All that was completely voluntary on the part of the family.'"

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/03/16-2.html

 

[Anyhoo]

Personally? I feel that big piece of information is the sealed medical records of both children. JMO!!!!!

I think the truth lies somewhere between RDI and IDI. I realize few people here consider this to be a possibility, but looking at the total picture, this is what I keep coming back to again and again. I feel that there is something big under the surface, and this child murder is just one manifestation of it.

 

[Mama2JML]

It's very possible the killer wore gloves during many of his activities @ the house. Based upon the line of questioning below, it seems LE might have specific knowledge of fiber evidence consistent with a type/brand of work glove.

John Ramsey, 2000 LE Interview:

9 Q. (By Mr. Levin) While Mr. Kane is
10 looking for that on his computer, Mr. Ramsey,
11 I am interested, and this is concerning
12 events, obviously, that precede 1998, but it
13 is based on information developed after the
14 grand jury was convened. I am interested,
15 if you would, please tell us what types, if
16 any, work gloves you own, whether you kept
17 them in the house, on the plane, in the car,
18 it doesn't matter, but just identify them by
19 their location.
20 A. I don't remember that I owned any
21 work gloves. I don't normally wear work
22 gloves.
23 Q. So just to clarify, you are
24 saying that your recollection is that you did
25 not or you are just unsure because of the
0052
1 passage of time?
2 A. I don't remember. I mean, I
3 don't normally wear work gloves. I've had
4 work gloves from time to time, but I
5 don't -- I can't specifically remember that I
6 had any then or if I did what they were
7 like.
8 I had a pair here that were gray,
9 and I bought those at Home Depot, and God
10 knows where they are now. So they kind of
11 come and go.
12 Q. So it wasn't your routine habit
13 or practice to keep a pair of work gloves in
14 your cars if you needed to change a tire
15 or --
16 A. (Witness shook head negatively).
17 Q. -- or on your plane if you needed
18 to do something where you would kind of get
19 dirtied up?
20 A. No. I am not qualified to work
21 on my airplane, my former airplane.
22 MR. WOOD: Do you have the PR
23 statement, Mr. Kane?
24 MR. KANE: No. It's still
25 booting up.
0053
1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
2 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, during
3 the evening of December 25th, was there a
4 time when either, after JonBenet got dressed
5 to leave for the White's house or while she
6 was at the White's house or after you came
7 home from the White's house, she had any
8 problems going to the bathroom or problems
9 with her clothes that you may have helped
10 her with?
11 A. I don't remember. I really do
12 not.
13 Q. If I may follow --
14 A. It is possible. I don't know.
15 Q. If I can follow it up just to
16 clarify, when you say you don't remember,
17 does that mean, as you sit here today, your
18 best recollection is no or you don't know
19 yes or no?
20 A. I don't remember. It was three
21 and a half years ago.
22 Q. I understand that. I was just
23 trying to clarify your answer.
24 A. I don't know. I just don't.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the intruder were wearing gloves, why would he/she wipe it clean? It SHOULD have a Ramsey's fingerprints on it.

We don't know they wore gloves the whole time. Maybe they had bulky gloves and could not write with them on and took them off to write the note..

I don't know.. But it makes no sense for her to wipe her prints off of a pen that is in her house.. I wonder how they know THAT was the pen.. Maybe it was another like it and that was a brand new one???

 

[Anyhoo]

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.

It's very possible the killer wore gloves during many of his activities @ the house. Based upon the line of questioning below, it seems LE might have specific knowledge of fiber evidence consistent with a type/brand of work glove.

John Ramsey, 2000 LE Interview:

9 Q. (By Mr. Levin) While Mr. Kane is
10 looking for that on his computer, Mr. Ramsey,
11 I am interested, and this is concerning
12 events, obviously, that precede 1998, but it
13 is based on information developed after the
14 grand jury was convened. I am interested,
15 if you would, please tell us what types, if
16 any, work gloves you own, whether you kept
17 them in the house, on the plane, in the car,
18 it doesn't matter, but just identify them by
19 their location.
20 A. I don't remember that I owned any
21 work gloves. I don't normally wear work
22 gloves.
23 Q. So just to clarify, you are
24 saying that your recollection is that you did
25 not or you are just unsure because of the
0052
1 passage of time?
2 A. I don't remember. I mean, I
3 don't normally wear work gloves. I've had
4 work gloves from time to time, but I
5 don't -- I can't specifically remember that I
6 had any then or if I did what they were
7 like.
8 I had a pair here that were gray,
9 and I bought those at Home Depot, and God
10 knows where they are now. So they kind of
11 come and go.
12 Q. So it wasn't your routine habit
13 or practice to keep a pair of work gloves in
14 your cars if you needed to change a tire
15 or --
16 A. (Witness shook head negatively).
17 Q. -- or on your plane if you needed
18 to do something where you would kind of get
19 dirtied up?
20 A. No. I am not qualified to work
21 on my airplane, my former airplane.
22 MR. WOOD: Do you have the PR
23 statement, Mr. Kane?
24 MR. KANE: No. It's still
25 booting up.
0053
1 MR. WOOD: Okay.
2 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, during
3 the evening of December 25th, was there a
4 time when either, after JonBenet got dressed
5 to leave for the White's house or while she
6 was at the White's house or after you came
7 home from the White's house, she had any
8 problems going to the bathroom or problems
9 with her clothes that you may have helped
10 her with?
11 A. I don't remember. I really do
12 not.
13 Q. If I may follow --
14 A. It is possible. I don't know.
15 Q. If I can follow it up just to
16 clarify, when you say you don't remember,
17 does that mean, as you sit here today, your
18 best recollection is no or you don't know
19 yes or no?
20 A. I don't remember. It was three
21 and a half years ago.
22 Q. I understand that. I was just
23 trying to clarify your answer.
24 A. I don't know. I just don't.

What do you think that line of questioning was investigating?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, thank you for everything you have said. I really appreciate knowing this.

This case to me is personal. Very, very personal. I have had to walk away many times because of things that have been said.

I like many people I don't agree with too, so we will agree to disagree and I'll go back to my corner and post. LOL:blushing:

HA.. Whatever works for you is okay with me..

The case has my heart, But if I make them personal I lose perspective. For me that doesn't work.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What do you think that line of questioning was investigating?

I am not sure what you are asking or if you are asking me or the poster who posted the interview.

 

[Anyhoo]

We don't know they wore gloves the whole time. Maybe they had bulky gloves and could not write with them on and took them off to write the note..

I don't know.. But it makes no sense for her to wipe her prints off of a pen that is in her house.. I wonder how they know THAT was the pen.. Maybe it was another like it and that was a brand new one???

On that same line of thought it also makes no sense for the batteries inside of the flashlight to have been wiped unless to conceal the fingerprints of a non Ramsey. I have long known about that.

 

[Anyhoo]

I am not sure what you are asking or if you are asking me or the poster who posted the interview.

I was asking the other poster.

 

[Mama2JML]

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.

Yes, this. Please, support your argument. Lay it out persuasively, Scarlett. Explain it in detail. I'm not trying to attack you or derail this thread, but there has to be more to it than proclamation. Build a case for IDI - I know I'm not the only one interested and willing to listen. But there has to be more than "an intruder did it" and "it makes sense to me" and "the DNA is important." Yes, DNA is important, but you have to consider the totality of the circumstances here. Where is the circumstantial evidence which supports your theory? How do handle the evidence which seems to implicate the Ramseys? Spell it out a little more for us, please.

I appreciate your willingness to engage in respectful case discussion with "the other side". I've broken down your most recent posts in this thread and listed your requests below. We cannot efficiently tackle this all at once, and some of your requests require more specificity. Where would you like to start?

1. If someone was hiding in the house when they got home, where's the evidence to support that?
2. Offer plausible explanations for the Ramseys' actions:
3. Explain their stonewalling:
4. Explain their lying:
5. Explain evidence from the scene pointing to the Ramseys:
6. Explain circumstantial evidence supporting your theory:
7. How do you handle evidence implicating the Ramseys?

 

[Mama2JML]

What do you think that line of questioning was investigating?

I think there may be some unsourced fiber evidence, recovered from the body &/or the scene, that was found to be consistent with fibers from a certain brand &/or type of work gloves.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think there may be some unsourced fiber evidence, recovered from the body &/or the scene, that has been matched to some brand/type of work gloves.

I think that is a good deduction and definitely possible.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I appreciate your willingness to engage in respectful case discussion with "the other side". I've broken down your most recent posts in this thread and listed your requests below. We cannot efficiently tackle this all at once, and some of your requests require more specificity. Where would you like to start?

1. If someone was hiding in the house when they got home, where's the evidence to support that?
2. Offer plausible explanations for the Ramseys' actions:
3. Explain their stonewalling:
4. Explain their lying:
5. Explain evidence from the scene pointing to the Ramseys:
6. Explain circumstantial evidence supporting your theory:
7. How do you handle evidence implicating the Ramseys?

I believe there was someone in the house that night that was not a Ramsey. To me the easiest way would be to get in before they were home. I believe this was planned and so they could have been casing the house or known they would not be home. It makes sense with writing the of the note, that they had time and were not afraid of getting caught at some point.

I don't believe the R's stonewalled. I believe they took the advice of their attys. That is legal and simple.
I don't believe they lied. I believe they were mistaken about some things misunderstood but I can not find one huge lie that has any importance on this case at all.
I don't believe there is evidence that implicates the Ramseys at all. I believe the evidence points to an intruder.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I appreciate your willingness to engage in respectful case discussion with "the other side". I've broken down your most recent posts in this thread and listed your requests below. We cannot efficiently tackle this all at once, and some of your requests require more specificity. Where would you like to start?

1. If someone was hiding in the house when they got home, where's the evidence to support that?
2. Offer plausible explanations for the Ramseys' actions:
3. Explain their stonewalling:
4. Explain their lying:
5. Explain evidence from the scene pointing to the Ramseys:
6. Explain circumstantial evidence supporting your theory:
7. How do you handle evidence implicating the Ramseys?

The intruder in the house theory intrigues me the most, I think. I'm curious about the theories there - was it someone who had a key or broke in? What's the evidence to support this? I would think if there had been an intruder hiding in the house when the Ramseys arrived, there would have to be something to support this idea.

 

[bettybaby00]

LE has JonBenet's medical records, and they've had them since early 1997. The Ramseys handed them over willingly.

Boulder Daily Camera, March 1997:
"The family has made Burke Ramsey's interview with the psychiatrist - who was selected by the Boulder County Department of Social Services - and all of JonBenet's medical records available to the prosecutor. They also allowed pediatrician Dr. Francesco Beuf and his nurses to speak with investigators.

'Police could not have obtained those things on their own, because they don't have subpoena power,' said a source. 'All that was completely voluntary on the part of the family.'"

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/03/16-2.html

Ok, I really don't know what to make of this. B/c it has been widely reported that none of the kids records were turned over to police, as it was determined that the Rs deserved an "island of privacy" to which Hunter promptly afforded them. I have to ask, who is this "source" the writer keeps referring to? If it's L. Wood then I can't believe it's not just spin, b/c he has spun similar scenarios over the years. For example, the night of the 26th, when the Rs were staying with friends, law enforcement stopped by to make arraignments for the Rs to come to the station to give statements. It was at this point that JR informed police that they had obtained legal counsel, and that all interviews and questions would be set up/handled through their lawyers. As we know, the Rs never went in for questioning until 4 months later, yet Wood continually pointed to this convo with police the night of the 26th as the Rs "cooperating with police."

Also, I know one of the Boulder reporters (can't recall him name) has followed and investigated this case from the beginning, and this Clay Evans isn't that reporter.



ETA:

K, after reading again, I now see where the info is coming from.

The Ramseys' investigators also have conducted exhaustive interviews with family members, friends and people from deep in the past of JonBenet's mother, Patsy. But thus far, they have failed to turn up any evidence of past abuse of the murdered 6-year-old or her mother, the source said.