Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
There are unsourced fibers, hairs, prints, cord, tape, and DNA. By all accounts, the home was somewhat of a maze with countless closets, nooks, & crannies. JonBenet's body wasn't found for hours. Assuredly, there were "hiding" places... As for possible entry points, were all the doors & windows locked before the family left the home? We don't know, LE doesn't know, no one really knows. Regardless, one of the first officers on the scene, Sergeant Whitson, observed "fresh pry marks" at one entrance, there were signs of a disturbance in a basement window well. As well, there were many keys to the residence, some unaccounted for.
 
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

Strange. That is the very first I have ever heard that the medical records were ever even looked at. My understanding was that the doctor said he would "burn" the records before ever releasing them.
 
Strange. That is the very first I have ever heard that the medical records were ever even looked at. My understanding was that the doctor said he would "burn" the records before ever releasing them.

The problem I have a lot of times here is that there are things people keep saying as truth that turns out to be from a book or someones opinion not a real fact. I spend a lot of time searching for sources and sometimes it is just a quote from another web site.
 
Is there a way to find out the source of that information from that article?
 
The only thing I can find is that the medical records were given to the Ramsey's private investigators.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-sexual-abuse.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/19980131023845/www.bouldernews.com/BoulderNews/Ramsey/X_9704030002.htm

"Korten has noted law enforcement officials have medical records that "show conclusively that there is no evidence ... of abuse of any kind," he said. The family also has provided the Boulder County District Attorney a psychiatrist's videotaped interview with Burke which they claim demonstrates the family has no history of sexual abuse."
 
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.

We saw it the first time you posted it, Scarlett.
 
Strange. That is the very first I have ever heard that the medical records were ever even looked at. My understanding was that the doctor said he would "burn" the records before ever releasing them.

I wonder where that came from because it really is a dramatic statement isn't it? Have you ever heard such a thing from a dr that was being served a subpeona for records? I have to wonder if it is true and if that is really what the dr said.

The problem I have is that it was easily subpeonaed and obtained. All the records in the case would be.
 
She wouldn't have been thinking clearly, IMO, because emotions would have been running high. The routine of putting the pen where it belongs would take over in the midst of the chaos. (jmo)

Yes, just force of her own habits. That's my way of thinking.
 
If you are planning to cover up the murder of your child in your house, You are thinking pretty darn clearly..

That's a matter of opinion, Scarlett. I don't think anyone here would classify covering up as thinking "clearly."

If you just sat and wrote a note to mislead police you know that you need to get rid of the paper and pen for it to work.

Not if your original intention is to hang it on someone you know. I refer you to this:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87817"]A Masterpiece of Misdirection - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Lest we forget: it wasn't until AFTER the housekeeper's alibi checked out that the Rs abandoned their "everybody had a key" story and latched on to the Lou Smit gas.

IT makes no sense. She can not be panicked and write that note, It just does not go hand in hand.

Who says she was panicked at the time she wrote it. For my money, I think she'd settled down by then.

But of course, I'm forgetting: this isn't an RDI thread, which means you're shielded from these points.
 
Strange. That is the very first I have ever heard that the medical records were ever even looked at. My understanding was that the doctor said he would "burn" the records before ever releasing them.

The medical records from Dr. Beuf went "missing." He has never turned them over. So, I don't know what medical records they are looking at here.

Not trying to argue with anyone, but Dr. Beuf is very suspicious.
 
The medical records from Dr. Beuf went "missing." He has never turned them over. So, I don't know what medical records they are looking at here.

Not trying to argue with anyone, but Dr. Beuf is very suspicious.

Can you cite proof of that? official documentation?? Thanks!
 
The thing about you Scarlett is that you are not willing to compromise an inch on your views. You are dead set certain that not only no Ramsey killed JB but that they are all completely innocent of any involvement whatsoever. I think you would have to have blinders on not to realize that the parents knew something they were not telling. You might get more converts to your pov I you were willing to concede that.
 
The thing about you Scarlett is that you are not willing to compromise an inch on your views. You are dead set certain that not only no Ramsey killed JB but that they are all completely innocent of any involvement whatsoever. I think you would have to have blinders on not to realize that the parents knew something they were not telling. You might get more converts to your pov I you were willing to concede that.

I am certain that it was an outsider, that is true. I do not believe that anyone in the family killed her. And I believe the DNA proves that along with other things.
The Grand jury even bolstered my belief in that they did not order indictments of murder for Patsy or John either.

I don't have blinders on. I have looked at the evidence, Read the transcripts. I am not looking for converts. That is not my job.

I do believe there are many more people like me that believe that the R's are indeed innocent of this crime and this is the thread for them to discuss it.
 
Aside from the DNA, what else points to an outsider?
 
Aside from the DNA, what else points to an outsider?

The DNA is all I need really. It means everything in a case like this. And in any other case it would be the key.. Find that DNA donor and find the killer.
 
IF it was an outsider, I feel it would have to be someone the Ramsey's knew very well since this person (a) knew the amount of John's bonus (b) knew the layout of the house very well it seems (c) was able to get JB out of her bedroom with nobody hearing him/her do so (d) was able to replicate Patsy's writing style and diction extremely well. These are things a random intruder, or someone with just fringe knowledge of the family would not be able to do (especially the ransom note).

And why would an intruder try so hard to replicate Patsy's writing style in a ransom note if their point all along was to kidnap JonBenet out of the house (it was mentioned in this thread that the person's plan went awry and they killed JB in house). It doesn't make any sense. If their plan was to murder her all along, why bother with a ransom not that potentially could lead to the person's identity? The ransom note SCREAMS staging. Someone who knew of JB from being on the "fringe" of the family, as suggested, would have just taken her out of the house immediately. Why all the elaborate staging? Why redress her? Wrap her in a blanket? Wipe her down? If it was an intruder and he/she killed her by "accident" in the home, they could have still taken the body and disposed of it elsewhere. Why risk leaving it in the home with potential evidence that could lead to their identity?

Back to my point: If someone truly did break into the Ramsey's house that night, it had to have been someone very close to them. If that was the case, I feel the source of the DNA would have been discovered by now.
 
"13 Q Jackie Dilson also has indicated, and I

14 believe Chris Wolf has confirmed, that she presented

15 the Boulder Police Department with the blue cotton

16 sweater worn by Chris Wolf. Do you recall that

17 being --

18 A I don't recall that. I recall vaguely

19 that there was some clothing that she offered.

20 Q Were any fiber tests, forensic tests

21 conducted on those articles of clothing by the

22 Boulder Police Department?

23 A I don't know.

24 Q Would you have expected there to be?

25 A Again, without knowing the context and all

116
1 the information, it's difficult to answer.

2 Q The context of Chris Wolf being

3 investigated as an individual under the umbrella of

4 suspicion?

5 A Without knowing what the clothing is and

6 whether there was something that potentially could

7 match --

8 Q Blue cotton sweater?

9 A -- those things, I would expect that.

10 Q Because there were blue fibers found on

11 the crime scene?

12 A Yes.

13 Q So do we know whether the fiber test was

14 conducted on the blue cotton sweater and, if so, the

15 results of whether there was any type of consistency

16 in the fibers with the fibers found at the crime

17 scene?

18 A That I don't know.

19 Q Fiber evidence in and of itself would not

20 eliminate any individual as being under suspicion,

21 would it?

22 A In what way?

23 Q In any way.

24 A Well, fiber evidence -- it's not evidence

25 if it's not a match. So what do you mean by

117
1 evidence?

2 Q When you say it's not a match, that's

3 loose. I mean matches are rare in fiber analysis,

4 aren't they? What you generally come up with --

5 A I don't know how rare they --

6 Q -- is consistent with, isn't that what you

7 generally get?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Okay. Because it would take a very unique

10 fiber to say that we can absolutely tell you that

11 this is a match?

12 A Yes.

13 Q That's a very rare, if ever, occurrence,

14 true?

15 A Yes.

16 Q So if I have got Chris Wolf and he's got a

17 blue cotton sweater and he submits that to the

18 authorities and you check and you say, okay, we've

19 got a fiber from this sweater of Mr. Wolf's and it's

20 consistent with the blue cotton fiber that we found

21 at the crime scene, that doesn't tell you that Chris

22 Wolf was involved in the murder, does it?

23 A No.

24 Q And if it comes back that it's not

25 consistent with, that doesn't tell you that he was

118
1 not involved in the murder, does it?

2 A Correct.

3 Q But you would want to know, it would seem,

4 if he's under suspicion and he submits material to

5 you, in this case hypothetically blue cotton, you

6 would expect it to be analyzed because there were

7 blue cotton fibers found on the crime scene, true?

8 MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and

9 answered.

10 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Am I right?

11 MR. MILLER: You can answer it again.

12 A Yes.

13 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay. To your knowledge,

14 have those blue fibers at the crime scene ever been

15 sourced?

16 MR. MILLER: Wait a minute. What is the

17 question?

18 MR. WOOD: To his knowledge, have the blue

19 fibers found at the crime scene ever been sourced.

20 A There are a lot of reports around on fiber

21 evidence. To the best of my recollection, no.

22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Were there any other color

23 fibers found at the crime scene that had not been

24 sourced?

25 A That have not been sourced?

119
1 Q Yes.

2 A Yes.

3 Q What colors?

4 A Brown.

5 Q So blue, brown, anything else?

6 A Not off the top of my head, no.

7 Q That's something that could be ascertained

8 with research?

9 A Yes."
 
Nope, I don't have the case file, as I've told you before.

I don't think this would require the case file. Just where it was originally reported that the ped never handed over records?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
318
Total visitors
423

Forum statistics

Threads
625,809
Messages
18,510,685
Members
240,849
Latest member
alonhook
Back
Top