Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

But back to the AMY INTRUDER. Was any evidence at all ever recovered from that attack?

Some info is available @ ACR. These are excerpts from an article written by Charlie Brennan & linked below:

"Police Chief Mark Beckner said he doesn't see strong similarities between the cases, primarily because JonBenet was killed while the other girl, a 14-year-old, escaped serious injury. But last week, he ordered comparisons of partial palm prints found at both scenes.

Chief Beckner said the prints appear to be from different parts of the hand, but he assigned a detective to re-examine that issue 'to see if there is something there that we missed." He said he did not know when the results would be available.'
...
Although saliva contains DNA and the victim was swabbed soon after the assault, no foreign DNA was recovered from her body. In the Ramsey case, a small sample of DNA was recovered from JonBenet's underwear. The source hasn't been determined even though police have DNA samples from many of the Ramseys' friends and family members."

http://www.acandyrose.com/20000801NEWS-LaterAssaultShowParallels.htm

 

[Tawny]

No not necessarily. Not if it was already in her intestines. All things do not digest at the same rate. It does not mean that at all.

We can't just ignore things, Scarlett.

There was a bowl of pineapple on a table in the home. There was what appeared to be pineapple in her intestines. Drawing conclusions based on what is available. We can't just throw out things that are present because we don't like what it tells us.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Some info is available @ ACR. These are excerpts from an article written by Charlie Brennan & linked below:

"Police Chief Mark Beckner said he doesn't see strong similarities between the cases, primarily because JonBenet was killed while the other girl, a 14-year-old, escaped serious injury. But last week, he ordered comparisons of partial palm prints found at both scenes.

Chief Beckner said the prints appear to be from different parts of the hand, but he assigned a detective to re-examine that issue 'to see if there is something there that we missed." He said he did not know when the results would be available.'
...
Although saliva contains DNA and the victim was swabbed soon after the assault, no foreign DNA was recovered from her body. In the Ramsey case, a small sample of DNA was recovered from JonBenet's underwear. The source hasn't been determined even though police have DNA samples from many of the Ramseys' friends and family members."

http://www.acandyrose.com/20000801NEWS-LaterAssaultShowParallels.htm

And it certainly makes a case for people being there even if they leave only a small amount of DNA as in JBR case. We know this guy was there and assaulted AMY but left no DNA on her. Also we don't know what his plan was. He could have indeed intended on killing her. He was interrupted. To me Beckner saying that it was different because she was alive is ridiculous. He was interrupted so we have no idea what his plan was. I am so glad her mother walked in.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We can't just ignore things, Scarlett.

There was a bowl of pineapple on a table in the home. There was what appeared to be pineapple in her intestines. Drawing conclusions based on what is available. We can't just throw out things that are present because we don't like what it tells us.

It is not ignoring it. HE never identified pineapple for sure. Possibly is the word he used. If she ate pineapple. And if she was asleep when she got home , I have to look at the time, And even if not and she ate it then, And people have her dying at midnight soon there after, I don't see how it got into her intestines so quick.. It just does not add up.

I am not even positive it was pineapple at this point.

 

[Tawny]

That's how investigations go.

Investigators draw conclusions based on what is available, present, evident, and sometimes obvious.

If we dismiss the probability that it is pineapple simply because the parents claim she was asleep (ignoring all the other contradictions and lies they've told), then we get nowhere.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's how investigations go.

Investigators draw conclusions based on what is available, present, evident, and sometimes obvious.

If we dismiss the probability that it is pineapple simply because the parents claim she was asleep (ignoring all the other contradictions and lies they've told), then we get nowhere.

No. I am saying that it was not positively identified as pineapple. That is the first hurdle. Second is if she is dead sometime around midnight, maybe one given rigor mortis, that would not be a lot of time for her to digest into her small intestine.

 

[Tawny]

If they got home around 10 pm, like they said, then yes it is. Pineapple digests quickly.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If they got home around 10 pm, like they said, then yes it is. Pineapple digests quickly.

About 2 and 1/4 hours.. And what did she eat at the Whites?
Do we know for sure. I know she had crab..

 

[Anyhoo]

No. Because even if she touched it at some point,Why would it be in the body bag? She was asleep when they got home and that was that. So she would not have touched it that night. So it stands to reason that whoever touched that bag left not only the material in her bed, But also enough so that it was also found in the body bag.

You don't know she was asleep when they got home, Scarlett. The pineapple in her stomach proves she was awake after returning home, and also proves at least one lie from the parents (of many, IMO). That was not that. You have a false concept of the Ramsey parents in your mind that blinds you to obvious truths that most other people here see. This is what allows you to latch onto IDI so strongly. It is not just about evidence, as you contend, but a belief you have developed and latched onto. I'm not attacking you by saying this. I respect you as a poster but I think you are wrong.

 

[Tawny]

About 2 and 1/4 hours.. And what did she eat at the Whites?
Do we know for sure. I know she had crab..

10pm... 2hrs 15 mins later... 12:15am.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You don't know she was asleep when they got home, Scarlett. The pineapple in her stomach proves she was awake after returning home, and also proves at least one lie from the parents (of many, IMO). That was not that. You have a false concept of the Ramsey parents in your mind that blinds you to obvious truths that most other people here see. This is what allows you to latch onto IDI so strongly. It is not just about evidence, as you contend, but a belief you have developed and latched onto. I'm not attacking you by saying this. I respect you as a poster but I think you are wrong.

No it doesn't. We don't even know for sure it was pineapple. I am doing some research on digestion right now.. I will get back.

It has nothing to do with latching on to anything. It has to do with going where the evidence leads. I don't have an emotional tie to IDI, I see it as the most reasonable evidence backed explanation of what happened that night.

It is okay if you think I am wrong.. I love people that think for themselves..

 

[Tawny]

Yes there was. There were cigarettes found outside that were the same brand found at the Ramsey home. I am kind of busy but I will find it and post it. I think there was other evidence too but I don't remember off the top of my head. I will post it when I get it.

Since you're researching, don't forget this part.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Since you're researching, don't forget this part.

I won't. Each time I open the tabs to look, I am interrupted on the phone or laundry or cleaning, dinner,Baking.. . ACK!
Mondays are my busiest day. I will get back to all of it.. Most likely later when Dh is here.

 

[Landonsmom02]

No it doesn't. We don't even know for sure it was pineapple. I am doing some research on digestion right now.. I will get back.

It has nothing to do with latching on to anything. It has to do with going where the evidence leads. I don't have an emotional tie to IDI, I see it as the most reasonable evidence backed explanation of what happened that night.

It is okay if you think I am wrong.. I love people that think for themselves..

2 1/4 Hours fig, fresh
pear, fresh
pineapple
strawberry
asparagus
carrot
cauliflower
lettuce: cos, loose leaf, iceberg

BBM

http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

2 1/4 Hours fig, fresh
pear, fresh
pineapple
strawberry
asparagus
carrot
cauliflower
lettuce: cos, loose leaf, iceberg

BBM

http://www.unani.com/digestion_time_of_foods.htm

I already posted the time it takes to digest a pineapple. .However I don't know if it was even pineapple.

 

[Tawny]

If we're going to assume it's crab in her digestive tract, then she was murdered even earlier, since crab and other types of seafood generally take less than an hour to digest.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If we're going to assume it's crab in her digestive tract, then she was murdered even earlier, since crab and other types of seafood generally take less than an hour to digest.

No. the crab was turned into fecal matter at that point. So it had been digested nearly completely.

 

[Tawny]

No. the crab was turned into fecal matter at that point. So it had been digested nearly completely.

Well then why is it relevant to the substance in her small intestine? You're confusing me now :floorlaugh:

She ate something between the crab and her death. Something that resembles pineapple in size, shape, color, and consistency.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well then why is it relevant to the substance in her small intestine? You're confusing me now :floorlaugh:

She ate something between the crab and her death. Something that resembles pineapple in size, shape, color, and consistency.

Because that had been digested by the stomach at that point and starting to run through the digestive tract but The crab was already fecal matter in the large intestine..

I am basically thinking out loud here. Studying the way things digest and time and such..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IS there a list anywhere of all the food that was at the Whites?