Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Tawny]

If it was 100% a stranger that they did not know, why did they hinder the investigation so much? Why did they refuse to cooperate? Why did they compromise the crime scene at every turn? Honest questions

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If it was 100% a stranger that they did not know, why did they hinder the investigation so much? Why did they refuse to cooperate? Why did they compromise the crime scene at every turn? Honest questions

I don't think they hindered it and I don't think they refused to cooperate. They had attorneys that guided them through the process. That is their job.

I don't think they compromised the scene. I think the Police did. They were the ones who should have taken control from the start and did not.

I don't know that it was a 100% stranger. I have always felt it was some fringe person but that is just opinion.. Nothing more.

 

[Tawny]

It took months to arrange a meeting with the investigators in charge of finding out who murdered their daughter. I'd be at the station non-stop. Not traipsing all over creation in my private jet. JMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It took months to arrange a meeting with the investigators in charge of finding out who murdered their daughter. I'd be at the station non-stop. Not traipsing all over creation in my private jet. JMO.

I am just going to say that no one can know what they would do. We just can't. Your child was just murdered and in your house. I would be half out of my wits and I think I would want to get out of there as fast as possible and never return but I don't know that. I don't know. I can bet that I would not want to talk to anyone, I would be medicated and just destroyed. I don't think I would be thinking about the investigation at that point. The worst had already happened.

That is just my opinion.. and the fact that they had attorneys that they were trusting to work this all out for them and take care of the legal stuff. I think when you trust people to take care of things you leave it entirely in their hands.

All this stuff has nothing to do with guilt to me.. IT is just people's judgments on their actions based on what they think they would do in that same circumstance. So for me this stuff while interesting to speculate on means nothing to the actual facts of the case that could lead to someone being convicted of this crime.

When my son went missing, I was a nut. I could not think, I could not function. I could not speak. I was a mess. When he was found I completely fell apart and could not cope for awhile. That extreme stress and fear is biological. I can not imagine and won't think about if it had gone differently. I can not even imagine that.

 

[tezi]

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.

Tawny, if you want to save any of your sanity, I would recommend coming with me...LOLOL:floorlaugh:

No offense, Scarlett, Tawny just killed me with the "exit stage left" comment.

And also, if it weren't for the totality of the evidence, I would say the tDNA was a huge clue, but in this case, it's not. JMO

Back to my corner now...I promise...:seeya:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Tawny, if you want to save any of your sanity, I would recommend coming with me...LOLOL:floorlaugh:

No offense, Scarlett, Tawny just killed me with the "exit stage left" comment.

And also, if it weren't for the totality of the evidence, I would say the tDNA was a huge clue, but in this case, it's not. JMO

Back to my corner now...I promise...:seeya:

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..

 

[AnaTeresa]

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

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.

 

[Tawny]

I like to play Devil's Advocate a lot, too, so it's good to know it's not taken personally

For instance, the pen that matched the pen that wrote the ransom note. It was found in the butler's pantry. Why would an intruder put it away instead of just leaving it where it was?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Well there are only so many facts and since I am not a story teller, I can post what I think happened.. And I think it is all supported by DNA.

I think that someone snuck into the house before they came home that night, Had time to write the note, I think they planned on taking her and something happened to quash that idea. I think they killed her right there in the basement because it was the most quiet place they could find and left her there.

I believe it was possibly someone on the fringe of the family in some capacity.

 

[TroyinTX]

I am just going to say that no one can know what they would do. We just can't. Your child was just murdered and in your house. I would be half out of my wits and I think I would want to get out of there as fast as possible and never return but I don't know that. I don't know. I can bet that I would not want to talk to anyone, I would be medicated and just destroyed. I don't think I would be thinking about the investigation at that point. The worst had already happened.

That is just my opinion.. and the fact that they had attorneys that they were trusting to work this all out for them and take care of the legal stuff. I think when you trust people to take care of things you leave it entirely in their hands.

All this stuff has nothing to do with guilt to me.. IT is just people's judgments on their actions based on what they think they would do in that same circumstance. So for me this stuff while interesting to speculate on means nothing to the actual facts of the case that could lead to someone being convicted of this crime.

When my son went missing, I was a nut. I could not think, I could not function. I could not speak. I was a mess. When he was found I completely fell apart and could not cope for awhile. That extreme stress and fear is biological. I can not imagine and won't think about if it had gone differently. I can not even imagine that.

I understand this, but you'd think, with the Ramsey's being fairly intelligent, that they would realize that not meeting with investigators for weeks and months after the crime considering they were IN THE HOUSE during the murder was NOT helping in the investigation of who killed their daughter.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I like to play Devil's Advocate a lot, too, so it's good to know it's not taken personally

For instance, the pen that matched the pen that wrote the ransom note. It was found in the butler's pantry. Why would an intruder put it away instead of just leaving it where it was?

Good! I hope that is always clear.

To hide it and make it look like it was them to throw suspicion that way. If she had written the note, Why would she keep the pen??

 

[Tawny]

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)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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)

If you are planning to cover up the murder of your child in your house, You are thinking pretty darn 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.

I think this all goes against her writing the note.

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

 

[TroyinTX]

Good! I hope that is always clear.

To hide it and make it look like it was them to throw suspicion that way. If she had written the note, Why would she keep the pen??

Because, she wrote the note in a frenzied state. Obviously, whoever wrote the note wiped the prints.......

And to throw suspicion why? If the person wrote the note BEFORE the Ramsey's got home and then something went wrong and they killer JB in the home when they planned to actually kidnap her the entire time, then the note was actually a true ransom note and certainly not something to throw suspicion.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that this intruder planned to kill JB the whole time AND do you think they went into the home with the intent of making it look like a Ramsey did it?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I understand this, but you'd think, with the Ramsey's being fairly intelligent, that they would realize that not meeting with investigators for weeks and months after the crime considering they were IN THE HOUSE during the murder was NOT helping in the investigation of who killed their daughter.

No. They are people who have attys to handle it. At this point I am sure that they are aware that the PD is focusing on them and they have attys to make sure they are doing the right things and staying in the boundaries of the law.

That is why people have attys. If you hire one and don't take their advice and counsel what is the point?

 

[TroyinTX]

If you are planning to cover up the murder of your child in your house, You are thinking pretty darn 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.

I think this all goes against her writing the note.

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

Actually a three page ransom is pretty extreme and could point to someone in a panic "overthinking" what needs to be done. She wiped the pen clean of fingerprints and really thought nothing of it, consider she also left the garrot with the broken paint brush from inside the house around JB's neck.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Actually a three page ransom is pretty extreme and could point to someone in a panic "overthinking" what needs to be done. She wiped the pen clean of fingerprints and really thought nothing of it, consider she also left the garrot with the broken paint brush from inside the house around JB's neck.

I disagree.. Complete panic paralyzes you. This is not a chronic killer if you believe it was her. This is a new crazy circumstance. I don't believe that at all.

I think the reason it was wiped clean was because it was an intruder.. She would not have to wipe it clean. Her prints are supposed to be on her stuff.

She did not kill JBR so she did not leave the Garrote anywhere.. Remember this is not an RDI thread.

 

[TroyinTX]

I disagree.. Complete panic paralyzes you. This is not a chronic killer if you believe it was her. This is a new crazy circumstance. I don't believe that at all.

I think the reason it was wiped clean was because it was an intruder.. She would not have to wipe it clean. Her prints are supposed to be on her stuff.

She did not kill JBR so she did not leave the Garrote anywhere.. Remember this is not an RDI thread.

Just as you point out that people react differently to events, such as a the murder or disappearance of a child, the feeling of panic also has different effects on people; not everyone is "paralyzed." For some, it may cause a boast of adrenaline; not everyone reacts the same.

 

[Tawny]

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

 

[Tawny]

Personally, if any IDI theorist wants others to believe in IDI, then they should have answers for at least some of the questions presented. JMO, not attacking anyone at all, simply saying that questioning the IDI theory is a way for IDI theorists to help build their case for IDI