Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He should have let the jury decide. He didn't. He failed.

No. Because if he knows going in there is no evidence to support that he should not go to trial. He has to stand up in court with proof. What that says to me is there was not enough to support what the GJ decided. AH saw it all. HE knew exactly what was there for them to consider.

He was bold and did the right thing. OMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

I don't think AH hid anything. I think more likely it was bad police work from the beginning. I hate saying that because as a rule I love the police and have the utmost respect for them. But in this case it was a nightmare from the beginning. The crime scene was not secured properly. The case was not handled correctly from the beginning. Instead of focusing on catching a killer one of the lead investigators made it all about him and what he thought. His first murder case and he made a mess of it. I think that it should be reopened now. I think all the evidence should be reinvestigated by an impartial source, I think it should all be reexamined and put toward a GJ again.

I think that in doing that the real truth will emerge without all the bias and fantasy surrounding this case.

BBM
Sorry for posting late but this thread has been moving really fast the last couple of days and I'm trying to get caught up. I'm glad that we here on WS can have different opinions. I think that is what makes it more interesting because if we all agreed on the same thing it would kinda be boring. BUT, what I don't understand is, how can people, stand behind the Ramsey's being totally innocent when all the investigators who have seen the evidence in hand and interviewed the Ramsey's and all privy to a whole lot more than us civilians all come to the same conclusion. A Ramsey did it. And please don't mention LS name. He was on the Ramsey payroll. You say that you don't want to read ST and JK books because you think it's just a made up personal opinion. BUT honeslty I don't know how you can be so set that they are innocent when you haven't even given thought to see the other side. Even RDI looked at all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Like any good sleuth you have to look at all the sources and investigate them, even if you don't agree with them. If not how can you rule that out? James Kolar was brough in years after JBR was killed. He was an outside source who was asked to look at everything with a new set of eyes. He didn't come in saying oh yeah I'll do it but they are guilty. I respect your opinion because you never back down. IF not for the TDNA, what other things made you decide they were innocent? I'm not being snarky I'm just asking. When JBR was killed I was only 13 years old and after reading the magazines(the only thing I could and that was sneaking and reading them) I thought oh yeah her parents did it. Then when the info about the DNA came out and the way it was presented I changed my mind. But then I found WS and really started reading more and more and that is how I came to my decision. Sorry to be so long winded at times I ADD and have a million things running through my mind...lol! No one wants to believe that parents who hurt their child, directly or indirectly, but the sad truth is some do. And no matter what a family looks like on the outside, you never really know what goes on behind closed doors.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM
Sorry for posting late but this thread has been moving really fast the last couple of days and I'm trying to get caught up. I'm glad that we here on WS can have different opinions. I think that is what makes it more interesting because if we all agreed on the same thing it would kinda be boring. BUT, what I don't understand is, how can people, stand behind the Ramsey's being totally innocent when all the investigators who have seen the evidence in hand and interviewed the Ramsey's and all privy to a whole lot more than us civilians all come to the same conclusion. A Ramsey did it. And please don't mention LS name. He was on the Ramsey payroll. You say that you don't want to read ST and JK books because you think it's just a made up personal opinion. BUT honeslty I don't know how you can be so set that they are innocent when you haven't even given thought to see the other side. Even RDI looked at all the evidence and came to their conclusion. Like any good sleuth you have to look at all the sources and investigate them, even if you don't agree with them. If not how can you rule that out? James Kolar was brough in years after JBR was killed. He was an outside source who was asked to look at everything with a new set of eyes. He didn't come in saying oh yeah I'll do it but they are guilty. I respect your opinion because you never back down. IF not for the TDNA, what other things made you decide they were innocent? I'm not being snarky I'm just asking. When JBR was killed I was only 13 years old and after reading the magazines(the only thing I could and that was sneaking and reading them) I thought oh yeah her parents did it. Then when the info about the DNA came out and the way it was presented I changed my mind. But then I found WS and really started reading more and more and that is how I came to my decision. Sorry to be so long winded at times I ADD and have a million things running through my mind...lol! No one wants to believe that parents who hurt their child, directly or indirectly, but the sad truth is some do. And no matter what a family looks like on the outside, you never really know what goes on behind closed doors.

Lou smit did not start out on the Ramsey payroll. He started on the other side and when they would not listen to him after finding things that lead him to believe it could have been an intruder, He switched and THEN started working for the R's.

Just because you read something does not mean it is true. That DNA is real evidence. It is there in two places on her and those two places MATCH and in one spot it is mingled with JBR DNA. It does not belong to the R's. IT is someone's. Someone who assaulted her and killed her. In any other case that would not be dismissed but in this one it is.

This has nothing to do with closed doors. These people were investigated over and over. Nothing ever came out about them that they were bad to their kids. Nothing.

I believe with all I know now, That they did not commit this crime and that the person who did left their DNA.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Yes they do. Grand juries are supposed to see if there is enough to go to trial, Juries decide guilt or not guilty.

BBM

Call me crazy but isn't that what they did, hence the indictment? They saw all the evidence and handed down an indictment against the Ramsey's.They thought there was enough evience to take to trial. It was AH who decided not to take this to a jury. Fear of losing?? If he were a real DA and wanted justice for JBR he would have signed the indictment. So what if he lost, at least he would have tried. IMO He never cared about finding justice for her. Because that would mean his dirty dealings with the would have come out and he would be in alot of trouble. If nothing to hide, why did he lie for several years saying no indictment was ever made by the GJ??? So many people failed this child and the ones who tried to get the truth were pushed to the back and forced to resign, IMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

Call me crazy but isn't that what they did, hence the indictment? They saw all the evidence and handed down an indictment against the Ramsey's.They thought there was enough evience to take to trial. It was AH who decided not to take this to a jury. Fear of losing?? If he were a real DA and wanted justice for JBR he would have signed the indictment. So what if he lost, at least he would have tried. IMO He never cared about finding justice for her. Because that would mean his dirty dealings with the would have come out and he would be in alot of trouble. If nothing to hide, why did he lie for several years saying no indictment was ever made by the GJ??? So many people failed this child and the ones who tried to get the truth were pushed to the back and forced to resign, IMO

It is not fear of losing. DA's don't go to trial if there is not enough evidence.

IMO he did the right thing in not going to trial. Even then there was not enough evidence to convict anyone of anything.

Now there is even less.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Lou smit did not start out on the Ramsey payroll. He started on the other side and when they would not listen to him after finding things that lead him to believe it could have been an intruder, He switched and THEN started working for the R's.

Just because you read something does not mean it is true. That DNA is real evidence. It is there in two places on her and those two places MATCH and in one spot it is mingled with JBR DNA. It does not belong to the R's. IT is someone's. Someone who assaulted her and killed her. In any other case that would not be dismissed but in this one it is.

This has nothing to do with closed doors. These people were investigated over and over. Nothing ever came out about them that they were bad to their kids. Nothing.

I believe with all I know now, That they did not commit this crime and that the person who did left their DNA.

BBM

Totally agree with you on not beleiving what you read, but wasn't a quote from the examiner cited as a source a few pages back by a IDI? The examiner also said that Elvis is alive and Cher was knocked up by an alien...lol!

And if you are abusing you child or know that something is happening to her are you going to do that around people you know or talk about it with your friends? Umm NO! And I'm not going to touch on the TDNA(no pun intended) because RDI and IDI are going to argue over this forever.....nothing more I can say on that! We will have to agree to disagree

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, I agree with your last sentence, which is one reason why I still consider it a valid theory as worthy of consideration as either RDI or IDI. What I am certain of is that JR knows what happened and is lying when he says he does not. This is why I dismiss IDI, because JR knows and pretends he doesn't.

You seem quite confident. I'm not really certain of much, but I am confident of two things JBR-related: Burke didn't have a hand in his sister's death, & the evidentiary DNA in CODIS is relevant to solving this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The difference is that while it was in the examiner it was also in other places and it is a fact that Mary Lacy did cite DNA as a factor in claiming the R's innocent and that that Judge also declared it was most likely an intruder. I did post another link to the same info from A Candy Rose.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, I agree with your last sentence, which is one reason why I still consider it a valid theory as worthy of consideration as either RDI or IDI. What I am certain of is that JR knows what happened and is lying when he says he does not. This is why I dismiss IDI, because JR knows and pretends he doesn't.

You are entitled to your opinion. This thread is for discussing theories that don't include the R's in the theory. I believe that John and Patsy are not guilty. Not even a little bit.

 

[Landonsmom02]

It is not fear of losing. DA's don't go to trial if there is not enough evidence.IMO he did the right thing in not going to trial. Even then there was not enough evidence to convict anyone of anything.

Now there is even less.

BBM

Wasn't AH the only DA in Boulder with the least trial expeirence? I think he was best known for not going to trial and just doing plea bargons. If there wasn't enough evidence to convict then why did the GJ vote to indict?? All he had to do was go before a judge explain why he thought no trial was needed and have it dismissed. Oh and don't tell lies saying there was never a vote to indict.......:naughty:

 

[Landonsmom02]

You are entitled to your opinion. This thread is for discussing theories that don't include the R's in the theory. I believe that John and Patsy are not guilty. Not even a little bit.

BBM

I would so love to do that but I just don't see that as plausible. IMO, how can an intruder enter and stay there lying in wait all that time, committ the abduction/murder and leave little to no evidence and not wake anyone? Yes it was a big house, but I find it hard to believe that with the torture JBR went through she didn't scream and try to get away and noone heard her? How on earth did JR hear PR screaming for him the morning of the murder? If it's such a big house and they didn't hear JB then I doubt it was so easy for him to "hear" her calling him. Just MOO Like I asked before, if there was never any DNA evidence what made you come to your conclusion of IDI?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

I would so love to do that but I just don't see that as plausible. IMO, how can an intruder enter and stay there lying in wait all that time, committ the abduction/murder and leave little to no evidence and not wake anyone? Yes it was a big house, but I find it hard to believe that with the torture JBR went through she didn't scream and try to get away and noone heard her? How on earth did JR hear PR screaming for him the morning of the murder? If it's such a big house and they didn't hear JB then I doubt it was so easy for him to "hear" her calling him. Just MOO Like I asked before, if there was never any DNA evidence what made you come to your conclusion of IDI?

It is okay if you don't believe it. No one is trying to convince you.

When I look at the facts of the case, I see an intruder as the suspect.

 

[TroyinTX]

BBM

I would so love to do that but I just don't see that as plausible. IMO, how can an intruder enter and stay there lying in wait all that time, committ the abduction/murder and leave little to no evidence and not wake anyone? Yes it was a big house, but I find it hard to believe that with the torture JBR went through she didn't scream and try to get away and noone heard her? How on earth did JR hear PR screaming for him the morning of the murder? If it's such a big house and they didn't hear JB then I doubt it was so easy for him to "hear" her calling him. Just MOO Like I asked before, if there was never any DNA evidence what made you come to your conclusion of IDI?

Remember.....a stun gun was used!!! :websleuther:

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM

Wasn't AH the only DA in Boulder with the least trial expeirence? I think he was best known for not going to trial and just doing plea bargons. If there wasn't enough evidence to convict then why did the GJ vote to indict?? All he had to do was go before a judge explain why he thought no trial was needed and have it dismissed. Oh and don't tell lies saying there was never a vote to indict.......:naughty:

A GJ investigates (from the prosecutor's perspective) & determines probable cause. There is no defense. Alex Hunter was likely aware of the existence of evidence that would establish reasonable doubt had he followed through with the filing of charges. A DA is ethically bound to prosecute "winnable" cases. (Double jeopardy, and all that.)

 

[Venom]

IT is when you have no idea who committed it. The only reason they charged them is because they were in the house and they wanted to charge them with something. That is my opinion. I used to think they did it. Until I really started looking at things. Taking it apart. Looking for facts and not opinion. So many things I always thought were fact ended up being an opinion or a rumor that was years old and just kept being recycled.

When I look at this case with the eyes of today. The information they have, The facts, the DNA. I do not believe for a moment anyone that lived in that house hurt Jonbenet. I believe it was an outsider.

If the grand jury could figure out who did what, the charges would have been different, or additional charges added.
The R's were given the white glove treatment from the get go. All jmo.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the grand jury could figure out who did what, the charges would have been different, or additional charges added.
The R's were given the white glove treatment from the get go. All jmo.

They did not though. They were there to see if the R's were guilty of murder. That is not what their indictment said.

And there was no proof of that finding. so what is the DA to take to trial?

 

[Anyhoo]

I have not tried to push my theory very much here, but if you look at what the GJ indicted the parents with, it agrees with my theory only. Look at the wording used: They unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously ALLOWED their daughter to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life and health and which resulted in her death. That is exactly what my theory says the parents are guilty of. This GJ indictment does not match IDI or JDI or PDI or BDI. If IDI, the parents would not have been guilty of anything other than putting their daughter to bed. How could they be held responsible for what an intruder did? Also it does not say either patent killed their daughter, eliminating JDI and PDI. Also, if BDI, how could the parents be held responsible for that? No, read the wording again. The parents allowed illegal behavior to take place concerning their daughter and she died. That is not an ambiguous statement. I think the GJ was correct. I also think the reason the case was not prosecuted was because information would have been exposed that powerful people (outside of the Ramsey's) did not want made public. This is the real reason this murder has never been solved.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Remember.....a stun gun was used!!! :websleuther:

Oh yeah forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder :facepalm:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have not tried to push my theory very much here, but if you look at what the GJ indicted the parents with, it agrees with my theory only. Look at the wording used: They unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously ALLOWED their daughter to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life and health and which resulted in her death. That is exactly what my theory says the parents are guilty of. This GJ indictment does not match IDI or JDI or PDI or BDI. If IDI, the parents would not have been guilty of anything other than putting their daughter to bed. How could they be held responsible for what an intruder did? Also it does not say either patent killed their daughter, eliminating JDI and PDI. Also, if BDI, how could the parents be held responsible for that? No, read the wording again. The parents allowed illegal behavior to take place concerning their daughter and she died. That is not an ambiguous statement. I think the GJ was correct. I also think the reason the case was not prosecuted was because information would have been exposed that powerful people (outside of the Ramsey's) did not want made public. This is the real reason this murder has never been solved.

I still believe that finding was a cop out. No real blame but just include them in the area of blame.. OMO

 

[txsvicki]

I don't the conflict about the GJ findings. Why can't it just be that they saw what Steve Thomas thought happened? That JonBenet was abused and they both covered it up, and that resulted in JonBenet's death. The grand jury must have realized that at some point there was no way that both parents didn't realize what happened.