Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Because they didn't. He said she killed JBR out of malice. That is not what GJ found. They did not agree with him based on that ruling.

And I don't think ST has any clue as to what happened. OMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

Because they didn't. He said she killed JBR out of malice. That is not what GJ found. They did not agree with him based on that ruling.

And I don't think ST has any clue as to what happened. OMO

BBM
So someone that was on the case for months and saw all evidence you think he was clueless?? I'm not a PDI but I believe that he had it right on one part....and it was one of the 3 people in the house that night. I find it hard to believe that IDI dismiss ST and/or JK opinion but believe LS? IIRC, he said he believed them because they prayed with him. How is that?? Um Jim Jones prayed with his followers but he also had them drink the koolaid.........

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM
So someone that was on the case for months and saw all evidence you think he was clueless?? I'm not a PDI but I believe that he had it right on one part....and it was one of the 3 people in the house that night. I find it hard to believe that IDI dismiss ST and/or JK opinion but believe LS? IIRC, he said he believed them because they prayed with him. How is that?? Um Jim Jones prayed with his followers but he also had them drink the koolaid.........

Actually ST said that whoever wrote than note killed JBR. That is not anyone in that house IMO. There has never been any proof that PR wrote that note.

No LS did not believe them because he prayed with him. It had nothing to do with believing them. He decided they were most likely NOT GUILTY when working for the DA. Not the R's. It is why he left the case for them.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Actually ST said that whoever wrote than note killed JBR. That is not anyone in that house IMO. There has never been any proof that PR wrote that note.

No LS did not believe them because he prayed with him. It had nothing to do with believing them. He decided they were most likely NOT GUILTY when working for the DA. Not the R's. It is why he left the case for them.

And that is your opinion. Please don't dismiss ST, who was an actual investigator and was much more involved in this case. After looking at all the evidence that is how he came to his opinion. So I hardly think he was clueless. And I don't know if you read it wrong but I said he only had half of it right....being a Ramsey caused her death. And when did he join the R's before or after he prayed with them?

BBM
Isn't what I bolded the same as believing them...IDI??

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And that is your opinion. Please don't dismiss ST, who was an actual investigator and was much more involved in this case. After looking at all the evidence that is how he came to his opinion. So I hardly think he was clueless. And I don't know if you read it wrong but I said he only had half of it right....being a Ramsey caused her death. And when did he join the R's before or after he prayed with them?

BBM
Isn't what I bolded the same as believing them...IDI??

I completely dismiss ST he had his own agenda, No real evidence to back up his theory, Just that 11000 kids are murdered each year. As horrible as that tragedy is there is nothing that says J or P were responsible or capable of the death of their daughter. There is no proof in his theory. IMO.
Just as you choose to dismiss people you don't find credible.

I don't have to give credit to anyone I don't find credible. I don't care if LS prayed with the R's. Or if they prayed and he agreed. I don't think praying is a a bad thing and I have seen lots of LE bow their head in prayer over time.
He left the LE side after they refused to look at the evidence that pointed away from the R's.
Now that we have DNA, We know he was correct OMO.

 

[Mama2JML]

1. Lou Smit was NEVER paid by the Ramseys.
2. There are many investigators (aside from LS) that believe that IDI is more than likely. Just to name a few: Robert Whitson (BPD), one of the first investigators on the scene; John Douglas (FBI), not "on the Rs' payroll; Trip Demuth (BDA), former deputy DA & lead investigator...

 

[Mama2JML]

..."as is your faith in the dark side"'s false quotes attributed Ubowski.

Oh, but it IS sourced, Mama2JML. In the interview I provided, she made clear that Chet Ubowski was her source. It's quite interesting.

I understand what McKinley said, but do you understand that Ubowski cannot, legally, disclose his findings (to this day) to journalists, the media, the general public, etc. as the investigation is ongoing & there remains potential litigation?

Also, you surely consider his employment with the CBI? ...and his affiliation with the ABFDE? You must be aware of the legal and ethical standards implicated? Or, do you think Ubowski would risk his career for a case commentator's "scoop"? Doubtful, right?

Recall ST's deposition & the KCNC report in which Ubowski denied ST's claims, essentially refuting McKinley's statements too. Or, do you think Lin Wood committed perjury? Again, DOUBTFUL. Don't you think?

 

[tezi]

1. Lou Smit was NEVER paid by the Ramseys.
2. There are many investigators (aside from LS) that believe that IDI is more than likely. Just to name a few: Robert Whitson (BPD), one of the first investigators on the scene; John Douglas (FBI), not "on the Rs' payroll; Trip Demuth (BDA), former deputy DA & lead investigator...

You do know he went to work for John's defense team later on, don't you? So, in essence he was paid by the Ramseys.

 

[AnaTeresa]

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 think your theory is interesting and has potential - a blended idea that works with the evidence that points IDI and RDI. However, I do think the wording doesn't exclude BDI (or JARDI). Parents are sometimes held responsible for the actions of their children. If they knew Burke was abusing JonBenet and did nothing, that would fit the wording.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You do know he went to work for John's defense team later on, don't you? So, in essence he was paid by the Ramseys.

Do you have proof he was paid? Because many times experts will pick cases to help out on if they believe in it.

Just because people agree with the fact that there is intruder does not mean they are paid, coerced, blind or ignorant. It means they look at all the facts and it adds up that way.

 

[tezi]

Do you have proof he was paid? Because many times experts will pick cases to help out on if they believe in it.

Just because people agree with the fact that there is intruder does not mean they are paid, coerced, blind or ignorant. It means they look at all the facts and it adds up that way.

Nope, sorry, don't have Lou's payroll stubs here.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nope, sorry, don't have Lou's payroll stubs here.

JMO

The point is that he started out working for the DA. He did not start looking at this case for the R's. He started investigating for the DA. He saw it all. He saw all the police had and knew they were on the wrong track.

That is not someone who is a paid side kick. That is someone who looked at it all and knew they were on the wrong track.

There is nothing bizarre or bias about that.

 

[SyraKelly]

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

AH does not even come close to doing this in this case
He should be ashamed of himself for what he did in this case!!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

AH does not even come close to doing this in this case
He should be ashamed of himself for what he did in this case!!!

In your opinion.

After reading that indictment, I can see exactly why it was not signed. It was hog wash. And he knew it was not something he could take to trial. OMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

In your opinion.

After reading that indictment, I can see exactly why it was not signed. It was hog wash. And he knew it was not something he could take to trial. OMO

So why lie about it for all these years???

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So why lie about it for all these years???

He didn't lie. He said there was not enough to bring it to trial. He was right.

 

[Landonsmom02]

He didn't lie. He said there was not enough to bring it to trial. He was right.

Wrong! He did lie and say the GJ never brought an indictment against the Ramsey's. If he truely believed he could not win this if taken to trial why not jsut come out and say all this after the GJ handed down their indictment?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Wrong! He did lie and say the GJ never brought an indictment against the Ramsey's. If he truely believed he could not win this if taken to trial why not jsut come out and say all this after the GJ handed down their indictment?

They never brought an indictment of murder which is what he went into the GJ for. To see if they could be indicted for murder. They did not do that so he did not lie.

 

[Landonsmom02]

They never brought an indictment of murder which is what he went into the GJ for. To see if they could be indicted for murder. They did not do that so he did not lie.

Spin it how ever you want to. But the fact is the GJ voted to indict the parents. Not for 1st degree murder, BUT they still held them responsible for not helping her when they could which would have prevented her death. So, therefore, when AH so the GJ didn't indict the Ramsey's he lied! :twocents: Again as many posters have said, they saw the evidence and this case is so messed up in so many ways (because the R's didn't help the matter) they couldn't come out and say who killed her and who covered it up. If they were truely innocent the GJ wouldn't have handed down any type of indictment! The GJ didn't see it as an intruder was responsible, IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Spin it how ever you want to. But the fact is the GJ voted to indict the parents. Not for 1st degree murder, BUT they still held them responsible for not helping her when they could which would have prevented her death. So, therefore, when AH so the GJ didn't indict the Ramsey's he lied! :twocents: Again as many posters have said, they saw the evidence and this case is so messed up in so many ways (because the R's didn't help the matter) they couldn't come out and say who killed her and who covered it up. If they were truely innocent the GJ wouldn't have handed down any type of indictment! The GJ didn't see it as an intruder was responsible, IMO.

IT is not spin it is fact. He went to the GJ for an indictment of murder. He did not get one and so there as not enough to bring them to trial for murder.