Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Tawny]

Even if they did, It should have been done.

I agree, that's why I'm asking if they did or not.

 

[Mama2JML]

Question, because I'm not positive on the procedure. Do you need a warrant for every individual when you want to compare DNA and hair samples? If people don't volunteer them, I mean.

I believe so, if an individual declined a request from LE. There are legal avenues available to LE & specific protocol for collection of non-testimonial evidence, though the laws pertaining to DNA (& such) continue to evolve.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Question, because I'm not positive on the procedure. Do you need a warrant for every individual when you want to compare DNA and hair samples? If people don't volunteer them, I mean.

I'm not 100% sure but I think you do. Maybe some of our leagle eagles can help us out!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm not 100% sure but I think you do. Maybe some of our leagle eagles can help us out!

Yes, unless it's collected from something discarded, like trash.

* not an legal eagle...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mama2JML]

Please share your thoughts, sources, etc. on this excerpt from Carnes' ruling:

"Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

 

[Tawny]

The problem I have with "items not belonging" is that the only people who know whether or not something "belongs" somewhere is the people living in the house.

 

[Mama2JML]

Please share your thoughts, sources, etc. on this excerpt from Carnes' ruling:

"Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

Who took the photograph, below, of JonBenet?...

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The problem I have with "items not belonging" is that the only people who know whether or not something "belongs" somewhere is the people living in the house.

Not really. You really think if they bought a rope to use in the killing of their dd and then staged everything cleaning it up, They would leave it there??

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Mama2JML]

The problem I have with "items not belonging" is that the only people who know whether or not something "belongs" somewhere is the people living in the house.

Agreed. It's easier to prove the opposite, but if you would (briefly) entertain IDI, the excerpt posted from Carnes' ruling is interesting?...

 

[Tawny]

Not really. You really think if they bought a rope to use in the killing of their dd and then staged everything cleaning it up, They would leave it there??

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Agreed. It's easier to prove the opposite, but if you would (briefly) entertain IDI, the excerpt posted from Carnes' ruling is interesting?...

Was that the rope used in killing her?

 

[Mama2JML]

Not really. You really think if they bought a rope to use in the killing of their dd and then staged everything cleaning it up, They would leave it there??

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Something to consider, for sure. If RDI, the Rs disposed of (or hid REALLY well) tape, cord, shoes, something with beaver fur, ?brown work gloves?, etc. SO, why wouldn't they have done the same with the notepad, pens, etc.?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Was that the rope used in killing her?

No, not that I know of but that does not mean it was not brought by the person who did, considering there were fibers on her consistent with the bag.

 

[Mama2JML]

Was that the rope used in killing her?

No, but I think Scarlett means we should consider this:

"Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

So, something from the bag made contact with JonBenet's bed & her body...

 

[Tawny]

IMO, if it wasn't used in the crime, it seems irrelevant.

On the same vein as "Why wouldn't they get rid of it" is "Why would an intruder bring a bunch of extra stuff he/she didn't even use?" Rope WAS used, but it was more of a cord type material. Why bring different options? In case he/she couldn't decide?

That, to me, makes even less sense than the R's denying they own it.

I'm open to an explanation of its relevancy to the case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IMO, if it wasn't used in the crime, it seems irrelevant.

On the same vein as "Why wouldn't they get rid of it" is "Why would an intruder bring a bunch of extra stuff he/she didn't even use?" Rope WAS used, but it was more of a cord type material. Why bring different options? In case he/she couldn't decide?

That, to me, makes even less sense than the R's denying they own it.

I'm open to an explanation of its relevancy to the case.

IT is not irrelevant. IT is absolutely relevant if was not there because it was the Ramsey's. It means someone else brought it in and adds to the IDI column of good solid evidence of that.

 

[Tawny]

IT is not irrelevant. IT is absolutely relevant if was not there because it was the Ramsey's. It means someone else brought it in and adds to the IDI column of good solid evidence of that.

Why would an intruder bring it in the home and not use it?

 

[Landonsmom02]

This is an indication JonBenet struggled with her attacker, and he wasn't a Ramsey. So sad...

Article Excerpt; Daily Camera (02.07.98):

"Investigators also are taking mouth swabs in hopes of matching DNA to genetic material extracted from skin tissue recovered under the slain 6-year-old's fingernails, sources said." (K. Dizon)

Do you know if this DNA was ever tested and/or matched to the DNA that was found in her panties?? TIA

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why would an intruder bring it in the home and not use it?

You would have to ask him. But it shows that he did plan to use if and for whatever reason did not. He must have decided to go another way, Maybe he left it there and then decided it was too risky to go back for it, I have no idea, But the point is that it did not belong to the R's. It was not theirs and whoever handled that bag left fibers on JBR and in her room.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Please share your thoughts, sources, etc. on this excerpt from Carnes' ruling:

"Likewise, other items not belonging on the second floor were found there on the day after the murder, thereby suggesting that some preparation or activity was ongoing in that area on the night of the murder. Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom. Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the 'vacuuming' of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF ¶ 181; PSMF ¶ 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet."

But this rope wasn't the same as the rope that was found on JB was it? I thought LE couldn't find the original source of the rope found on her?

 

[Mama2JML]

IMO, if it wasn't used in the crime, it seems irrelevant.

On the same vein as "Why wouldn't they get rid of it" is "Why would an intruder bring a bunch of extra stuff he/she didn't even use?" Rope WAS used, but it was more of a cord type material. Why bring different options? In case he/she couldn't decide?

That, to me, makes even less sense than the R's denying they own it.

I'm open to an explanation of its relevancy to the case.

Consider the crimes committed by BTK. He used a variety of items to B, T, & K his victims. Sometimes he singled out a victim, and on other occasions he focused on a pair or a group of people; a family.

His mind doesn't work like ours, obviously. So, our "logic" wouldn't likely be indicative of his actual intent, motivation, etc. Perhaps, if IDI, we're dealing with a mind that works more like that of BTK; lacking "normal" logic.

Does that make sense?