Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Landonsmom02]

BR has nothing to do with IDI and I won't discuss him. There are other threads for that.

THere is nothing that connects the R's to this rope or bag.

Hmmm...have you ever thought that JBR herself could have touched this and the fibers came from innocent transfer? I mean since the house was so well orgainized and neat(insert sarcasm). With all do respect, if your child was murdered with rope and rope was found in your home, aren't you going to distance yourself from that? It was in her room, so yeah we can assume she touched it. Since some are assuming this mysterious killer brought in this rope and he took everything else......except this......that wasn't used on her??

 

[Landonsmom02]

So, anyone else think the bag's fibers might have been on JBR because she was looking everywhere for stashed Christmas presents? Innocent reason, no intruder nor Ram even needed. She's a kid. It's Christmas. There are hidden presents.

Also, PR herself said it "maybe could have been possibly uh, hmmm" JAR's rope for "maybe I dunno, you know, camping or something, uh".

So she contradicted herself anyway, her statement regarding whether or not it "belonged" in the house is out.

Just as with the pineapple snack, it isn't the item itself that is nefarious. It's the contradictions and lies surrounding said item.

ETA: Oh, wait, JMO.

Sorry I just saw you had posted this earlier

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Hmmm...have you ever thought that JBR herself could have touched this and the fibers came from innocent transfer? I mean since the house was so well orgainized and neat(insert sarcasm). With all do respect, if your child was murdered with rope and rope was found in your home, aren't you going to distance yourself from that? It was in her room, so yeah we can assume she touched it. Since some are assuming this mysterious killer brought in this rope and he took everything else......except this......that wasn't used on her??

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.

 

[TroyinTX]

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.

Well, there have been questions as to whether she was actually asleep that night when they got home. Burke's statement about her walking into the house AND the pineapple at least hint at the possibility that she was not asleep like the R's stated.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well, there have been questions as to whether she was actually asleep that night when they got home. Burke's statement about her walking into the house AND the pineapple at least hint at the possibility that she was not asleep like the R's stated.

I don't think the pineapple plays apart. AS far as I can tell it was SUGGESTED it was pineapple and I don't know if the digestion timing is right..

From all I have read I believe she was asleep, But even if she was not, Christmas was over. She was not running around looking for gifts that night.

 

[TroyinTX]

I don't think the pineapple plays apart. AS far as I can tell it was SUGGESTED it was pineapple and I don't know if the digestion timing is right..

From all I have read I believe she was asleep, But even if she was not, Christmas was over. She was not running around looking for gifts that night.

She might not have been looking for gifts, but it is possible that she was playing and came across the bag. The point is--she could have touched it. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

And the bowl and spoon on the counter that Patsy says she didn't know how it got there? Wasn't there pineapple in it?

 

[Landonsmom02]

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.

Has it been proven she was asleep? We have 2 statements that contradict each other. Obvisoulsy from the pineapple found in her stomach she wasn't sleep.

 

[TroyinTX]

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

 

[Landonsmom02]

I don't think the pineapple plays apart. AS far as I can tell it was SUGGESTED it was pineapple and I don't know if the digestion timing is right..
From all I have read I believe she was asleep, But even if she was not, Christmas was over. She was not running around looking for gifts that night.

BBM

Link please

 

[Tawny]

Why would the digestion timing be in doubt? That's science. Is the medical examiner's findings questionable?

 

[Landonsmom02]

Why would the digestion timing be in doubt? That's science. Is the medical examiner's findings questionable?

IMO, if it is, it's absurd!

 

[Tawny]

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

I asked earlier in the thread, and the answer was no.

 

[TroyinTX]

I asked earlier in the thread, and the answer was no.

So all we have to go be is what they family told law enforcement?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why would the digestion timing be in doubt? That's science. Is the medical examiner's findings questionable?

Because of where it was. And when she could have eaten it.

Page 7 of the autopsy..

"The SMALL INTESTINE contained fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which MAY represent fragments of pineapple. "

It does not say it is pineapple for sure. And it is in the intestines. Already through the stomach.

There is no conclusive statement it was indeed pineapple.

 

[Tawny]

Because of where it was. And when she could have eaten it.

Page 7 of the autopsy..

"The SMALL INTESTINE contained fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which MAY represent fragments of pineapple. "

It does not say it is pineapple for sure. And it is in the intestines. Already through the stomach.

There is no conclusive statement it was indeed pineapple.

She still ate SOMETHING in that time frame, which means she wasn't asleep when she got home. The digestive tract digests at a certain rate per measure of time. That is science... how does it call into question WHEN she ate something?

 

[Tawny]

So all we have to go be is what they family told law enforcement?

It has also been stated that it was something Amy's family knew. A boyfriend of someone or something, I can't recall, and don't feel like going to the google machine. :floorlaugh:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I asked earlier in the thread, and the answer was no.

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.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It has also been stated that it was something Amy's family knew. A boyfriend of someone or something, I can't recall, and don't feel like going to the google machine. :floorlaugh:

He was never found and it was no one they knew. The mother got a look at him. It was a stranger. He was never caught.

 

[TroyinTX]

Didn't the Amy intruder molest her? There was no DNA found?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

She still ate SOMETHING in that time frame, which means she wasn't asleep when she got home. The digestive tract digests at a certain rate per measure of time. That is science... how does it call into question WHEN she ate something?

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.