Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[otg]

Just a thought, something I believe never has been discussed.

JB`s legs were bound together with the nylon cord. We all know that sexual violation with an object took place at or after her death. I personally do not know how it could be AT the time of death as JB met her death lying face down on the carpet next to WC. But right AFTER the death, yes, violation of her virginity could have been taken place.

After the violation the killer bounded her legs tightly.

I have my own view to why killer did it, but I want opinions of others. My view-- killer did not want anyone to know about his big secret of perverted act, he tried to hide the act. After the violating the dead body, he pulled her pants back and he tied the dead child legs together to take attention off. Killing is one thing, being such a pervert is another.

I apologize for being an intruder on this thread, but this has nothing to do with RDI, IDI, or (anyone else)DI.

1. There is nothing to suggest that at anytime that night JonBenet's "legs were bound together with nylon cord" (or anything else). That's not to say it couldn't have happened and that we can't speculate about the possibility, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did happen.
2. We don't "all know that sexual violation with an object took place at or after her death", because it didn't. The autopsy report (as well as all other information we have available) indicates that the genital injuries had to have happened before she died -- some right before death and others at least days before. None of them were inflicted after death.

We can speculate and disagree all we want about what might have been the intent and who might have caused her death, but the facts of what happened to her can't be changed.

 

[Anti-K]

I apologize for being an intruder on this thread, but this has nothing to do with RDI, IDI, or (anyone else)DI.

1. There is nothing to suggest that at anytime that night JonBenet's "legs were bound together with nylon cord" (or anything else). That's not to say it couldn't have happened and that we can't speculate about the possibility, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did happen.
2. We don't "all know that sexual violation with an object took place at or after her death", because it didn't. The autopsy report (as well as all other information we have available) indicates that the genital injuries had to have happened before she died -- some right before death and others at least days before. None of them were inflicted after death.

We can speculate and disagree all we want about what might have been the intent and who might have caused her death, but the facts of what happened to her can't be changed.

BBM
Yes, the sexual assault that occurred that night did not happen after death. it happened at or near point of death.

Feb. 15 - JonBenet Ramsey was the apparent victim of a forceful sexual attack in the minutes before she was strangled to death - an attack that left her body scraped and bruised, according to a partial autopsy report released Friday by a Boulder County judge.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

“After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenét’s vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death – not earlier.” PMPT; p. 777

“Photographs of her injured hymen taken at the autopsy indicated to some experts a recent tear, fresh bleeding, and no healing. Logic suggested that JonBenét had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death.” PMPT; p. 780

Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that Jonbenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death. Kolar; p. 63

Dr Meyer conducted an external examination of Jonbenet’s genitalia. He had observed spots of blood in the crotch of the underwear she had been wearing when her clothing had been removed, and this alerted him to the possibility that there was a cause for this evidence to be present.
He observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into Jonbenet’s genitalia at or near the time of her death. Kolar; p. 87-58

[Dr Meyer] also said there was acute vaginal injury that had happened around the time of death. Thomas; p. 146
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

BBM
Yes, the sexual assault that occurred that night did not happen after death. it happened at or near point of death.

Feb. 15 - JonBenet Ramsey was the apparent victim of a forceful sexual attack in the minutes before she was strangled to death - an attack that left her body scraped and bruised, according to a partial autopsy report released Friday by a Boulder County judge.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon22.htm

“After viewing the slides, Spitz repeated his opinion: the injury to JonBenét’s vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death – not earlier.” PMPT; p. 777

“Photographs of her injured hymen taken at the autopsy indicated to some experts a recent tear, fresh bleeding, and no healing. Logic suggested that JonBenét had been penetrated almost concurrently with her death.” PMPT; p. 780

Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that Jonbenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death. Kolar; p. 63

Dr Meyer conducted an external examination of Jonbenet’s genitalia. He had observed spots of blood in the crotch of the underwear she had been wearing when her clothing had been removed, and this alerted him to the possibility that there was a cause for this evidence to be present.
He observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into Jonbenet’s genitalia at or near the time of her death. Kolar; p. 87-58

[Dr Meyer] also said there was acute vaginal injury that had happened around the time of death. Thomas; p. 146
...

AK

Right, right, the legs were not bounded, I had the wrong image in my head. Everybody have corrected me, thanks.

Now the second correction-- time of the assault not after the death but ( out of your quotes) AT, NEAR, CCONCURRENT and IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO DEATH.... This killer was under-human being, animal, if "concurrently" and "At"...... Considering the position she died it`s almost impossible....

 

[Tawny]

Experts have said she was abused prior to the murder as well. It wasn't a one-time occurrence.

 

[Muy Curioso]

Experts have said she was abused prior to the murder as well. It wasn't a one-time occurrence.

Experts? What experts? To my knowledge, only two experts saw Jonbenet genitals, her doctor and the coroner, and neither said they observed signs of previous abuse. But we know that in this case experts emerge like mushrooms. They are great, as they exhibit major conclusions at distance, without evidence.

Tawny, I like to debate with you, but remember in what forum you are.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

It’s the funny thing about this case. Both sides can be equally hypocritical.

RDI- There was no stun gun because the person who saw her body said so.
IDI- There was a stun gun because a veteran homicide detective said so.

IDI- There was no sexual abuse because the people who saw her body said so.
RDI- There was sexual abuse because a panel of experts said so.

 

[Mama2JML]

It’s the funny thing about this case. Both sides can be equally hypocritical.

RDI- There was no stun gun because the person who saw her body said so.
IDI- There was a stun gun because a veteran homicide detective said so.

IDI- There was no sexual abuse because the people who saw her body said so.
RDI- There was sexual abuse because a panel of experts said so.

I have not come across any reliable information to support the presumption BBM, above.

Dr. Meyer has never spoken publicly about the case, but I've read accounts in which he confirmed the injuries to be consistent with those produced by a stun gun.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

He listed them as abrasions in the report and Dr. Henry Lee said we should listen to the person who saw the body. This card has been a favorite of RDIs. But I do understand he changed stances after Lou Smit presented his case.

 

[Muy Curioso]

It’s the funny thing about this case. Both sides can be equally hypocritical.

RDI- There was no stun gun because the person who saw her body said so.
IDI- There was a stun gun because a veteran homicide detective said so.

IDI- There was no sexual abuse because the people who saw her body said so.
RDI- There was sexual abuse because a panel of experts said so.

Good point, but there is a big diference. Medical examiners seek signs of sexual abuse as a routine, and not look for signs of a stun gun as a routine.

 

[tovarisch]

Tovarisch,
I think it’s important to understand that
1) tightening of the ligature would have taken a few seconds – one quick, hard pull
2) after one quick, hard pull the ligature would do its work and the killer would be hands free
3) a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death

Now, let’s say that the bladder voids when the ligature is tightened. At this point, the victim is on her stomach. The bladder voids. Urine passes through the panties, the leggings and onto the carpet. The victim is alive but dying, she is at or near point of death.
The killer, hands free while the asphyxiation continues, now rolls the victim over and pulls down the leggings/panties and performs the sexual assault. She is at or near point of death.

He wipes the area and pulls up the leggings/panties. Blood drips onto the panties from the instrument used for penetration, or from the victim sometime during this phase: assault, wiping, redressing.

The bloodied cloth (glove?) used for the wiping is removed from the house by the killer, along with the instrument (tip of paintbrush?) used for the penetration.
...

AK


I want to bulldog more on the subject. I accidently posted the beginning on the PR thread, interrupting the other discussion. It was rude, but not planned. I want to proceed here.

I like everything you said. Your point #3 surprised me, that JB was alive for several more minutes after bladder stopped function. OK, I might take it.

One more question AK

Why would the killer seek sexual pleasure with JB dying, short lived pleasure I would assume, versus while she was unconscious and all in his power, long minutes. Is not it a pervert`s dream - sleeping and no resistance`s victim?
I want to go deeper in why it was important to the killer that precise scenario to assault her with an object at the moment of death?

 

[Anti-K]

Tovarisch,
I think it’s important to understand that
1) tightening of the ligature would have taken a few seconds – one quick, hard pull
2) after one quick, hard pull the ligature would do its work and the killer would be hands free
3) a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death

Now, let’s say that the bladder voids when the ligature is tightened. At this point, the victim is on her stomach. The bladder voids. Urine passes through the panties, the leggings and onto the carpet. The victim is alive but dying, she is at or near point of death.
The killer, hands free while the asphyxiation continues, now rolls the victim over and pulls down the leggings/panties and performs the sexual assault. She is at or near point of death.

He wipes the area and pulls up the leggings/panties. Blood drips onto the panties from the instrument used for penetration, or from the victim sometime during this phase: assault, wiping, redressing.

The bloodied cloth (glove?) used for the wiping is removed from the house by the killer, along with the instrument (tip of paintbrush?) used for the penetration.
...

AK


I want to bulldog more on the subject. I accidently posted the beginning on the PR thread, interrupting the other discussion. It was rude, but not planned. I want to proceed here.

I like everything you said. Your point #3 surprised me, that JB was alive for several more minutes after bladder stopped function. OK, I might take it.

One more question AK

Why would the killer seek sexual pleasure with JB dying, short lived pleasure I would assume, versus while she was unconscious and all in his power, long minutes. Is not it a pervert`s dream - sleeping and no resistance`s victim?
I want to go deeper in why it was important to the killer that precise scenario to assault her with an object at the moment of death?

I don’t know when she urinated. I am only speculating as best as I can using the evidence as we know it.
.

Point # 3: a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death.
I think that this should be obvious.

I also think that it should be obvious that the killer would have been hands free during those minutes. One quick, hard pull does the trick. A second or two of effort. That’s it.
.

I don’t know that sexual pleasure had anything to do with this crime, or any aspect of it. As far as I can tell, that is simply speculation. I think the evidence is more suggestive of a more practical motivation. What? I don’t know. I think the evidence is suggestive of, as the FBI’s Kenneth Lanning described, a killer who happened to molest, and not, a molester who happened to kill.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

I don’t know when she urinated. I am only speculating as best as I can using the evidence as we know it.
.

Point # 3: a few minutes would have passed between the tightening of the ligature and the time of death.
I think that this should be obvious.

I also think that it should be obvious that the killer would have been hands free during those minutes. One quick, hard pull does the trick. A second or two of effort. That’s it.
.

I don’t know that sexual pleasure had anything to do with this crime, or any aspect of it. As far as I can tell, that is simply speculation. I think the evidence is more suggestive of a more practical motivation. What? I don’t know. I think the evidence is suggestive of, as the FBI’s Kenneth Lanning described, a killer who happened to molest, and not, a molester who happened to kill.
...

AK

Your suggestion is very satisfactory to my opinion. The killer with practical motivation. Came to kill. Killed, very quickly and efficiently. Was quick enough to use her last dying seconds to molest. Wiped, dressed back, wrapped in white blanket. Interesting that he wrapped only the middle part, molested. But let her head to rest on the cold dusty floor of the WC. Her bare feet too on the cold floor.
After your post I see the killer`s image more clear, call it crazy, but he looks more clear. He looks as a quick and efficient smart killer rather the old pedo with mouth full of saliva.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, quick, efficient. But, even quick and efficient I think we’re still looking at about 30 minutes from entry to exit.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

Yes, quick, efficient. But, even quick and efficient I think we’re still looking at about 30 minutes from entry to exit.
...

AK

Yes, quick and efficient, AK! Knew his every next move ahead of time. Accurate and thoughtful nevertheless. He hid the fact of molestation, did not want to be known as a molester in history, even nameless, he wanted to be manly man in his own eyes. Who wants to be a molester of a dead girl? Thus white blanket, so to say clean job.
Agree, not more than 1 hour.

 

[Tawny]

Yes, quick and efficient, AK! Knew his every next move ahead of time. Accurate and thoughtful nevertheless. He hid the fact of molestation, did not want to be known as a molester in history, even nameless, he wanted to be manly man in his own eyes. Who wants to be a molester of a dead girl? Thus white blanket, so to say clean job.
Agree, not more than 1 hour.

How did he hide the fact of molestation?

 

[Anti-K]

How did he hide the fact of molestation?

By wiping the genital area, redressing and covering the victim, and, disposing of whatever was used for the wiping and the penetration; and, creating the illusion of a kidnapping.
...

AK

 

[mochii]

Hi guys! I was referred here over by Anti-K. I am a strong believer in RDI, but would love to get in the head of an IDI and understand their views and where they are coming from. I am sure many of the questions I'll ask have been addressed in the 84 pages of this thread; but for the sake of time (I'll get to it!), I'd just like to put them down here. If they have been answered elsewhere on the forum, feel free to link me to the post.

(Excuse my formatting, too, as I'm writing this from my iPad).

Post of mine in another thread, formatted and snipped for relevancy:

Undoubtedly, whatever happened to JBR that night was tragic. But if IDI did it, why did they not bring their own RN? What about the pineapple? but the fact the RN & murder weapon were concocted of things found around the house is suspicious. What else would have they used? It'd be easy to hide rope and duct tape somewhere in that house (maybe the golf bag?). So I don't think the RN contradicts anything in the case ... if RDI. They only seem to support the claim (imo). If the rope & duct tape were found in the house it would have cast extreme suspicion on the family (how did the intruder find this rope? why do you have these things, etc.). One more thing to touch lightly on, if IDI did it, why did they remove everything (sans flashlight and RN)? If IDI took all their things, you'd think they'd grab the ransom note too -- now that would be a new wormhole for the Ramsey family. I feel like I keep veering off topic but I truly value your input AK, as I am trying to understand the IDI theory better, and get in the head of people who follow it. So thanks for your time!

1. I'll give into the theory that someone broke in while the Ramsey family were having dinner with the White family. So that will give time for an intruder to roam around freely, get to know the layout, etc. But why would they note bring their own RN? Why such a long, rambling RN?

2. Why leave the RN at the home, with the body? Why not take either/or? They could have still collected the ransom money. Or have taken the note back with them (as they took the rope, duct tape, etc. but left the flashlight and RN. This intruder(s) seemed very limber and evasive. They managed to roam around the house without leaving evidence behind -- surely removing the body of a small little girl wouldn't prove difficult. Taking either/or/both would really, truly create a nightmare for the Ramsey's -- isn't that what they wanted? In addition to money?

3. The pineapple? This is one thing that I need most help understanding (hell, even from an RDI perspective the pineapple is boggling!)

4. The call that never came. Sure, we can chalk this up to the Ramsey's having invited every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the home, but if you were a kidnapper, wouldn't you maybe call and say "your daughter has been killed?"

I know people go back and forth saying if RDI it made no sense for the RN and the body to be in the house, but I think that goes both ways. If IDI did it, it makes no sense either. Their end game seemed to have been money, which they still could have collected.

IMO, the kidnapping seems very sloppy and unprepared. If there were a stun gun, I'm pretty sure it would knock out a sleeping child in moments, rendering her unconscious. What about the head blow? I don't think an intruder(s) armed with a stun gun would need to harm her. They would probably try everything to NOT hurt her. What I want to get most is: why the head blow? why the pineapple? I'd think feeding her pineapple would be a huge risk...

Anyway, I have many more questions and thoughts, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules (since this is strictly IDI thread); but I really want to understand another perspective on the case. I'm gonna stop my thoughts here (for now -- possibly more questions later!) as I really don't want to veer into RDI territory in your thread. Thanks in advanced, everyone, for sharing your input with me. I hope my post and questions aren't too out of line. If there is a more appropriate thread, I'll post my questions there.

 

[inspector rex]

mochii: 2. Why leave the RN at the home, with the body? Why not take either/or? They could have still collected the ransom money. Or have taken the note back with them (as they took the rope, duct tape, etc. but left the flashlight and RN. This intruder(s) seemed very limber and evasive. They managed to roam around the house without leaving evidence behind -- surely removing the body of a small little girl wouldn't prove difficult. Taking either/or/both would really, truly create a nightmare for the Ramsey's -- isn't that what they wanted? In addition to money?

I've just picked this one point mochii, to demonstrate to you for IDI, there was no attempt to kidnap or to get ransom, nor did anything the Ramsey's do after finding the ransom note contribute to their daughter's death.



It's because she had already been dead for several hours when they awoke to find the RN.

If RDI they would have known that.
They wouldn't have known that the Police wouldn't be able to find the body when they called at 6.30am.
So the whole RN was a waste of time for the Ramseys if they were the murderers of their own daughter.
It made them look more suspicious, not less so.

 

[BoldBear]

Mochii,

The answers to your questions are here in these 83 pages. If you want to start asking questions we need to ask how a parent could strangle their child (or their sister) without ever having shown any signs of violence? Too many people imply that BR's hitting JBR in the head with a golf club was a sign, but one incident doesn't create a history of violence. So that leaves you with the argument that this is a murder by one of those people who will only ever kill once. Then it must be RDI right? Nope. A one time killer can very easily be an intruder who's a 'one time killer'; hence, no trail of murders.

Pineapple in her stomach? We know that there was a bowl with pineapple on the table, but how can you connect that to the murderer? The samples of pineapple matched the pineapple in her stomach. So here you have a bowl of pineapple that could have been sitting on the table from before the Ramseys went to dinner. Can you honestly tell me that a 6 year old didn't know that she shouldn't eat something that had been sitting out that long? She could have found the bowl on the table and taken a few bites on her own. All we know was there was a bowl of pineapple on the table and pineapple in her stomach. We also know that Patsy didn't remember the pineapple. A few hours after her child was found murdered, she was drugged out of her mind so she wouldn't feel the pain of the loss--not like trauma, cancer medication or tranquilizers can ever cause memory loss. Nope. Clearly there's a grand pineapple murder conspiracy. So an intruder must have coaxed her out of her room with a 'pineapple treat'. Too many people have faith in the magical powers the pineapple here. This detail could actually mean nothing. IDI or BDI.

Depending upon where you think JBR was attacked, the kitchen could have been JBR being in the wrong place at the wrong time; although, there are those who believe she was attacked in her bedroom, bathroom, train room or the windowless room. I tend to favor that odd little storage room outside the butler's pantry (just kidding). Wouldn't that have been the ideal hiding location for the body? Who the hell designed this house, Charles Manson?

The best theory for the ransom note is that it was designed to buy-time for the intruder to escape. In that amount of time, the intruder could have been well over the boarder and in another state before the police were ever involved. Why didn't PR just follow orders and wait before calling the police? It would have made everything so much easier.

As for the stun gun theory, I'm sure some people still believe it. You don't, however, need a stun gun to put an intruder into the house. It's also not as easy to dismiss an intruder and an absence of forensic evidence. The problem is that there is not an absence of forensic evidence, but just too much contamination in this house. You have a party with 30 people a few days before. You've got a housekeeper, her husband, their child and god knows who else. You have 15 people with keys. JR also said that there were doors that the kids always left unlocked. He'd check them before they went to bed. But did he check every door before they went to the party? The police looked for forced entry. It doesn't create break-in evidence when all someone has to do is turn a door knob. This place is Grand Central Station. Now go an find evidence of someone there who didn't belong. Even now, take a room that they hardly ever use and have the killer step inside, put her body on the floor and leave. Where's all that forensic evidence in the room that he was supposed to leave behind?

 

[Anti-K]

Hi guys! I was referred here over by Anti-K. I am a strong believer in RDI, but would love to get in the head of an IDI and understand their views and where they are coming from. I am sure many of the questions I'll ask have been addressed in the 84 pages of this thread; but for the sake of time (I'll get to it!), I'd just like to put them down here. If they have been answered elsewhere on the forum, feel free to link me to the post.

(Excuse my formatting, too, as I'm writing this from my iPad).

Post of mine in another thread, formatted and snipped for relevancy:

Undoubtedly, whatever happened to JBR that night was tragic. But if IDI did it, why did they not bring their own RN? What about the pineapple? but the fact the RN & murder weapon were concocted of things found around the house is suspicious. What else would have they used? It'd be easy to hide rope and duct tape somewhere in that house (maybe the golf bag?). So I don't think the RN contradicts anything in the case ... if RDI. They only seem to support the claim (imo). If the rope & duct tape were found in the house it would have cast extreme suspicion on the family (how did the intruder find this rope? why do you have these things, etc.). One more thing to touch lightly on, if IDI did it, why did they remove everything (sans flashlight and RN)? If IDI took all their things, you'd think they'd grab the ransom note too -- now that would be a new wormhole for the Ramsey family. I feel like I keep veering off topic but I truly value your input AK, as I am trying to understand the IDI theory better, and get in the head of people who follow it. So thanks for your time!

1. I'll give into the theory that someone broke in while the Ramsey family were having dinner with the White family. So that will give time for an intruder to roam around freely, get to know the layout, etc. But why would they note bring their own RN? Why such a long, rambling RN?

2. Why leave the RN at the home, with the body? Why not take either/or? They could have still collected the ransom money. Or have taken the note back with them (as they took the rope, duct tape, etc. but left the flashlight and RN. This intruder(s) seemed very limber and evasive. They managed to roam around the house without leaving evidence behind -- surely removing the body of a small little girl wouldn't prove difficult. Taking either/or/both would really, truly create a nightmare for the Ramsey's -- isn't that what they wanted? In addition to money?

3. The pineapple? This is one thing that I need most help understanding (hell, even from an RDI perspective the pineapple is boggling!)

4. The call that never came. Sure, we can chalk this up to the Ramsey's having invited every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the home, but if you were a kidnapper, wouldn't you maybe call and say "your daughter has been killed?"

I know people go back and forth saying if RDI it made no sense for the RN and the body to be in the house, but I think that goes both ways. If IDI did it, it makes no sense either. Their end game seemed to have been money, which they still could have collected.

IMO, the kidnapping seems very sloppy and unprepared. If there were a stun gun, I'm pretty sure it would knock out a sleeping child in moments, rendering her unconscious. What about the head blow? I don't think an intruder(s) armed with a stun gun would need to harm her. They would probably try everything to NOT hurt her. What I want to get most is: why the head blow? why the pineapple? I'd think feeding her pineapple would be a huge risk...

Anyway, I have many more questions and thoughts, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules (since this is strictly IDI thread); but I really want to understand another perspective on the case. I'm gonna stop my thoughts here (for now -- possibly more questions later!) as I really don't want to veer into RDI territory in your thread. Thanks in advanced, everyone, for sharing your input with me. I hope my post and questions aren't too out of line. If there is a more appropriate thread, I'll post my questions there.

I’m going to respond in more than one post. It might make it easier for rebuttal, etc. and might make it easier to read and digest. Some of what follows is simply copy/paste from previous posts (I write in Word and save everything).

I guess the first thing to mention is that we – IDI – don’t have any real answers. We just don’ know. We can’t know. There simply isn’t enough information to go on. We don’t have a suspect other than DNA-man.

However...

An intruder entering the home while the Ramseys were at the White’s is one theory. I’m not fond of that one, but it could have happened.

I don’t think an intruder would have had to have had prior knowledge of the home’s layout, or that he would have needed any time to familiarize himself with it. The way some talk about the interior of this house I should not be surprised that there are still people from the Christmas tours and contractors and such still wandering around inside there trying to find their way out.

If an intruder stood outside the door from which Fernie read the ransom note he would see the spiral staircase. He could probably see the notepad. If he looked up he would see a hallway window and beside that a bedroom. Watching lights go off and on would tell him which rooms were probably children’s and which were probably parents. If he looked through the window to the left of the door he could probably see the cup with pens. Etc., and so on...

All this intruder would have to do upon entering the house is find the spiral stairs. If he intended on hiding the body in the house (I think this most likely) then all he would need to know is that a house of this size would have such a room. Most houses do, particularly of this size. Probably in the basement (where else?).
...

AK