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

[Anti-K]

You say things can be seen from inside the house by peering in a window, etc. You advance the theory this is the means of information by making a blanket statement on surveillance, surveillance specified as LE by you.

Well, I don’t know who to blame for this – me or you – but you’re clearly misinterpreting what I’ve said. And, this despite the fact that I have already corrected you.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why Christmas day? Maybe, it was the only day that the killer could get away. Maybe he just wanted to ruin someone else’s Christmas. Why did he murder Jonbenet, hide her in the basement and leave a 2 ½ page ransom note? We just don’t know. But, he did these things, and he did them on Christmas.

Btw, this is one of many things that my Theory of Intent explains: it’s a red flag for the FBI, and possibly another reference to the Hurting the Ones We love chapter in Mindhunter: Another case is described as “[o]ne of the earliest examples” of staging by a family member/loved one encountered by (FBI profiler John) Douglas: the murder of Linda Dover. Dover was murdered Dec. 26, the day after Christmas; blunt force trauma, stab wounds, wrapped in a comforter and stuffed in a crawlspace. http://tinyurl.com/k7ldp5y

Anyways...

Routines change for Christmas, but there is still a Christmas routine. For example, the house is empty or the house is full. Children are early to rise and children are early to bed. Most everyone is early to bed. Most everyone feels safe and secure. Most everyone sleeps the good sleep cuz most everyone is worn out, and stuffed.... sounds like prime time for some midnight creeping.

And, what if the Ramseys had not come home that night? Then the killer would have moved on. What if they had a guest over for the night? Then RDI would be RDI+guest. What if, what if...? Who knows, who cares? The Ramseys were home that night, they were sleeping, they had no guests, there was no dog.... and, the killer struck on Christmas.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I think that the purpose of the thread is to develop the theory that an IDI. I have to stay out of the Burke did it thread because the point isn't to debate the theory but to build the theory. (I'm assuming)

But it does make it hard to weed through the ideas to decide which ones are not logical or don't make sense.

IMO it's entirely possible that either a total stranger who was crazy did it who had gotten access to the house at the Christmas open house and wandered off and set up a way to get back in the house.

But it more reads like someone who knew them. Especially with the ransom note. When I see how much vitriol is aimed at the Ramseys from virtual strangers who didn't know them, I can only imagine how much vitriol from jealous frenemies in the neighborhood who felt Patsy was showing off all the time.

There are plenty of stories in the news about girls abducted and kept in a house as sex slaves for me to consider that someone close to them could have done this.

I just don't understand how Jonbenet wound up in the basement if the intention was an abduction. That's where it just gets strange to me.

Why would the intruder take her to the basement?

A. To hide the body with the intention that John would take out the money and maybe even collect the ransom only to find the body in the basement. This would rely on him not calling the cops.

B. A kidnapping gone wrong and the person knowing Jonbenet could identify them so they killed her. (That still doesn't make sense with the mutilation of the body)

I'd like to hear more theories on this.

C. My Theory of Intent
D. because he had nowhere else to take her.
E. because he did not want to risk being seen with her or her body
F. because he had no means of transporting her
G. because he liked knowing that the body was in the house while the parents believed she was not
H. because he simply did not ever intend to remove her
I. because he saw it in a dream
J. because it required less effort than removing it from the house
H. etc......
.

What I don’t understand is, if RDI, why was the body in the basement. They, if RDI, obviously faked a kidnapping, so why is the body in the house? It should have been in the trunk of the car, or in the garage, at least. Someplace all ready to go.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294971184

Interesting article to reference when analyzing the ransom note.

#10 can be referenced to length of the ransom note.

 

[2 percent]

Well, I don’t know who to blame for this – me or you – but you’re clearly misinterpreting what I’ve said. And, this despite the fact that I have already corrected you.
...

AK

What, exactly, am I misinterpreting? For the moment let's leave LE surveillance techniques out of it. Let's talk stalker/pervert/murderer techniques.

You said the information needed to commit this crime, know the house and where pens and paper are kept, can be seen by peering into a window which you surmised when you watched a videotape of the crime scene. To say that this information could have been gathered that way you must be opining that the windows were peered into by the stalker/pervert/murderer, most likely unknown to the family. I am asking how it is that someone could do that on the day before or of the murder without being spotted by someone. Anyone peeking in windows on Christmas Eve and Christmas will be noticed, even if they are the inhabitants of the house.

Did this method of surveillance also tell the intruder where the garotte materials were, size 12 underpants, the blunt object or flashlight, etc.? I find it unlikely that that much information could be seen so readily by a simple peering in a window, most probably by a very nervous person who isn't going to stick around and peer for minutes on end. And I ask that you explain why you think it is a valid hypothesis.

 

[THE BUNK]

RDI, why was the body in the basement. They, if RDI, obviously faked a kidnapping, so why is the body in the house? It should have been in the trunk of the car, or in the garage, at

This to me is the key to understanding the Ramsey case. Why would you leave a ransom note and still leave her body.

I have grouped them in most likely reasons.,

1. The killer could not bear for Jonbenet to not have a "proper funeral" Sentimentality and love toward Jonbenet overruled reason and logic.
2. The killer made a critical mistake. A mistake that happens when you are not an experience criminal and are making your first foray into crime.
3. The killer really had no plan on disposing her body....because disposing her body was never part of the killer's normal activity for that night,.
4. It had not occurred to the killer that the Ramsey's and/or the police would search the whole house. The killer fully expected that his ransom note would be believed 100% and the idea of searching the home would be illogical since she was kidnapped for ransom. Would explain why the Ransom letter writer needed the note to be found almost immediately by the Ramseys. He was hoping the body would never be found.

 

[THE BUNK]

AntiK

A piece of advice.

This case becomes a lot easier if you follow the concept that the perpetrator was not a master criminal, but a complete amateur committing his first crime.

Think how well most people do when they start an activity for the first time. They make every stupid mistake in the book. Crime is no different.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

AntiK



A piece of advice.



This case becomes a lot easier if you follow the concept that the perpetrator was not a master criminal, but a complete amateur committing his first crime.



Think how well most people do when they start an activity for the first time. They make every stupid mistake in the book. Crime is no different.

That's just an opinion of how it works for you. That's not the only way to look at the evidence. Even seasoned criminals make mistakes.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Anti-K]

What, exactly, am I misinterpreting? For the moment let's leave LE surveillance techniques out of it. Let's talk stalker/pervert/murderer techniques.

You said the information needed to commit this crime, know the house and where pens and paper are kept, can be seen by peering into a window which you surmised when you watched a videotape of the crime scene. To say that this information could have been gathered that way you must be opining that the windows were peered into by the stalker/pervert/murderer, most likely unknown to the family. I am asking how it is that someone could do that on the day before or of the murder without being spotted by someone. Anyone peeking in windows on Christmas Eve and Christmas will be noticed, even if they are the inhabitants of the house.

Did this method of surveillance also tell the intruder where the garotte materials were, size 12 underpants, the blunt object or flashlight, etc.? I find it unlikely that that much information could be seen so readily by a simple peering in a window, most probably by a very nervous person who isn't going to stick around and peer for minutes on end. And I ask that you explain why you think it is a valid hypothesis.

Well, “LE surveillance techniques” is one of the things that you’ve misinterpreted but, sure, let’s set that aside.

I started out by saying that the killer, “could have ‘stalked’ the Ramseys. He could have learned a fair bit simply by watching the house. He could have entered it days or weeks ahead of time. He could have entered it while the Ramseys were out during the day and spent hours poking around.” http://tinyurl.com/lhbymum

This is no theory (you misinterpret me by claiming that it is), it is simply speculation.

You claim that I “advance” that theory by saying that windows are being peered into as the source of information. This, too, is a misinterpretation.

It is true that I said that much could be seen and learned “without ever even entering the house,” and, I have described some of those things (http://tinyurl.com/ne6vjhe); but, it is not true that I said or theorized that the killer gathered information in this way.

This is the second time that I have corrected this misinterpretation. The first time: “I don’t know that [peering through windows] happened and I don’t have a theory that this happened, I simply note that it could have happened.” http://tinyurl.com/qz772ze

What I have said is that the killer, “could have ‘stalked’ the Ramseys. He could have learned a fair bit simply by watching the house. He could have entered it days or weeks ahead of time. He could have entered it while the Ramseys were out during the day and spent hours poking around.”

Although not necessarily a misinterpretation, it is not correct to say that I surmised that pens and notepad could be seen through the door and window when I watched “a videotape of the crime scene.” My claim was based on photographs of the hallway and of the counter on which the pen cup was placed, and on Fernie’s affidavit (he could see the ransom note through the door), Ramsey interviews (location of notepad and pen), etc. and floor plans such as that one I previously linked to: http://tinyurl.com/o2syk89

The video you seem to think I surmised so much from was used simply because someone else had posted it and I copied it as a matter of convenience, because I thought it might be useful to help illustrate the point: much could be seen and learned “without ever even entering the house.”

I could describe a couple more examples, but this should be enough and this post is too long already (apologies to all). I’ll address your objections and answer your other question in my next post.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

What, exactly, am I misinterpreting? For the moment let's leave LE surveillance techniques out of it. Let's talk stalker/pervert/murderer techniques.

You said the information needed to commit this crime, know the house and where pens and paper are kept, can be seen by peering into a window which you surmised when you watched a videotape of the crime scene. To say that this information could have been gathered that way you must be opining that the windows were peered into by the stalker/pervert/murderer, most likely unknown to the family. I am asking how it is that someone could do that on the day before or of the murder without being spotted by someone. Anyone peeking in windows on Christmas Eve and Christmas will be noticed, even if they are the inhabitants of the house.

Did this method of surveillance also tell the intruder where the garotte materials were, size 12 underpants, the blunt object or flashlight, etc.? I find it unlikely that that much information could be seen so readily by a simple peering in a window, most probably by a very nervous person who isn't going to stick around and peer for minutes on end. And I ask that you explain why you think it is a valid hypothesis.

Someone was spotted crossing the Ramsey lawn early on Christmas day by a neighbor (I forget the details) who thought it was JAR (iirc). So, someone was seen in the area, but setting that aside, as I previously posted: “Recently there had been a rash of burglaries where entry was made through unlocked doors. In the first nine months of 1997 the police had recorded 722 burglaries, of which 231 did not involve forced entry. PMPT; p. 1217”

Call it wild speculation, but I’d be willing to bet that in many of those cases the perpetrator(s) looked through a door or a window or two at some point before entering, and I’d even bet that in many of those cases there were no witnesses to this.

Now, how could this be accomplished by someone looking into the Ramsey home? By being sneaky, by choosing the right moment. With the Ramsey home one wouldn’t even need luck.

Go here and scroll down a wee bit, just enough to see the Third Floor: http://tinyurl.com/3r7u

To the upper right is an aerial view of the house and to the lower left is a picture showing the den (1st floor), the balcony to Jonbenet’s room (second floor) and Ramsey’s dressing room (third floor). See the grate to the basement on the floor plan? It’s a long, red rectangle.

If you were to stand by the grate you would only be visible from the south side of the house, and there is a fence along that edge of the property (upper, left corner of the aerial view). You would be hidden from the street, from the alleyway and, of course, the other (north) side of the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

What, exactly, am I misinterpreting? For the moment let's leave LE surveillance techniques out of it. Let's talk stalker/pervert/murderer techniques.

You said the information needed to commit this crime, know the house and where pens and paper are kept, can be seen by peering into a window which you surmised when you watched a videotape of the crime scene. To say that this information could have been gathered that way you must be opining that the windows were peered into by the stalker/pervert/murderer, most likely unknown to the family. I am asking how it is that someone could do that on the day before or of the murder without being spotted by someone. Anyone peeking in windows on Christmas Eve and Christmas will be noticed, even if they are the inhabitants of the house.

Did this method of surveillance also tell the intruder where the garotte materials were, size 12 underpants, the blunt object or flashlight, etc.? I find it unlikely that that much information could be seen so readily by a simple peering in a window, most probably by a very nervous person who isn't going to stick around and peer for minutes on end. And I ask that you explain why you think it is a valid hypothesis.

Did this method of surveillance also tell the intruder where the garrote materials were, size 12 underpants, the blunt object or flashlight, etc.?

Well, as I’ve said, “the killer could have entered [the Ramsey home] days or weeks ahead of time. He could have entered it while the Ramseys were out during the day and spent hours poking around.” Of course, he might have peeked through a door/window or two before entering; right?

Anyways, the killer could have brought his own flashlight, he probably brought his own cord (and tape) and he may not have known anything about the paintbrush until he came upon it; and, the panties? Jonbenet’s panties being changed by her killer is mere forum speculation about which I have great doubt (but, that’s another story and taking us far off-topic; so, let’s set that aside, too).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

AntiK

A piece of advice.

This case becomes a lot easier if you follow the concept that the perpetrator was not a master criminal, but a complete amateur committing his first crime.

Think how well most people do when they start an activity for the first time. They make every stupid mistake in the book. Crime is no different.

Been there; done that. But, thank you.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

Been there; done that. But, thank you.
...

AK

The fact that your path lead you to nothing should say something to you.

 

[THE BUNK]

That's just an opinion of how it works for you. That's not the only way to look at the evidence. Even seasoned criminals make mistakes.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

Even at the risk of committing the same crime you accuse the BPD of....tunnel vision?

Why should this criminal be seasoned criminal? Other than the fact that being a mastermind makes the reason he can't be found more palatable?

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM

Why Christmas day? Maybe, it was the only day that the killer could get away. Maybe he just wanted to ruin someone else’s Christmas. Why did he murder Jonbenet, hide her in the basement and leave a 2 ½ page ransom note? We just don’t know. But, he did these things, and he did them on Christmas.

Btw, this is one of many things that my Theory of Intent explains: it’s a red flag for the FBI, and possibly another reference to the Hurting the Ones We love chapter in Mindhunter: Another case is described as “[o]ne of the earliest examples” of staging by a family member/loved one encountered by (FBI profiler John) Douglas: the murder of Linda Dover. Dover was murdered Dec. 26, the day after Christmas; blunt force trauma, stab wounds, wrapped in a comforter and stuffed in a crawlspace. http://tinyurl.com/k7ldp5y

You've established many parallels to crimes outlined in JD's Mindhunter. There are simply too many similarities to shrug off the connections as being coincidental.

Anyways...

Routines change for Christmas, but there is still a Christmas routine. For example, the house is empty or the house is full. Children are early to rise and children are early to bed. Most everyone is early to bed. Most everyone feels safe and secure. Most everyone sleeps the good sleep cuz most everyone is worn out, and stuffed.... sounds like prime time for some midnight creeping.

And, what if the Ramseys had not come home that night? Then the killer would have moved on. What if they had a guest over for the night? Then RDI would be RDI+guest. What if, what if...? Who knows, who cares? The Ramseys were home that night, they were sleeping, they had no guests, there was no dog.... and, the killer struck on Christmas.
...

AK

Agreed.

 

[2 percent]

I started out by saying that the killer, “could have ‘stalked’ the Ramseys. He could have learned a fair bit simply by watching the house. He could have entered it days or weeks ahead of time. He could have entered it while the Ramseys were out during the day and spent hours poking around.” http://tinyurl.com/lhbymum

Once again, on what do you base this assumption?
The only evidence that supports surveillance is one spotting of an unidentified person seen to be doing nothing but walking on a lawn.
The only evidence that supports a prior entry into the house is the belief the murderer was an intruder and they had to know where things were....or the crime doesn't make sense.

This is no theory (you misinterpret me by claiming that it is), it is simply speculation.

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
I think that will address most of the rest of your points.

One thing to take from this, I'm not sure the value of conjecture with no evidence or beliefs with no conviction behind them. A lesson to us all, possibly.

 

[2 percent]

“Recently there had been a rash of burglaries where entry was made through unlocked doors. In the first nine months of 1997 the police had recorded 722 burglaries, of which 231 did not involve forced entry. PMPT; p. 1217”

Murder and burglary are not the same thing.

But let's follow this path...by quoting burglary stats where they clearly don't apply (burglary v murder), I'm assuming your theory/speculation involves a burglar-turned-murderer. If that's true, why would a burglar bring cord and tape with them as you speculated? They are not common burglary tools. And if they were a murderer, not a burglar-turned-murderer, then the stats are irrelevant.

 

[THE BUNK]

rash of burglaries where entry was made through unlocked doors.

1. Why would the burgulars choose to break into the Ramsey home at night when the family is in the house? Why would they not break into the house when they were away at the Christmas party or wait a few days when the family is out of the state? It's Christmas. This is the time when people usually are out of their houses for extended periods of time.

2. Why would they risk a murder/pedophile rap when at worst if they were caught they would have a B&E charge? You will survive a lot better in prison as a convicted burgular than you will as a child rapist. Which makes creating the garrotte even more puzzling.

3. Why did they not wear masks and gloves to do a robbery?

4. The three page ransom not makes even less sense in this scenario. Get the hell out of the house and run!

 

[Tssiemer]

1. Why would the burgulars choose to break into the Ramsey home at night when the family is in the house? Why would they not break into the house when they were away at the Christmas party or wait a few days when the family is out of the state? It's Christmas. This is the time when people usually are out of their houses for extended periods of time.



2. Why would they risk a murder/pedophile rap when at worst if they were caught they would have a B&E charge? You will survive a lot better in prison as a convicted burgular than you will as a child rapist. Which makes creating the garrotte even more puzzling.



3. Why did they not wear masks and gloves to do a robbery?



4. The three page ransom not makes even less sense in this scenario. Get the hell out of the house and run!

This is the most concise argument against IDI. but not necessarily for RDI. Just to be clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

The BPD's investigation of 722 burglaries revealed 231 cases involved no signs of forced entry. Burglary is a type of home invasion. The motive in the Ramsey case was likely not burglary, although, (if IDI) the crime clearly involved a home invasion. It's not difficult to realize an intruder could have entered the home without leaving any noticeable indications that entry was forced &/or unlawful.