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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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!

Because sometimes they do. Like this guy.

http://m.daytondailynews.com/news/n...-burglar-breaks-house-watches-sleeping/nfbs8/

Because sometimes what criminals decide to do makes no sense. It only makes sense in their own screwed up crazy minds. People want to reason through this crime but you can not because this is someone who does not think like the normal public.




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

 

[Anti-K]

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.



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.

Ah, so gravity is only speculation, and, it’s the Speculation of Relativity, and, Evolutionary Speculation. Hm.

But, seriously, it should be obvious that I (as do most people) differentiate between “theory” and “speculation.” I use the term, as do most people, according to the following definitions: contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation, reasoning based on inconclusive evidence, conjecture or supposition; the contemplation or consideration of some subject; conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise.

The definition you posted does not equate speculation with theory; it tells us that speculation is the “forming of a theory.” But, it is not a theory in itself. These terms are not interchangeable.

So, you didn’t actually address any of my points. You just continue to misinterpret. So sad.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

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.



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.

I am not assuming 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.”

This is speculation; contemplation or consideration of the subject; it is conjecture only. He could have, he could have, he could have... did he? I don’t know. That’s why I say, he could have, instead of saying, he did.

What is this speculation based on what? I’ll tell you: my suspect is DNA-man. He is the ransom note author. He has not been identified which tells me that this person is not in the usual suspect group of family, friends, acquaintances, etc. This leads me to believe that this person is likely not known to the family. He is could be a stranger to them.

How could a stranger know the things that many people seem to think that he had to have known? Well, let’s speculate about that? Uh, I suppose 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.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Burglaries are break ‘n’ enters, and this is what we are talking about: a break ‘n’ enter. What happened after the break ‘n’ enter is a different story, but this particular aspect being discusses is a break ‘n’ enter.
.
The burglar stats were originally posted as FYI, and as companion to Chewy’s claim that “Christmas time is a RIFE for burglaries.” http://tinyurl.com/nys4cq4

In the portion of my post that you did not include (is this against forum rules?) I wrote that “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.” It was a rebuttal of sorts to your disbelief in the possibility.

Anyway, that’s the point behind the burglar stats: 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.
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

We can not use our reason to figure out why a criminal would do something.

But there are scenarios that could lead to her being brought down to the basement that are plausible.



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

Like what? I'm well aware that a "crazy mind" can do crazy things that don't make any sense.

However when you lay out an entire theory, you will see flaws in the way it could have unfolded.

The part about bringing Jonbenet to the basement is jarring because it doesn't jibe with the ransom note.

When a person has a child in the house with the potential for the parents to wake up at any second and catch them, it doesn't add up.

IOW either the intent was a ransom and it went wrong or they intended to mutilate her body.

Let's take ransom went wrong

So the perp has prewritten the ransom note and intends to take Jonbenet out of the house.

He gets her all the way downstairs and then what? If he cracked her over the head with the flashlight upstairs there's the chance she would have cried out and woken either Burke or the parents. Please keep in mind that the possibility of Burke waking up is quite real.

Now he gets her downstairs and realizes something is wrong. He won't be able to kidnap her. So he takes her to the basement.

Fine, then he leaves her and runs out. But he DOESN'T do this. Instead he takes the time to fashion a garrote and strangles her and ties her up and sexually mutilates her. He does all this knowing he could be caught at any moment and not have any means of escape were this to be the case?

It's too risky IMO.


Or he didn't intend to kidnap her and wrote the ransom note as an after thought to mock the Ramseys in some sick twisted game.

The timeline doesn't work there either because he's now got to take the time to write the ransom note and leave it on the steps not knowing if any second the Ramseys or Burke could wake up.

It just doesn't add up.

That's why I'm asking for someone to explain their theory on why Jonbenet was taken to the basement and garroted and mutilated.

 

[Anti-K]

I wouldn’t describe the victim as having been mutilated; anyway...

Aren’t these two separate questions? Why was Jonbenet taken to the basement, and, why was Jonbenet garroted and mutilated. Or, do you mean, why was Jonbenet garroted and mutilated in the basement? Or, are you asking something else?

If IDI, than the simplest explanation for why Jonbenet was taken to the basement is that the killer had nowhere else to take her. Of course, he may have had a reason beyond that, but it’s hard to discern the motivation of an unknown person.

Of course, the Ramseys are not unknowns, and as such it should be relatively easy to discern their motivation for taking Jonbenet to the basement; except, any motivation we think is contradicted by the ransom note and the fact that the Ramseys called 911.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

I wouldn’t describe the victim as having been mutilated; anyway...

Mutilated:
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

The massive injury to the victim's brain via the head bash assured the killer's intent was to kill. The killer deprived the 6yo victim of an essential part of life: oxygen.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.

JonBenét was permanently and irreparably damaged with the skull fracture.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

There was no excising of parts, thank God. However, the vaginal trauma is surmounted by the fatalistic asphyxia by strangulation. The nylon cord strangulation altered her perfect neck when it suffered a 1/8" deep furrow.

<RSBM>

Of course, the Ramseys are not unknowns, and as such it should be relatively easy to discern their motivation for taking Jonbenet to the basement; except, any motivation we think is contradicted by the ransom note and the fact that the Ramseys called 911.
...

AK

Hiya, AK, if the RDI, the Ramsey's did not call for 911 assistance until their daughter was fully dead for hours when we know there was a 30 - 90 minutes lapse when JonBenét lived between the head injury and the strangulation or vice versa. Hence, they only called 911 when they did because of the prearranged MI flight obligation.

The author of the RN wrote hints to the police about where to find JonBenét. A stray dog sleeps where it can't be seen. Back in a dark, lonely corner.

The author tells LE that her daughter is dead by writing "she dies" 3 or 4 times.

And for me the biggest hint to LE was: "we have your daughter in our possession".
She is inside the home. She is dead. She is hidden maybe on an old dog blanket.

"Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter."
JonBenét was immediately killed in a near execution.

"don't think that killing will be difficult"
The police detectives should have known straight away the victim was dead.

 

[Anti-K]

So, you’d describe the victim as having been mutilated; that’s fine. But, I wouldn’t describe her as having been mutilated.
.

The Ramseys had no “prearranged MI flight obligation” that could not have been forestalled with a call to the pilot, perhaps family – they wouldn’t have had to explain anything, just cancel their plans and say that they’d explain later; later they say Jonbenet’d been kidnapped.

The ransom note allowed them excuse to forestall calling 911 until, arguably 10:00 pm the following day. And, if written by them it could have been written to allow them excuse to delay the call for as long as they felt necessary.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

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.

No, not difficult.
All is proceeding....

 

[2 percent]

Ah, so gravity is only speculation, and, it’s the Speculation of Relativity, and, Evolutionary Speculation. Hm.

You picked the wrong thing to deride. One of my boys is a Physics prof, his field is general relativity. And you want to talk evolution, let's talk abiogenesis.
Sorry mods/admin....I know how you feel about that subject. It was thrust upon me.

So, you didn’t actually address any of my points. You just continue to misinterpret. So sad.

Defend your position on the theories/speculation you have stated, please.

 

[2 percent]

Burglaries are break ‘n’ enters, and this is what we are talking about: a break ‘n’ enter. What happened after the break ‘n’ enter is a different story, but this particular aspect being discusses is a break ‘n’ enter.

No. The specific term, taken from a quote in a book (PMPT) by you about this particular crime, referred to burglaries. There is nothing to suggest this crime was a burglar or break in, other poster (I won't drag into this) notwithstanding.

In the portion of my post that you did not include (is this against forum rules?)...

Don't be shy...call me out directly for not following rules. I don't mind as long as those rules are equally reported, equally applied. I commend you on calling me out on a possible offense. Although, I have to say, I'm much more direct in these matters. I find open confrontation better than quiet disapproval.

 

[Anti-K]

No. The specific term, taken from a quote in a book (PMPT) by you about this particular crime, referred to burglaries. There is nothing to suggest this crime was a burglar or break in, other poster (I won't drag into this) notwithstanding.



Don't be shy...call me out directly for not following rules. I don't mind as long as those rules are equally reported, equally applied. I commend you on calling me out on a possible offense. Although, I have to say, I'm much more direct in these matters. I find open confrontation better than quiet disapproval.

breaking and entering v., n. entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary... http://tinyurl.com/yeo9kur

If IDI is true, than we are indeed talking about a break ‘n’ enter.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You picked the wrong thing to deride. One of my boys is a Physics prof, his field is general relativity. And you want to talk evolution, let's talk abiogenesis.
Sorry mods/admin....I know how you feel about that subject. It was thrust upon me.




Defend your position on the theories/speculation you have stated, please.

Ask your son to explain to you the difference between speculation and a theory.
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

I wouldn’t describe the victim as having been mutilated; anyway...

Aren’t these two separate questions? Why was Jonbenet taken to the basement, and, why was Jonbenet garroted and mutilated. Or, do you mean, why was Jonbenet garroted and mutilated in the basement? Or, are you asking something else?

If IDI, than the simplest explanation for why Jonbenet was taken to the basement is that the killer had nowhere else to take her. Of course, he may have had a reason beyond that, but it’s hard to discern the motivation of an unknown person.

Of course, the Ramseys are not unknowns, and as such it should be relatively easy to discern their motivation for taking Jonbenet to the basement; except, any motivation we think is contradicted by the ransom note and the fact that the Ramseys called 911.
...

AK

I could be wrong but as I understood it she had been sexually mutilated. I use that word because when I type the actual word the mods snip it out.

Anyway what I'm saying is that there is a real possiblity in this entire situation that anyone in the house could have woken up at any moment. I think that people tend to think of the "parents" waking up but not realizing that Burke also could have woken up.

What doesn't make sense to me about the Intruder taking her to the basement is the casualness of time involved.

He had to go upstairs into her bedroom and get her without being detected. Unless he had "gassed the house" with a sleeping drug, there had to be a nervousness throughout the entire time that he could be caught in the act.

Why would you take the body to the basement and corner yourself in a room from which there was no escape except trying to climb out through a window?

Doesn't make sense to me.

That's why I say people who have theories need to spell it out step by step because somewhere along the way it's going to hit a major problem.

Again

If he intended to kidnap her, (ransom note written in advance) and then he tries carrying her out and something goes wrong and he needs to kill her.....

what sense does it make that AT THIS POINT he'd stop and fashion a garrot from materials in the house and spend the time needed to mutilate the body.(I consider the garrote and the sexual assault mutilation)

If he intended to sexually abuse her and went to the basement and did the deed. THEN he'd still have to take time to write a very long ransom note.

What doesn't add up to me is the TIME spent doing EITHER of these activities. A person who has broken into a home is going to be worried about detection.

IOW while he's in the basement the parents could be on the phone with 911. This wasn't a situation where he knew the parents would remain sleeping or BURKE. A kid waking up and going into his parents room saying "Jonbenet is not in her bed"

That's the part that no one has explained in a way that makes sense to me.

Thus far it seems to be "super psychopath who didn't think he'd get caught"

But the odds of that happening are really really weirdly rare. And yet that seems to be the theory people have.

 

[2 percent]

breaking and entering v., n. entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary... http://tinyurl.com/yeo9kur

If IDI is true, than we are indeed talking about a break ‘n’ enter.
...

AK

So the point of all of this was to say that the intruder is guilty of breaking and entering? No offense, but this seems like a somewhat tortuous path :seeya:

And I still don't agree.
As I've stated, the most likely entry in this case, if IDI, is a key. Which makes the initial crime either illegal trespass or unlawful entry. Although given the seriousness of the other crimes during the commission of the unlawful entry I'm not sure how prominent the charge would be.

 

[midwest mama]

:clap::aktion::goodpost::clap: DeDee

 

[Mama2JML]

I could be wrong but as I understood it she had been sexually mutilated. I use that word because when I type the actual word the mods snip it out.

Whats the word? Don't post it, but PM me please...

Anyway what I'm saying is that there is a real possiblity in this entire situation that anyone in the house could have woken up at any moment. I think that people tend to think of the "parents" waking up but not realizing that Burke also could have woken up.

You're right, but consider these possibilities:

~The night of the murder was not the first time the perp entered the home unbeknownst to the Ramseys. Maybe he'd entered the home prior to the 25th to "case it", or to commit burglary, or to get close to JonBenét, or to kidnap her but he got cold feet?...

~Perhaps the perp was prepared to deal with any family member who might have been alerted through the use of force with; a stun gun, rope, cord, knife, baseball bat, etc?...

~JonBenét probably wasn't murdered in the wine cellar, so maybe the perp had back-up plans (methods of exit) to flee the residence if any family member awoke during the kidnapping & assault?...

~Maybe the killer desired the thrill associated with the risk of being caught?...​

​

What doesn't make sense to me about the Intruder taking her to the basement is the casualness of time involved.

He had to go upstairs into her bedroom and get her without being detected. Unless he had "gassed the house" with a sleeping drug, there had to be a nervousness throughout the entire time that he could be caught in the act.

Why would you take the body to the basement and corner yourself in a room from which there was no escape except trying to climb out through a window?

Doesn't make sense to me.

That's why I say people who have theories need to spell it out step by step because somewhere along the way it's going to hit a major problem.

Again

If he intended to kidnap her, (ransom note written in advance) and then he tries carrying her out and something goes wrong and he needs to kill her.....

what sense does it make that AT THIS POINT he'd stop and fashion a garrot from materials in the house and spend the time needed to mutilate the body.(I consider the garrote and the sexual assault mutilation)

If he intended to sexually abuse her and went to the basement and did the deed. THEN he'd still have to take time to write a very long ransom note.

What doesn't add up to me is the TIME spent doing EITHER of these activities. A person who has broken into a home is going to be worried about detection.

I would be worried about detection, you would be worried about detection, but we don't do this sort of thing. The fears & the "turn-ons" of a stalker, a "peeping Tom", a burglar, a serial rapist, a psychopath, or a sexual sadist, etc. are vastly different from the fears & "turn-ons" of the average person.

IOW while he's in the basement the parents could be on the phone with 911. This wasn't a situation where he knew the parents would remain sleeping or BURKE. A kid waking up and going into his parents room saying "Jonbenet is not in her bed"

That's the part that no one has explained in a way that makes sense to me.

Thus far it seems to be "super psychopath who didn't think he'd get caught"

But the odds of that happening are really really weirdly rare. And yet that seems to be the theory people have.

The odds may be rare, but there is not much about this case that appears to be common.

 

[Mama2JML]

So the point of all of this was to say that the intruder is guilty of breaking and entering? No offense, but this seems like a somewhat tortuous path :seeya:

And I still don't agree.
As I've stated, the most likely entry in this case, if IDI, is a key. Which makes the initial crime either illegal trespass or unlawful entry. Although given the seriousness of the other crimes during the commission of the unlawful entry I'm not sure how prominent the charge would be.

We don't know if the perp used a key, picked a lock, unlatched a broken window, etc. We do know, however, one door and seven windows were unlocked. If IDI, the facts & the evidence do not necessitate LE's detection of an obvious point of entry.

 

[Chewy]

Whats the word? Don't post it, but PM me please...

You're right, but consider these possibilities:

~The night of the murder was not the first time the perp entered the home unbeknownst to the Ramseys. Maybe he'd entered the home prior to the 25th to "case it", or to commit burglary, or to get close to JonBenét, or to kidnap her but he got cold feet?...

~Perhaps the perp was prepared to deal with any family member who might have been alerted through the use of force with; a stun gun, rope, cord, knife, baseball bat, etc?...

~JonBenét probably wasn't murdered in the wine cellar, so maybe the perp had back-up plans (methods of exit) to flee the residence if any family member awoke during the kidnapping & assault?...

~Maybe the killer desired the thrill associated with the risk of being caught?...​

​

I would be worried about detection, you would be worried about detection, but we don't do this sort of thing. The fears & the "turn-ons" of a stalker, a "peeping Tom", a burglar, a serial rapist, a psychopath, or a sexual sadist, etc. are vastly different from the fears & "turn-ons" of the average person.

The odds may be rare, but there is not much about this case that appears to be common.

This is when the penny drops for me. The casualness with which the perpetrator operated in the house makes no sense in the example you gave.

A man with a loaded semi automatic weapon in the basement COULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING if the parents had not simply detected Jonbenet missing from the bed and called the police to the house.

No way of knowing if Burke hadn't noticed something amiss and pretended to still be sleeping and dashed off to mom and dad's room as soon as he had gone down the stairs.

People tend to view this case in "hind sight" IOW Well the parents remained sleeping and didn't realize that something had happened until morning.

But an intruder would have no way of knowing if mom and dad weren't hysterical crying way up on the top floor of the house, cuddling Burke next to them in the bed as they dialed 911 and John searched in a closet for a baseball bat to go after him.

This is why I continually ask people to spell out the evidence. Lay it out in theory and explain step by step what you think happened.

Instead people seem to jump around like a pinball game leaping over obvious holes in the theory.


I can't comprehend an "accidental" problem with Jonbenet that would take someone into the basement with no hope of escape should the police arrive on the scene.

This scenario RELIES on the hindsight that "the parents would not wake up, Burke would not wake up" but a perp isn't going to know that in the moment.

The obvious answer to this is that there must have been TWO perps. But funny how no one has mentioned it. :truce:



Also from the autopsy report

Wooden Shards Found in Vagina. "Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF P 48-49; PMSF P 48-49.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).


I don't really understand at all how someone can say she wasn't mutilated. ????

 

[2 percent]

If IDI, the facts & the evidence do not necessitate LE's detection of an obvious point of entry.

Meaning? I don't understand this sentence.