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

[Deleted member 39678]

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.

Thanks for stating the obvious. It's easy to understand how an intruder could have entered the Ramsey home without leaving a broken lock or other physical evidence of their entry.

 

[Anti-K]

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.

IMO, the killer never intended on removing his victim from the house.
People who engage in criminal activity rarely believe that they are going to get caught. People who enjoy taking risks rarely believe that they are going to fail.

If the killer planned to commit the entirety of this crime while in the home, than the basement would have been the safest place to take her. Three floors down, and far away from eyes and ears; middle of the night, Christmas, people sleep the good sleep, they’re wiped out, and full and tired and content and what better time, what better night than this?

Is this risky? Of course. But, the time of night, the size of the house, the basement – it all goes towards minimizing that risk. Could someone have woken and discovered that Jonbenet was not in her room? Sure; but was that likely to happen? No; probably not.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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. ????

Rape victims are not usually referred to as mutilated, not even when that rape is a violent rape. Victims of asphyxiation/strangulation are not usually referred to as mutilated, and head blows are not usually referred to as mutilations. But, I understand your meaning; however, I think the word has a connotation that is this case is misleading.
.

There are a few IDIs who think that the crime was committed by two (or more) people. I don’t think that any of them post here.
.

Some IDI theorists (I’m not one of those) have suggested that the ransom note was laid out on the spiral stairs before the killer took his victim down to the basement. They think that the note was, in part, supposed to be some sort of early warning – discovery of the note would cause enough of a commotion that the killer would hear something of it and make his retreat out the basement window.
.

I have a sort of step-by-step “theory.” I think I titled it “Through the House.” I’ll see if I can find it and post it.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Okay, I found it. This was posted on some other forum, way back whenever, and it’s just one variation of a few. This one is more about determining a MINIMUM amount of time an intruder would have needed.

...

Not a theory; okay? Just an exercise, for the fun of it.

Enter home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Write note in advance on notepad removed from house, OR write note in advance to be copied into notepad in house on night of crime.

Enter home night of crime, go immediately to basement and prepare for return trip with victim – leave light on, door ajar, etc. Time: 2 or 3 minutes

Go to first floor, leave notepad (pre-written note still inside) on counter or tabletop or somewhere, OR copy pre-written note to notepad and leave notepad (with note still inside) on counter or tabletop or somewhere . Place pen in pen cup. Time: 1 to five minutes.

Continue on upstairs and nab victim. Time: 2 to 3 minutes.

Retrace steps and return to basement with victim. 1 or 2 minutes.

Construct garrote while sitting atop victim. Time: 1 or 2 minutes.

Asphyxiate. Time: 2 or 3 seconds.

Asphyxiate twice, if you think that happened. Time: up to 5 minutes.

Head blow and stun (if you think that happened). Time: 2 seconds each.
So, that’s about 22 minutes so far.

Pull down victim’s leggings, panties and pull back up and straighten out. Time: a few seconds.

Penetration. Time: a few seconds.
Wipe away blood. Time: a few seconds.
Construct and attach wrist ligatures. Time: 1 minute.
Move body to windowless room. Time: one minute.
Arrange body (blanket wrap, arms above head, tape on mouth). Time: one minute.
Now, we’re at 17 - 26 minutes.

Go back upstairs and remove note from notepad, place notepad on table and note on stairs: two minutes. That brings us to 19 – 28 minutes; let’s just say 30 minutes. Minimum amount of time needed to be in the house in an intruder’s perfect world.

Anyway, like I said this was just for fun, and out of curiosity. I did do a bit of experimentation, timing myself tying and taping, and dressing/undressing and walking up and down stairs and silly things like that – copying the ransom note, so these times have some substance to them. The bottom line of it, is that with a little bit of planning, some prep work and a touch of luck, an intruder could have easily pulled everything off in under an hour.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Thanks for stating the obvious. It's easy to understand how an intruder could have entered the Ramsey home without leaving a broken lock or other physical evidence of their entry.

Are you so sure it's easy to understand entry in this case?
If so....why was (and is) the basement window,etc made such a point of contention? Why, for that matter, is the IDI theory not the predominant theory if so many points of entry are understandable?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Are you so sure it's easy to understand entry in this case?
If so....why was (and is) the basement window,etc made such a point of contention? Why, for that matter, is the IDI theory not the predominant theory if so many points of entry are understandable?

Gaack? Yes I'm sure. The basement window is one possible point of entry not the only one. For me, entry by an intruder is the easiest part of a IDI theory to understand. MOO.

 

[Chewy]

Okay, I found it. This was posted on some other forum, way back whenever, and it’s just one variation of a few. This one is more about determining a MINIMUM amount of time an intruder would have needed.

...

Not a theory; okay? Just an exercise, for the fun of it.

Enter home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Write note in advance on notepad removed from house, OR write note in advance to be copied into notepad in house on night of crime.

Enter home night of crime, go immediately to basement and prepare for return trip with victim – leave light on, door ajar, etc. Time: 2 or 3 minutes

Go to first floor, leave notepad (pre-written note still inside) on counter or tabletop or somewhere, OR copy pre-written note to notepad and leave notepad (with note still inside) on counter or tabletop or somewhere . Place pen in pen cup. Time: 1 to five minutes.

Continue on upstairs and nab victim. Time: 2 to 3 minutes.

Retrace steps and return to basement with victim. 1 or 2 minutes.

Construct garrote while sitting atop victim. Time: 1 or 2 minutes.

Asphyxiate. Time: 2 or 3 seconds.

Asphyxiate twice, if you think that happened. Time: up to 5 minutes.

Head blow and stun (if you think that happened). Time: 2 seconds each.
So, that’s about 22 minutes so far.

Pull down victim’s leggings, panties and pull back up and straighten out. Time: a few seconds.

Penetration. Time: a few seconds.
Wipe away blood. Time: a few seconds.
Construct and attach wrist ligatures. Time: 1 minute.
Move body to windowless room. Time: one minute.
Arrange body (blanket wrap, arms above head, tape on mouth). Time: one minute.
Now, we’re at 17 - 26 minutes.

Go back upstairs and remove note from notepad, place notepad on table and note on stairs: two minutes. That brings us to 19 – 28 minutes; let’s just say 30 minutes. Minimum amount of time needed to be in the house in an intruder’s perfect world.

Anyway, like I said this was just for fun, and out of curiosity. I did do a bit of experimentation, timing myself tying and taping, and dressing/undressing and walking up and down stairs and silly things like that – copying the ransom note, so these times have some substance to them. The bottom line of it, is that with a little bit of planning, some prep work and a touch of luck, an intruder could have easily pulled everything off in under an hour.
...

AK

Again this entire scenario relies on knowing that there is no way the parents or BURKE could have woken up.

But thanks for posting it. BTW The ORs in this post take away from "step by step theory" but "prewritten note" doesn't add up with the cross outs on the note. But that's not really relevant.

I don't think you understand my point about the basement.


Yes a perpetrator would risk not being caught. I get that. YES the basement is far removed from the parents on the third floor. I get that.

But the perpetrator took her into a room in the basement where he'd have no way of knowing if anyone had woken up. Even if it took the 17-30 minutes to do the whole thing this is a person who

Went into Jonbenets bedroom and took her out. Had no way of knowing if anyone on the third floor had woken up.

But also Burke. This is why I keep pointing out Burke. The odds of three people not waking at all is very risky. One person or just mom and dad on the upper level is one thing.

He then takes the body into the basement where he cannot escape without detection if police are called to the house. He has no way of knowing what is going on in the rest of the house.

Options may include "leaving a baby monitor type device in Jonbenet's bedroom and retrieving it after the fact" or "having a co conspirator to listen"

The intruder then "s" (is the word the mods keep snipping so I wrote mutilate) the body and ties her up etc etc etc.

If we are looking at the facts laid out this way, then the entire thing needed to be premeditated. So then what theories do we have on the person that did this and what was the motive.

I'm not saying that it's not possible but when you lay out the facts, unless we're going with "Crazy person is totally insane" which certainly could be the case, we're ignoring important details here.

What was the motive?

 

[Anti-K]

No, none of it relies on “knowing that there is no way the parents or BURKE could have woken up.” It relies on knowing that it would be unlikely that the parents or Burke would wake up AND discover that Jonbenet was missing. Sure, one of three could wake up, but if they did, why would they look in Jonbenet’s room?

I do understand your point about being trapped in the basement. It’s a question of risk vs benefit. The risk should have been very, very small. The benefit? Only the killer knows that, but I suspect even a small benefit would have outweighed the rick. Yes, you may argue the precautionary principle, but if this killer reasoned like this than he would have reasoned himself out of committing this crime.

Yes, this crime was premeditated.

I’m not sure why you keep asking for theories and motives. They’ve been offered. I’ve even gone into some detail, but you act as if you’ve been given nothing.

Motive is something that we’d all like to know, but none of us do. No IDI and no RDI have solved this one. Does that mean that this crime never happened? Of course not. Someone did this and we don’t know who and we don’t know why.

Here are a few reasons the killer could have had for leaving both a ransom note and a body in the house:

1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before they discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.

2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect. <quote> &#8220;We know that offenders are more reluctant to admit sexual motives than other types of motives (e.g., profit, revenge, anger, power). Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender&#8221; <unquote> http://tinyurl.com/dxqnv

3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from himself); see my Theory if Intent

4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery; see my Theory if Intent

5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered

All of the above are also reasons the killer could have had for taking his victim to the basement. To those we add,
1) because he had nowhere else to take her
2) because he had no means of transporting her
3) because it fulfilled a fantasy, a desire
4) because, once decided to commit the crime in the house, the basement presented the least chance of being caught.

I have a theory of motive somewhere &#8211; of course. But, really, any of the above could be true; how would we know? And, really, without knowing who, how can we know why?
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

I'm assuming you don't have kids, if you ask "Why would they look Jonbenet's room?" Most parents would just by habit check on their kids in the middle of the night. But especially if the kid had a problem wetting the bed.

You ask why I keep asking for theories and motive and say they've been given and then say in the next sentence "None of us know"

The reason I ask for it be laid out is that when you have theory it can't just be "Well I think this happened over here.......and then I think this happpend" and skip it over holes in the theory.

The reason I'm asking is I am really interested in people's whole theories. I posted one in the Pasty thread. I don't know what happened. I lean towards intruder but I can see why some people don't.

I'm seriously interested in what people's ideas are. I'm not being facetious when I ask.

Each of your motives make sense. And to me if we consider each of the motives you've suggested it creates a different suspect. That's why I ask.


For example. I lean towards the first one. And this would mean that they didn't intend the parents to call the police and really intended to collect the ransom.

If this is the case they chose the 118,000 IMO for a specific reason. They figured that the Ramseys would easily be able to come up with that money.

At the same time if this is premeditated then there are some issues with them "risking' being caught in the house. You see what I mean? A person with that much premeditation would not just go in the house and "take the risk."

So this would suggest to me that two people were involved. One as a look out. Maybe one writing the ransom note while the other one mutilated the body. (Word choice for brevity)

The reason I ask for each theory to be spelled out is that when you do it that way you find mistakes in logic. When you try to solve that mistake you come up with more theories. Etc. Since the case has never been solved I think it's a good way to answer the questions.

I am leaning towards the possibility that this was a neighbor and her husband who stated they heard a scream when no one else did.

But I am also leaning towards and theory that it could have been a sick teenager. That would match some of the details that don't make sense.

 

[Tawny]

Every theory has holes, that's why there is not one solid theory that everyone can agree on.

 

[Mama2JML]

Every theory has holes, that's why there is not one solid theory that everyone can agree on.

Gotta agree with you, here, Tawny. There isn't even a consensus among LE...

 

[2 percent]

Gaack?

Pardon me, I was choking :floorlaugh:

…The basement window is one possible point of entry not the only one.

Then let's talk basement window entry...
I've asked before, how can someone enter through this window without leaving evidence all over the window? This looks like at least a 5ft drop, probably in the dark. Self preservation alone would make a person cling to surfaces until they have solid ground beneath them. Even if gloves were worn, fibers should have been all over that small, awkwardly placed window.

For me, entry by an intruder is the easiest part of a IDI theory to understand. MOO.

Great! Please explain this part of the theory because I don't find it easy at all. Maybe I'm missing something

 

[Mama2JML]

Lou Smit, under oath, in Wolf v. Ramseys:

"Q. (By Mr. Wood) Detective Smit, for reasons counsel have discussed and decided, we want to go back over some of the area you had discussed several minutes before we took our last break. And before we do that or by way of introduction into that, before, you left off your comments about the north window and moved into that portion of your presentation addressing evidence relating to what is referred to as "the train room window."
I would like to ask you, if you would tell us, please, the significance to you from a homicide investigation standpoint to the disturbance that you observed in the crime scene photos in the north window and the north window windowsill.

A. Yes, sir. The significance of these photographs is not necessarily to show entry. It is just to show disturbance.

Could our killer have tried to get in this window prior to going to the other window? I think there is evidence strongly suggested in this photograph that someone tried to get in this window and did disturb the windowsill and the frame surrounding the window, the dirt.

Q. And the disturbance that you observed on the photographs in the presentation of the north window, regardless of when that crime scene photo was actually taken, you would have expected that, if the Boulder police had properly sealed the crime scene, that that disturbance would appear in the photograph as it would have appeared on the very early morning hours of December 26, 1996, after this crime was reported. Is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. Just to clarify that. I appreciate it. If you would now pick back up from your presentation with respect to observations on the north window or moving into the -- yes, please -- the train room window.
Thank you.

A. The next area I would like to cover is the train room window itself. And, again, the reason that it is known as the train room is because there was a table in this room where Burke would play with his train set at some time. So that was always just referred to as a train room. The wine cellar, even though it wasn't a wine cellar, it was always referred to as a wine cellar.

But the train room window is located on the west portion of the basement, and there is a grate that covers a window well at that location. And if a person lifts the grate, you can go down into the window well and gain entry into the train room through that window well.

Again, this portion of the residence -- again, this is looking at the south door. There is a gas grill that is located directly adjacent to the dining room area. And just behind this gas grill is a grate which covers the window well. And that is where I believe entry was gained into the house.


Q. (By Mr. Wood) Just for orientation purposes, in which direction is the back side of the house from that view of the house; left or right?

A. The back of the house is to my left.

Q. Thank you.

A. As you are looking at the photograph, it is to your left?

Q. Thank you.

A. The front of the house is to the right.

Q. Thank you.

A. This area, by the way, is hidden from view because of the design of the library portion and also because of the dining room area. A criminal, if he was going to go into that house, would find this a very good way to get in without being observed.

The kidnap is reported at 5:53 in the morning by Patsy Ramsey. At that time, when the officers arrived, everyone should have been removed from the scene. And that did not happen. What happened, in fact, is just the opposite. People started to arrive at the scene called by the Ramseys.

The police, instead of directing these people away and preserving the scene, allowed these people to go in there, and the scene was disrupted and disturbed. And I think it had a great bearing on the case later on.

The house at that time was searched by officers that arrived at the scene; but, obviously, a thorough search was not conducted because the body of JonBenet was not found. This is the responsibility of the officers that arrived at the scene. They should have found the body. If that would have been found early on in the morning, this case would have taken an entirely different direction.

The body is found at approximately 1:00 in the afternoon by John Ramsey and Fleet White. At that time, everybody is cleared from the house. It is a crime scene. At that time, evidence tape is put up around the house, the scene is secured, a search warrant is obtained.

And the house then is reentered at 8:00 in the evening. At that time the coroner is there. A lot of different police officers are there. The crime scene technicians are there. Everybody is waiting to go into the house.

The first thing that is always done at a crime scene, and what Boulder did in this case, and it was absolutely right, is that video was taken of the crime scene and video photos and also still photos were taken of the crime scene. This is necessary in order to preserve the crime scene so that later on you can go over these photographs, which I had the opportunity to do.

This photograph that you are going to see is the very first photo and video taken of the basement train room window. And when I had first seen this photograph, it really interested me because the window leading into the basement from the window well under that grate was wide open.

Now, this photograph, when it was taken by a crime scene technician, was very obvious that it was open. No other information had really been obtained at that time about this crime scene. If I was the officer at the crime scene, I would have definitely said, This could very well be the point of entry or exit from this scene.

There was a suitcase that was directly underneath this window. There is a scuff mark down the wall, and there are leaves and debris on the floor. All of these things would have lead me to believe that someone came in the window.

Later on, we did find information that both Fleet White and John Ramsey had been around this window earlier; but at the time this photograph was taken, nobody knew that. This area should have been thoroughly protected for any evidence at all that was left behind by our killer, because he, he came in that window, he would leave something there. And if he left by that window, he would leave something there.

There is a large suitcase, again, directly below this window. This is a hard-sided suitcase. It was not there before. The Ramseys stated that it was not there before. The housekeeper that was at the Ramsey home and was later interviewed does not have that suitcase there. In fact, I believe Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey had wanted the glass cleaned up from a window that was broken at that location. No one's seen the suitcase there. There was absolutely no evidence that that suitcase was there prior to that night. And this suitcase does play a very important role in this case.

According to the police reports that I read, in Fleet White's statement, he said that this suitcase, when he first went down into the room, was located flat against this wall. In other words, right here it is perpendicular to the wall. It was flat, directly against the wall, and it would have been a perfect step for someone to step on that suitcase to go out. Again, there is no reason for that suitcase to be there.

Q. Before you leave that photograph, Detective Smit, the suitcase in this photograph appears to be what I would describe as perpendicular to the wall.

A. Yes.

Q do you agree?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you have indicated that it was flat against the wall, is that something you learned from a report given to the police by Fleet White?

A. Yes.

Q. And would "flat," for purposes of orientation, mean that the suitcase was basically parallel to the wall and up against it?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Okay. That is all I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

A. Okay.

Q. Where was it -- oh, one other question. Did you learn from the housekeeper or the Ramseys where that suitcase was normally kept?

A. Normally, it had been kept upstairs in the guest bedroom, but I believe it had been moved down into the basement area but almost directly adjacent to the stairwell that goes upstairs. Not in this area here at all.

Q. Thank you.

A. No other suitcases were found in that room, and they, again, said that that is not where suitcases were kept. And I will talk more about the suitcase later.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Leaves and debris -- I mentioned this just slightly before. Leaves and debris from the window well were observed on the floor directly below the open window. When that area is blown up -- and, again, there were very few photographs taken of this area. This is one of the very few that actually depicted the suitcase. I did blow this photograph up to show where there are potentially leaves and debris on the floor.
And there are leaves and debris located around that suitcase. These leaves and debris were from the window well, according to an officer's report.

There was a mark on the wall directly below this open window, and this is very significant, also. This mark on the wall is in an area where I have gone through that window many, many times, and gone both through it coming in and going through it going out. When I come into that basement area from the window well, that is just almost exactly where my foot goes down that wall.

When we did it, we put a board in front of there so we wouldn't disturb that mark, but that is just where my foot went. And when I observed other officers going in there, that is where their foot went.

So then we have to look outside the window. Is there a disturbance there? If there is disturbance inside the window, there should be disturbance outside the window. And here is what we find. There is a grate that covers that window well, and it is a metal grate. And when you -- this is the very first photograph that was taken of that grate. And when you look at this photograph, you can see under the leading edge -- this is the edge here that pivots here towards the rear, but this is the leading edge, and there is all kinds of foliage that was around that particular window well. This foliage is green.

And what you observe by this photograph, by looking at this closely, is that there are leaves and debris trapped under this leading edge of this grate, leading me to believe that the grate was opened and closed, and it pinched the greenery right under the front portion of that grate. And it is shown very, very clearly here in this photograph.

The window well. After the photograph was taken of the grate, then the grate is lifted up, and they take photographs of the window well. And this is the first photograph taken of the bottom portion of that window well that leads into the train room window.

This photograph shows me that there is disturbance on the cement portion of the window well. It is very clear, something has been wiped across these particular areas. There is also what I call impression marks in the dirt on the windowsill itself. The dirt and debris in the window well is moved to the side on both sides of this center window. There are basically three windows here. There is a window to the right, which has a screen on it with a great deal of debris in front of it. There is a window to the left which also has debris in front of it. And I will show that a little later. But it is actually a combination of three windows.

This center window had been the window that was open when the first photograph was taken. When this photograph is taken at this location at this time, someone had closed that window.

This slide shows all three windows in a collage. And what it is is that it shows a pattern of disturbance in the bottom of this window well. The main disturbance is in front of the center window. If you will notice real closely, you will also see something else by this photograph. The grate rests on a frame. It is a metal frame that goes all the way around the window well. You will notice that there is green foliage right on top of this metal portion that the grate rests on. This is what the front portion of the grate was resting on. Someone, or somehow, the grate had been lifted and the foliage was then pinched underneath that grate.

This is a close-up photograph of the left window. And when you really look at this photograph closely, it tells you a story. What you can see real clearly here is that there is disturbance, some disturbance on the cement right in front of that window. There is some disturbance there. But what you also see on this photograph is autumn leaves and debris on that windowsill.

When I look at this photograph, I can say with certainty that no one went in that window that evening. The leaves and debris are still in front of the window. There is no disturbance on the windowsill. If someone would have entered that particular window, these leaves would have been gone and the debris would have been disturbed.

This is a very close-up of that. And again, you can see all of the leaves, autumn leaves there. And I reason that I stress "autumn leaves" is because John Ramsey, in the early summer, had also gone in that window. And I am -- not in that window, but in the center window in order to get in his house one time. The way that I recall the reports reading was that John Ramsey had been locked out of the house and that he had actually removed his clothing, including his shoes, and had gone through that window in order to gain entry into the house. In so doing, he broke that window. That was a broken window. And, also, another reason why an intruder, if he came there, would see this, the window being broken, especially if had he any experience at all, would indicate that that was not alarmed, and that someone could gain entrance in there without an alarm. There were alarm stickers on various doors and windows of that house.

But the autumn leaves, the importance of that is that autumn leaves are against this left window and also in the window well.

Here is the right window. Again, there is a screen on the window. There is a lot of debris in front. Obviously, no one went in this particular window.

You can see some area of disturbance just to the left towards the center window, and perhaps whoever went in that window also disturbed that area.

Q. If I could ask you to go back to that last photograph, Detective Smit.

A. (Complies).

Q. The white debris or material depicted in the orange circle, what are those items of debris?

A. Those are what are called popcorn packing peanuts.

Q. Styrofoam?

A. They were Styrofoam peanuts.

Q. Like would fall out of a box when it has been packed sometimes?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you.

A. They are very light in weight, and there was a large accumulation of those in this photograph. Here is, again, a picture of the center window. When you compare it against the other two, look at the absence of debris that is in front of this center window. Something or someone had gone through this window. Again, it had to be recent. These are fresh marks. There are no leaves and debris up against the bottom part, portion of that window frame. Leaves and debris in front of this window suggest very strongly that somebody went in that window and deposited those leaves and debris there.

This is a close-up of the actual windowsill. Again, you see all kinds of impressions in the dirt and debris -- actually, the dirt on that windowsill. The debris is gone. If you will notice right here, and I am going to bring that up a little bit later, there is one popcorn packing peanut right there in that corner. But notice the impressions that are made on the windowsill.

This, again, is a close-up photograph of the left windowsill. Compare that windowsill with the one we have just seen. No leaves and debris. No leaves and debris against the frame. A lot of leaves and debris. White marks on the center windowsill. No white marks on the left windowsill.

Here is a comparison that was made. What happened was that, in June of 1997, members of the Boulder Police Department and the District Attorney's office had an opportunity to go back into the Ramsey residence. At that time, there was an experiment conducted whereby a person would go into the right window. The screen was taken off. And one of the members of the Boulder Police Department went through that window. And I would like to show that.

This is what it looked like on the photographs taken right after the body was discovered and that the crime scene was being investigated.

This is after an officer -- we took photographs of what it looked like after an officer went in that window.

Q. The right window?

A. Into the right window.

Q. And this was part of a Boulder Police Department investigative effort here with respect to what you are describing here in 1997?

A. Yes. That is true.

Q. Okay. A. And what you will notice here again, look at the similarities to the impressions and marks on the windowsill.

First of all, all of that debris, or a great majority of the debris that had been right up against that window was gone. It was deposited on the floor directly below that window when the officer went in. Also what you see is disturbance on the cement portion in front of that window, just a little bit of disturbance, but you see the actual impressions in the debris on the windowsill itself.

Compare those with the ones taken at the crime scene right after the murder. This is the center window on December of 1996. This is when entry was gained in June of 1997. Again, look at the similarities in the impressions.

Now, a question has been asked: If you just have impressions like that, how do you know that a person went in there? Usually, when a person slides across a window well, you are going to have a nice wipe mark, or any other purpose, by your butt going across that windowsill, and it is not here. You don't see a nice clear white mark there. But that is explained, and it is very easily explained by this. Directly inside of the window, right where it enters the basement, there is approximately a three-quarter inch lip right on the inside. And I will depict that with the pointer, and then we will get a closer look up of that. When you slide across that particular area, you cannot leave a nice little wipe mark there because you have to get your butt up over that particular obstruction. It is approximately three-quarters of an inch high, and it is a metal lip that is around all the window --

Q. All three?

A. -- all three windows.

And this here is a picture that was taken, actually, in my presence on December of 1999. This shows that lip a lot better. In other words, when are you sliding yourself across that particular area, it is hard to make a nice complete wipe mark because of this particular lip there. Here is another little observation. It is an observation, but it is also a clue left by the killer. If you look very closely at the windowsill itself in the bottom -- or in the middle window, you are going to see where there is a lot of dirt and debris on the leading edge of that sill. This is the leading edge of the sill that is in the windowsill, on both sides. But, yet, in the middle, there are areas there that are shiny which appears as though something did go across that particular area disturbing the dirt in that area.

Q. And that photograph is from the December '96 crime scene photos?

A. That is from the December of '96 crime scene photos.

Q. Let me ask you, Detective Smit, the disturbance that you see, the impressions, you have indicated you thought they were recent?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you base that conclusion on, that the impressions in the center window were recent?

A. I base that on a couple of things. One is the lack of the autumn leaves and debris in front of that window. And another thing is, too, if you have an exposed area like a window well for any length of time, you are going to get an even distribution of dirt and debris on that windowsill. It is going to be black. It is going to have all kinds of small particles on it. You are going to have pine leaves on there from the trees surrounding the Ramsey house. What looks fresh to me -- and, again, I have observed many, many, probably thousands of photographs -- is the fact that there is even a shiny area like this in the center of that middle window that does show what I call very fresh disturbance.

Q. And does it show any new accumulation of leaves or debris?

A. No. There is no new accumulation of leaves or debris.

Q. Thank you.

A. Here is another observation. Is it a clue that the killer left behind? Again, when you look at photographs for a long period of time, every time you look at them, you see other areas interest. And in this case, there is a shard of glass. And I will point it out first with the pointer, and I will blow it up. This shard of glass is laying, actually, in the window well itself, but it is resting against the bottom portion of that windowsill area. And one important thing about this shard of glass is the shape. And if you will look, you will see that there is a very pointed end on this shape. And it will also, also on the windowsill in one of the lighter areas, there is that same pointed shape. The same configuration as on the glass is on the disturbed portion of that windowsill.

Q. What significance does it have to you? A. The significance it has for me is that this piece of glass was, most likely, lying in the area that is depicted in the bare portion of that windowsill. You can see it better on the enlarged diagram.

Again, look at the shape and look at the exposed area. If that piece of glass had been lying in that particular area and not disturbed, it would be covered with dirt and debris, and you would not have had that light area underneath it because the dirt and debris would have been on the shard of glass. It appears to me as though this shard of glass was moved from that location to this location rather recently. Because if it was a long time, then all of this area that seems clear of debris would have been covered with dirt.

If you look at it very closely, and by the use of the computer, this is what or where the piece of glass most likely was prior to it being moved recently.

And, again, does this mean that the killer went in there or out of there? I don't know. All I can say is what the photographs show me. It shows a disturbance. You can't -- you can't go against what photographs show you. It is a disturbance in the window well.

These photographs are not manufactured. This is something that is taken at the crime scene. The photographs are trying to tell us a story, and we have to interpret them.

Again, was this piece of glass disturbed when a person possibly went out the window? Or went in the window? It is just part of a story. And one of the many little things which point to me that a person did go in that window in a very close proximity of time to the murder. I can't say it was that night. No one can say that. But I can say it was very recent. But no one can also say that no one went in that window. That is the important part.

Observed on the center window, the frame is taken out; this window frame is taken out and it is preserved as evidence.

Q. By the Boulder Police Department?

A. By the Boulder Police Department.

Again, if you will notice, this is the window that John Ramsey broke in early summer. Notice how dirty these windows are. That is an observation. Notice how dirty the windows are. There are four panes of glass in this window.

Q. Let me ask you, Detective Smit, would you highlight with your marker the pane that was broken by Mr. Ramsey when he went in that window back in the summer of 1996? A. Yes, sir. This is the glass that was broken. And there had been quite a bit of glass below this window at one time, but it had been picked up.

Q. Would you have been able -- one would have been able to put their hand through that broken pane and unlatched that window from that area?

A. Yes. In fact, it is very easy. You can unlatch it right from the right-hand side there and just unlatch that area very easily. That is how John Ramsey got in before.

Page 210

Q. After he broke the window pane, he reached in and unlatched it; is that your understanding?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you.

A. But, again, I am just pointing out how dirty these windows are.

I will have to back up here just a second.

If you will notice, if a person went in that window, he would also have to touch it in order to push it open. So that is one of the things I looked for on the photograph in order to determine if someone may have disturbed any other area on the window. And at the top of the window, I do notice that there is a slight disturbance.

And so, with the use of the computer, I can blow that area up. And you can see it a little more clearly right here in this photograph. And then, when that area is focussed in on, that is what it looks like as far as disturbance on the actual window frame itself. This is a window frame. Something disturbed the dust and debris on that window. It didn't happen by itself.

Also, if you look very closely, you will see what appears to be perhaps a partial either a fingerprint or perhaps a glove print that is in that same area.

If you change the focus just a little bit, the contrast, you can actually see this mark on the window just a little bit easier. It is more pronounced. There is another area that is seen on the window frame. Right in the area of where there is the disturbance that looks like it is perhaps a print of somebody trying to push on is another area where there is a pattern mark. And right where my pointer is pointed right now is the area that I am talking about. When that is blown up, you see a pattern mark in the debris and the dirt on that window.

Again, this does not happen by itself. This is not a natural thing. Something had to be pressed against that area in order to make that pattern mark. Again, when did it occur? I can't say.

But if it had been there for any length of time, that would have been filled in by dirt and debris.

Here is one of the window panes. And I really had to look for this one. I didn't see it right away. But after looking at the photographs for a long time, this is a very dusty, dirty window. And, yet, if you look right in the -- if somebody touched this window, they should leave a mark on it. And right here on the window, if you look very closely, you will see a definite disturbance in the dust in the window at that location.

If you blow it up, you can even see it clearer. Again, this is dust on a dirty window. This is a disturbance in that dust that looks like a finger mark. Is it a fingerprint? I can't tell. Were prints taken of that area? I can't tell, and I have never seen a report where fingerprints were taken. Could it be a glove mark? I don't know.

Just above it, also, there is another one, if you look very closely. Just above it there is another print and disturbance on the window pane.

Q. Is it a clue?

A. It is a clue. All of these things you have to look at as clues.

Q. And are these --

A. Go ahead.

Q. Are these the kinds of observations and clues that a trained and experienced homicide investigator would be expected to look for in reviewing, carefully and meticulously, crime scene photographs?

A. Yes, especially --

Q. This isn't just Lou Smit's way of approaching it; is it?

A. No, it is not Lou Smit's way of approaching it. It is how you solve crimes. You have to look for the small, little, what would seemingly be an insignificant disturbance or something on a photograph that stands out that you have to, just by a trained eye, observe.

Again, most of the time, it is done in whodunit type crimes, because you go over these photographs all the time. And again, I didn't see it right away; but, again, it is clear, something touched that window. And in my estimation, it was very recent.

Again, with a little higher contrast, perhaps you can see it a little easier. This is a print in question. This is a print in question. Something touched that window and disturbed that dust on that window.

And I guess I have said it before, but I can only say it. Can I say that a person went through that window that night? No, I can't say that night. But can a person tell me that nobody went through that window? Absolutely not. Something happened in order to disturb the dust and debris on that window.

Q. What is suggested by that information?

A. It is suggested very strongly that someone came in that window. And there are fresh leaves and debris right below that window, and there is a mark on that wall. It suggests very strongly. It is just not one little thing that suggests this to me. If it was just one little thing, I would say, Okay, maybe not. But when you have little clues after little clues after little clues, and they all show that somebody came in that window, you better pay attention to that. At least it tells a detective which way to go. It shows them a path to follow. If somebody came in that window, it is not somebody in the house.

Items in the wine cellar which may have come from the window well. Again, observations, clues. This here is the train room window. This is the wine cellar. Items were -- from the window well, which could have come from the window well, are found in the wine cellar. The wind wouldn't blow these in, because it has to go through the whole room, through a door, through another door, and through another door. I doubt --

Q. That --

A. -- the wind would do that.

Q. That window is below ground level, too; isn't it? A. And the window is below ground level. Again, these packing peanuts are seen all throughout the window well. There is even one in the center window. That is the only thing that is in there.

Numerous pieces of popcorn-type material, Styrofoam. I have gone in and out of that window, other people have gone in and out of there in my presence. When I look at their clothing after they have gone in there, the popcorn peanuts, and on myself as well, adhere to your clothing. The static electricity will cause them to adhere. Many times I have had to wipe them off my pants.

Q. And where was the popcorn Styrofoam packing material found in the basement?

A. Okay. A lab report indicates a piece of popcorn-type material was found in the wine cellar.

Q. That is where JonBenet's body was found? A. That is where JonBenet's body was found. Again, this is a photograph. There are not hundreds of pieces of popcorn in there. But what appears to me that could be the popcorn, and I don't know this for a fact, only by going by the lab report, but right in this area there is what appears to be perhaps a Styrofoam popcorn peanut.

Q. And the lab report was a report prepared by the Boulder Police Department?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does that report the type of data or information that a homicide investigator would reasonably rely upon in the course of a homicide investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. Again, how would it get in there unless it was carried in?

A leaf may not mean much to a lot of people, but is it a clue left behind by the killer? Many leaves in this window well, autumn leaves. And you can see them very clearly in the photograph that you have.

In the wine cellar right next to very fresh prints in that mold is a leaf. Again, does it mean anything? Don't just throw that leaf away and say it doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it means a lot. There is not a lot of leaves in this room, but there is one. It is autumn. Somebody tracked in an autumn leaf into that room. This is right on top, basically, of a print, a fresh print in the mold. Did somebody track something in there from the window well? Does that point back at that window well? Sure, it could very well point back at that window well. Just don't throw it away.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q. The white material in that photograph, is that the mold that you are referring to?

A. Yes. All of this white material is the mold that actually almost grows from the floor of this damp basement by humidity and by just the actual chemical composition of the moldy material.

Q. Is that the mold that you earlier in your testimony today referred to was found in various patches in the wine cellar both on the floor and even on the wall?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Unique to that room in the basement?

A. It was unique to that room in the basement.

Q. Thank you.

A. The suitcase -- again, I am going back to the suitcase. If someone would have stood on that suitcase, again, there should be some little clue that a person did this, some disturbance to that suitcase, something on that suitcase which
would draw your eye to that.


Again, if someone was going to go out that window, I would go and probably put a suitcase or something there to stand on. And one of the reasons is this. You can see the open window, but this window does not open all the way because it is blocked by a soffit up here on the top of the window. It just opens partially, and then you have the soffit on the window. This is not a big area. This is not a large area that you can go through. It is about a 20-inch area when that thing is opened all the way.

To lever yourself up -- this is approximately five feet from the floor where that bottom part of that window is. To lever yourself up into that window takes some effort in order to get it just right so that you can lever yourself up there. By standing on a suitcase -- many times I have gone through there with ease; no problem. You stand on the suitcase, right into the window well, and right out of that area.

Q. Detective Smit, you referenced the fact that the window in the middle is a small area, not a large area. But you have made the comment on several occasions in your testimony that you have on several occasions yourself gone both in and out of that window. Is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Was that done during the time that you were employed by the Boulder District Attorney's office as well as after the time you left the D.A.'s office?

A. Yes. I have actually spent more time in there after.

Q. There has been some media comment, tabloid or otherwise, that would indicate that someone would have to be a midget to get in or out of that window. Are you familiar with that statement that has been made about that window?

A. Yes, I have. And that is just misinformation.

Q. How tall are you?

A. I am 5'9".

Q. And your weight?

A. Approximately 160.

Q. Did you have any trouble getting into that window?

A. No trouble at all getting in. And I have seen larger people, 6 foot and larger, 200, 221 pounds, go right in that window well.

Q. People involved in the investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you actually allow an NBC camera crew, as well as a film crew for producers Mills and Tracey, to film you coming through that window?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. I did. This is actually a picture of me standing on another suitcase afterwards, and just to show you the relationship of how a person would approach the window and step on a suitcase and go out.

Q. And is that also an accurate depiction of the arrangement of the suitcase as described by Fleet White before it was turned by him perpendicular to the wall? A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. That is just the way it would have been.

Q. Thank you.

A. There was no close-up photograph of the actual top of that suitcase, but there was a video taken which clearly showed the suitcase, a view inside the window well, and also the video camera panned down to the top of the suitcase. And the reason, I believe, that it panned down there is because there was something on the suitcase that drew the person that was taking the video's attention. And this was a very small piece of glass. So I took out a frame of the video and turned it into, basically, a still photograph. And that is what it depicts. This area right here, where the pointer is, in that area there is a very small, tiny piece of glass. It is almost the size of a pea, even a small pea. Now, that may not mean much when you first look at it, but it tells me a couple of things. No. 1 is that, if that suitcase would have been moved a lot during the course of the evening, that would have fallen off. So that suitcase was probably not moved too much before that piece of glass was put on there. The second thing it tells me is that many times, in working burglary scenes and where entry has been gained, even on homicides, we always have search warrants and searches for the shoes of the suspect because many times if a window is broken, they do walk in the glass, and glass is on their shoe. And many times a piece of glass, just like this, can come off the bottom of a shoe.

If you look at that photograph for any length of time, you are going to see something else that is on that photograph, and I didn't see it right away either. If a person stood on there, there should be some disturbance on the top of that suitcase.

If you look very closely with a higher setting -- I am going to back that up just one. If you look very closely, you are going to see an impression on the top of that suitcase. Something disturbed the dirt and debris on top of that suitcase. There wasn't much debris on it to begin with, but something caused these marks to be on the top of the suitcase.

With a higher contrast setting, you can see it much clearer. Something disturbed that. Was it somebody standing on that suitcase for some reason? Did someone stand on that suitcase? All I can say is that the photographs tell a story. You just can't throw it away. Is it another little piece of evidence that is a part of this crime scene?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There is another thing that I did after I left the official investigation. We left the window closed for a period of approximately six weeks.

Q. This would be the center window?

A. The center window. We went back in in December of 1999. We had left the window closed for approximately six weeks. When we opened the window, we took a picture of the bottom of this window frame, and what we observed was many little areas where there are cobwebs and little pieces of debris that were hanging down from the lower portion. This is usually because of spiders and things in that particular area. They will weave their webs anywhere that they can, and this is probably evidence of a spider that had a web there. This is a picture -- right after we took the picture of the spiderwebs hanging down, I went through that window to the outside as if a person had left through that window. And this is a picture taken after I went through, and you will notice that all of the leaves and the debris in small areas are gone.

Q. Meaning the cobwebs?

A. The cobwebs. And the reason they are gone is because they rubbed on my clothing as I went out. It was just small enough for my clothing to come in contact with the bottom portion.

And you say, Well, what is the significance of that? In the first photograph that was taken at the scene -- this is the only photograph I have, but I see no cobwebs hanging down from that open window. Could that mean that a person did go out that window and did rub them off? I can't say positively, but it is just another clue that is left behind that shows me that someone very easily could have done this. You keep adding on these small clues continuously, and it makes a very big clue that a person came in that window. Now, are the footprint, the small piece of glass on the suitcase, the open window, the disturbance in the window well, no cobwebs, all of these things, every one of these little snapshots and every one of these little photographs, are they just clues that are left behind by the killer? Again, you can't just throw it away.

I said before that one of the things that a police officer does and a detective does on a scene is not only say that a person did it, but also what a defense would say in case you did arrest somebody. They would come up with the same photographers. They would see the same things we did because they would be going over every piece of evidence, and they also would say a person came in the window. You have to be able to defend that."​

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9947"]Lou Smit Deposition - Wolf Case - January 9, 2002 - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[2 percent]

Mama2JML
I'm familiar with Smit's claims and repetition doesn't make for a better story.
His concentration is on debris and a scuff on the wall. He flirts with but doesn't really commit to the glove/fingerprints on the window. He claims a butt had to maneuver over a lip but doesn't account for the lack of fibers rubbing over that lip would produce. In other words while the debris means everything because it had to be brought in from outside, the lack of fiber evidence on a rough, admittedly scraped area was completely ignored or disregarded because it didn't fit his theory.That is the sign of an investigator with an agenda.

None of this addresses the lack of fiber evidence but it was good reading

 

[Darly314]

With the BPD so convinced of the Ramsey's guilt, was existing evidence possibly ignored or discounted? Note, I am fairly 'NEW' at posting here; came to believe the Ramseys did not NOT commit this heinous crime only after reading more & more over the years. The garrotte does not fit either parent, nor a 9 year old. But, I would not rule anyone out at this point, though I am "IDI".

 

[2 percent]

With the BPD so convinced of the Ramsey's guilt, was existing evidence possibly ignored or discounted? Note, I am fairly 'NEW' at posting here; came to believe the Ramseys did not NOT commit this heinous crime only after reading more & more over the years. The garrotte does not fit either parent, nor a 9 year old. But, I would not rule anyone out at this point, though I am "IDI".

Welcome!!:loveyou:

 

[Darly314]

Welcome!!:loveyou:

Though I believe at this time the Ramsey family was not DIRECTLY involved, it seems likely at least JR has suspicions. Maybe he voiced them to LE. Certainly that "little bit of" DNA was enough to help clear Karr real quick.

 

[2 percent]

Though I believe at this time the Ramsey family was not DIRECTLY involved, it seems likely at least JR has suspicions. Maybe he voiced them to LE. Certainly that "little bit of" DNA was enough to help clear Karr real quick.

Although confrontation may be tough, try to stick through it and grow a rhino hide. We are in this for JonBenet, for justice. Any contribution may be the one that helps.

 

[Darly314]

Although confrontation may be tough, try to stick through it and grow a rhino hide. We are in this for JonBenet, for justice. Any contribution may be the one that helps.

I do it for a living, confrontation is too EASY for me; I want to improve the "open mind" approach. Still, the method of killing suggests a killer that wanted to "send a message"; yes, LE checked hundreds of prints....but how many enemies could JR have made in his years as a hard line businessman?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Mama2JML

I'm familiar with Smit's claims and repetition doesn't make for a better story.

His concentration is on debris and a scuff on the wall. He flirts with but doesn't really commit to the glove/fingerprints on the window. He claims a butt had to maneuver over a lip but doesn't account for the lack of fibers rubbing over that lip would produce. In other words while the debris means everything because it had to be brought in from outside, the lack of fiber evidence on a rough, admittedly scraped area was completely ignored or disregarded because it didn't fit his theory.That is the sign of an investigator with an agenda.



None of this addresses the lack of fiber evidence but it was good reading

And true and from a good source. He is an outstanding detective and knew his stuff.




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