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

[Darly314]

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.

I believe it is fact that there were people roaming in and out for at least a few hours; who cleaned up/smeared what areas is up for grabs. And as I do not discount individuals known by the Ramseys, the killer may have been one of the "roamers".

 

[Junebug99]

So true Scarlett. He was damn good at his job, his record proves it. I cringe at the Smit bashing. He was and still is highly respected, except of course by the RDI'S, who slam him every chance they get. Like I said his record speaks for itself, there is no way to deny that.

 

[Mama2JML]

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

What makes you think my post was for you? :facepalm:

 

[Junebug99]

If I was going to stage a crime scene where an intruder breaks into my house, my first thought would be an obvious point of entry. I would know if there was no point of entry I would have some explaining to do.

 

[Tawny]

Kolar was a damn good detective as well. He gets bashed on the regular, so it really goes both ways.

 

[Chewy]

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

The answer will have no holes. That's my point.

 

[Anti-K]

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.

I’ve had children, but everyone is all grown up, now.

I don’t know anyone who made or makes it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their sleeping children. Maybe when they were babies, but not when they were five and/or nine (if a stranger, the killer would not have known about bed wetting).

The risk was small. Yes, the consequences of being discovered while he was (trapped) in the basement could have been huge, but the risk was small. Risk vs Benefit (the Precautionary Principle does not apply).

Regardless, if IDI, then this killer was obviously willing to take whatever risk he needed to take so that he could accomplish whatever it was that he wanted to accomplish. Children have been grabbed by offenders while they were playing in their own yard, on the school ground, in the mall, with people (security cams, etc) all around and how risky is that? Still, it happens.

The risk of being trapped in the basement shouldn’t be an objection to IDI, it should be a clue, an indicator of sorts; it should tell us something about the killer.
.

If you think that someone can easily come up with $118,000.00 than you should think that they can easily come up with $200,000.00; especially if you’ve based the $118,000.00 on the bonus amount!
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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

Transfer of fibers would not have been a necessary condition of entry. This is an unrealistic expectation.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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 Darly341.

...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If I was going to stage a crime scene where an intruder breaks into my house, my first thought would be an obvious point of entry. I would know if there was no point of entry I would have some explaining to do.

Yes, absolutely. One of the first things you would think of is to provide a means of entry. At the very least you would tell the police that the doors were not locked.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The answer will have no holes. That's my point.

I think your expectations are set too high.

I can understand this position when it comes to RDI, but IDI is really nothing more than “an unknown subject committed this crime for an unknown reason.” An unknown reason because it’s an unknown subject. If the subject was known – a Ramsey for instance – then we should expect to be able to fill almost all of those holes; but, with an unknown subject...? Good luck.
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

If an IDI you solve it by filling in the holes, not just ignoring them to play around with theories. Someone did this, so there has to be an answer.

 

[2 percent]

What makes you think my post was for you? :facepalm:

It was obvious.
But if I'm wrong I, of course, apologize.

 

[2 percent]

So true Scarlett. He was damn good at his job, his record proves it. I cringe at the Smit bashing. He was and still is highly respected, except of course by the RDI'S, who slam him every chance they get. Like I said his record speaks for itself, there is no way to deny that.

I don't bash him. I also don't dip him in gold.
He was a good investigator but by no means perfect as the reading of that testimony proves. I've read dozens of criminal, divorce and civil transcripts and can spot a snow job a mile away - spouting theory while being questioned by a friendly Ramsey lawyer with no objection from the other side hardly lends credibility.

 

[2 percent]

Transfer of fibers would not have been a necessary condition of entry. This is an unrealistic expectation.
...

AK

Smit set the standard, though. If a transfer of outside debris almost proves the intruder theory all by itself, then a decided lack of fiber transfer on and around the exact same evidentiary area, an area he admits was touched and sat upon, must disprove the intruder theory all by itself. Fiber evidence is most certainly expected by me when clothing scrapes and rubs against a rough surface as Smit theorized it would.

Debris was undoubtedly transferred but there is no clear timeline when it occurred. And it's mere presence doesn't prove it was the point of entry, either, since it could be part of the staging.

 

[Chewy]

Smit set the standard, though. If a transfer of outside debris almost proves the intruder theory all by itself, then a decided lack of fiber transfer on and around the exact same evidentiary area, an area he admits was touched and sat upon, must disprove the intruder theory all by itself. Fiber evidence is most certainly expected by me when clothing scrapes and rubs against a rough surface as Smit theorized it would.

Debris was undoubtedly transferred but there is no clear timeline when it occurred. And it's mere presence doesn't prove it was the point of entry, either, since it could be part of the staging.

This is not necessarily true. Lack of transfer fiber only disproves that an intruder came in through that window.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kolar was a damn good detective as well. He gets bashed on the regular, so it really goes both ways.

That's because he just stretches things way to far. He has things he puts forth as fact that are just opinion and his theory involves a 9 yr old boy.

Did Kolar actually participate in the case? Or just write about it?

Smit worked both sides of the case. He worked for the da first. He was an incredible investigator.



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

 

[Chewy]

I always think it's strange that people think Smit would be "paid off" to twist it to make it look like the Ramseys' were innocent. As if a detective wouldn't want to be able for taking credit for solving the crime of the century. LOL

Meanwhile the guy who very obviously wrote a sensationalized book to MAKE MONEY is held up as an expert. I don't get it?

 

[Mama2JML]

Smit set the standard, though. If a transfer of outside debris almost proves the intruder theory all by itself, then a decided lack of fiber transfer on and around the exact same evidentiary area, an area he admits was touched and sat upon, must disprove the intruder theory all by itself. Fiber evidence is most certainly expected by me when clothing scrapes and rubs against a rough surface as Smit theorized it would.

Debris was undoubtedly transferred but there is no clear timeline when it occurred. And it's mere presence doesn't prove it was the point of entry, either, since it could be part of the staging.

During the 1998 LE interviews, Patsy Ramsey was questioned about "cotton" & a "Santa suit", relative to the window sill. Is there a credible source, within/close to the investigation, supporting your argument re: a lack of fiber evidence collected from the window in question?

 

[Chewy]

I’ve had children, but everyone is all grown up, now.

I don’t know anyone who made or makes it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their sleeping children. Maybe when they were babies, but not when they were five and/or nine (if a stranger, the killer would not have known about bed wetting).

True about the bed wetting. But I think you are splitting hairs here. I didn't say parents regularly wake up at night to check on their children. YOU said that why would the parents check on Jonbenet if they woke up. I pointed out that most parents would check on their children if they woke up in the middle of the night. I guess you know every single parent who wouldn't do this, but most people wouldn't think twice about doing this with a child her age.

The risk was small. Yes, the consequences of being discovered while he was (trapped) in the basement could have been huge, but the risk was small. Risk vs Benefit (the Precautionary Principle does not apply).

You say the risk was small. But this is what I mean about jumping from one side of a theory to another. A premeditated murder by someone who knew them and preplanned this would not just "take the risk" when it came to being detected in the house.

I've offered two possibilities of solutions to this but you keep dismissing them and saying that a person premeditated this whole scheme and did it to get the attention of the FBI with some ulterior motive in place, planned down to the terminology in the ransom note..... and then just decided to "risk it" when it came to being detected in the house? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Regardless, if IDI, then this killer was obviously willing to take whatever risk he needed to take so that he could accomplish whatever it was that he wanted to accomplish. Children have been grabbed by offenders while they were playing in their own yard, on the school ground, in the mall, with people (security cams, etc) all around and how risky is that? Still, it happens.

We're not talking about children abducted in malls. We're talking about a child abducted in her home. Please stop using irrelevant scenarios to make some sort of a case.

The risk of being trapped in the basement shouldn’t be an objection to IDI, it should be a clue, an indicator of sorts; it should tell us something about the killer.

I've been saying the exact same thing??? I've also pointed out that to me this scenario indicates that there were TWO intruders. If there were two intruders then the neighbors who heard the scream are very suspicious to me.
.

If you think that someone can easily come up with $118,000.00 than you should think that they can easily come up with $200,000.00; especially if you’ve based the $118,000.00 on the bonus amount!
...

Not necessarily true. Liquid assets is not the same as net worth. A bonus check is a much more likely amount to be accessible as opposed to $200,000

AK[/QUOTE]