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

[THE BUNK]

Which of the Ramseys would be brutal enough to use the garrotte? I can envision someone hating one, or both, of the parents enough to hurt them through their children; as for fibers, did BPD do a thorough check? They bellieve they had the killer(s) right away.

1. If they believes she was dead already , brutality has nothing to do with it. They are desecrating a corpse to protect their family. So in that regard, both Patsy, John or JAR would be willing to garrote the body to hide the crime.

2. If it was murder via the garrotte...Burke would be the most likely. He already struck her once before. He also seemed not to broken up by her death. Sibling Rivalry can bring out the worst in people. The more I think about it, Burke is probably the only person that actually hated JonBenet.

 

[THE BUNK]

Which of the Ramseys would be brutal enough to use the garrotte?

Why would using a garrotte necessarily be more brutal than other forms of murder? They used rope, not piano or violin wire. Strangling someone with rope is further down on my list of brutal ways to kill someone.

 

[Darly314]

I have yet to see a molester give a flying crap about anything but their needs.
If it was about sexual gratification, brutality doesn't matter. Sorry to say...

True, but which of the Ramseys IS a molester? They have avoided detection, and that type of offender, REoffends. I can see the mother hitting the child, but the garrotte is a slow way to make death even more horrendous. Again, I am "IDI" at this point, but I believe there is strong possibility the intruder had been a welcome GUEST in the past.

 

[THE BUNK]

True, but which of the Ramseys IS molester? They have avoided detection, and that type of offender, REoffenders. I can see the mother hitting the child, but the garrotte is a slow way to make death even more horrendous. Again, I am "IDI" at this point, but I believe there is strong possibility the intruder had been a welcome GUEST in the past.

What guest would the Ramsey's go to such great lengths to hide and protect? At the risk of going to jail rather than just exposing this guest as the true murderer?

 

[Chewy]

So, you’re saying “parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” as opposed to “parents make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children?” Or, am I still not understanding you?

Yes but either way it is IRRELEVANT because an intruder would have NO WAY of knowing the parents night habits with their kids unless they had stalked them.

“Parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” would present less of a risk to the killer than “parents who make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children.”

So, your position in this regard (unless I am still misunderstanding you), actually a weaker objection than I originally thought.

The fact that you are focused on the semantics of this issue is baffling to me. It has nothing to do with anything.
.

As far as your point that the killer” would have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE:” I haven’t missed it at all. I’ve addressed it more than once. Risk vs benefit, etc. Others have also addressed this: the killer may have been prepared to assault/murder, etc anyone and everyone if he was caught in the act. The killer may have left the ransom note on the stairs as an early warning system before taking his victim down to the basement. Etc.
...

Sorry but this is a nonsense counterpoint. As I said before. The intruder went all the way into the basement with the body and cornered themselves into a room with only a window as a means of escape.

You keep acting like "so what" it doesn't matter but have yet to address why you would think that someone who had so much premeditation in this case would take such a stupid risk in the middle of it.

After they got Jonbenet downstairs, at ANY POINT they could have been trapped with the body. The argument that they "could have had weapons" is a stupid argument in my opinion. You could have a machine gun with you and that's not going to do you a bit of good if the parents stayed on the third floor and called the cops.

 

[Darly314]

Garrottes, in the past have used to "send messages" among criminals. Also, more complex than hands, strand of rope or wire. A 9 year old is not apt to think of such a method, and when could he have made the garrotte?

 

[2 percent]

True, but which of the Ramseys IS molester? They have avoided detection, and that type of offender, REoffenders. I can see the mother hitting the child, but the garrotte is a slow way to make death even more horrendous. Again, I am "IDI" at this point, but I believe there is strong possibility the intruder had been a welcome GUEST in the past.

The garrotte also is a slow way to build sexual gratification. That's not specific to family, friends or strangers.

 

[Darly314]

And there is nothing to suggest any of the Ramseys had that sexual orientation; thus, who that could have been in the home DID?

 

[Darly314]

A guest they cannot imagine was/is the killer. As for transfer fibers, they are not eternal; whoever killed Jonbenet Ramsey may have wiped the area, LE may have ignored it, or that evidence may still be withheld.

 

[Chewy]

1. I would argue that having John Ramsey in your debt forever would pay off much more than any promotions and glory of police work. John Ramsey could guarantee him a job anywhere. That's better than having a LOR from the mayor of Boulder City.

2. It should be pointed out that Lou Smith could legitimately believe their is an intruder, yet be completely wrong about it. He himself could be suffer

3. There is more glory for Lou Smith to find an intruder than to just rubber stamp what other police already believed. If he finds this intruder...he becomes the next Robert Douglass. If he doesn't....he still has the fame of having worked on Ramsey case. Consider this....Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden lost the OJ case...did that hurt their careers?

John Ramsey is basically broke at the moment. Lou Smit has a stellar reputation as an investigator. There's nothing to indicate that he would throw all that away for a "maybe" job from a guy who's life was completely falling apart.

 

[2 percent]

...As for transfer fibers, they are not eternal; whoever killed Jonbenet Ramsey may have wiped the area, LE may have ignored it, or that evidence may still be withheld.

Sure, all of that could be true true about fiber evidence (or lack of) on the window, but it's unlikely to be true given the state of other evidence.

Why wipe that area and not others? Fibers were found in other areas of the basement, I think some of them haven't been matched to anything in the house.

Why would LE, specifically Smit, minutely examine debris debris and swipe marks on and around the window but ignore fibers? They wouldn't. Fibers weren't there.

Why withhold the evidence? Again, there is publicized fiber evidence from the basement already. Withheld evidence is usually used to gain an edge during the investigation. There's no apparent edge to withholding some fiber evidence and not other other in this case. But most importantly, Smit concentrated his time and effort on the window entry/exit theory so he would know the evidence associated with the window. He took that knowledge with him when he resigned. If it were withheld evidence he would have revealed it after resignation to bolster his intruder theory.

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM
Yes, well, I’ve on more than one occasion speculated that the killer may have entered the home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Further to that, I have speculated that the evidence of recent disturbance found at the basement window could have been created by such an entry.
...

AK

BBM

I absolutely agree. Witnesses reported some occurrences of suspicious activity/evidence to LE, according to Smit, Whitson, Douglas, Thomas, Kolar, Schiller, etc. Based upon witness testimony & evidence to which we have access, one might theorize the perp was an obsessed, stalker...

 

[2 percent]

And there is nothing to suggest any of the Ramseys had that sexual orientation; thus, who that could have been in the home DID?

I'm getting the sense that you are IDI by default because you can't envision the Ramseys as the murderer(s)/molester(s). Please don't imagine tone, I don't care. I'm just stating an observation, no value added.

It has been my experience that in sexual matters people don't really know each other at all. I couldn't tell you the normal details of the sex life of the people closest to me - frequency, who initiates, etc - and I most certainly couldn't tell you the kinks - fantasies, extras, etc. These are people I've known my whole life, who I've shared many things with...and they could tell you diddly squat about that part of me either.

Molestation is still very much a "family affair" (pardon my disgusting levity). I probably have known over 20 women who have been molested and only one of those cases came to legal action. All of the rest have stayed in the family.

I see no reason to assume that if John or Patsy were into this sort of sexual gratification it would be obvious or known outside their sexual partner(s).

 

[otg]

I'm not commenting on any of the other issues around Lou Smit's possible motives (or lack of) -- at least not on this thread. But I can't let the statement go by without comment that "John Ramsey is basically broke at the moment." People who are "broke" can't even afford the rent on a hangar to store their privately owned plane (Photos - Google+). John Ramsey has never been "broke" since JonBenet died. Not even counting however much money he and Patsy had saved from previous "bussiness" ventures, he has "earned" money from book sales, TV appearances (where "exclusive" family photos are sold as a part of the deal), and numerous lawsuits which never went to trial but were instead settled out-of-court. I know "broke" when I see it. John Ramsey was not (and is not) broke.

 

[Chewy]

The point is he's not in a position nor did he EVER offer Lou Smit a cush job. So again the point is irrelevant anyway.

 

[2 percent]

True, but which of the Ramseys IS a molester? They have avoided detection, and that type of offender, REoffends...

One more small point here...
I know too many molesters who are family preferential. I've seen a man molest his daughters but not his granddaughters. I've seen a man who molested nieces in a certain age group and not touch his daughters or granddaughters. I've seen a cousin touch another but totally ignore his sister and his victim's sister (also his cousin) and his daughter and granddaughter. A grandfather to touch some granddaughters and not others nor their own children. There is no rhyme or reason for how the victims were picked in most of the cases I know unless you subscribe to the theory predators can detect the weakest prey (ie; the ones that won't tell).

My point is that not all molesters, especially family preferential, re-offend. Just to answer your question it is possible for John or Patsy to violate JonBenet and no one else before, during or since.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm not commenting on any of the other issues around Lou Smit's possible motives (or lack of) -- at least not on this thread. But I can't let the statement go by without comment that "John Ramsey is basically broke at the moment." People who are "broke" can't even afford the rent on a hangar to store their privately owned plane (Photos - Google+). John Ramsey has never been "broke" since JonBenet died. Not even counting however much money he and Patsy had saved from previous "bussiness" ventures, he has "earned" money from book sales, TV appearances (where "exclusive" family photos are sold as a part of the deal), and numerous lawsuits which never went to trial but were instead settled out-of-court. I know "broke" when I see it. John Ramsey was not (and is not) broke.

According to reports he is basically broke. That could mean he is living as a normal middle of the road american, But he is in no way wealthy. Unless you have his financial statements to make a declarative statement that he is not broke is just your opinion. Many people appear to have more than they do but live on credit and loans. There is no way to tell.

Lou Smit's motives were justice for JBR. And nothing else. He was a good upstanding detective with an impeccable record.

 

[Tawny]

If you own a plane, you are by default not broke.

 

[Anti-K]

1. This assumes then that the killer's plan was premeditated. Planned possibly weeks in advance.

2. He did reconnaissance and THIS was the best plan he could come up with?
Not exactly EAR-ONS is he, this killer?

3. If he did reconnaissance before hand and enter the home...he would have found a better entry way than the broken window. I would argue he could easily have found a spare key and copied it and used that to enter the home. I would also argue he would use the advantage of already being in the home to commit his act. Namely, doing something like burning the Ramsey house to the ground. An act that would provide vengeance, no murders, and no evidence.

1. yes.
2. Years gone by and no one seems to have any idea who the killer is, in fact, many people (some of them in LE) don’t even believe that he exists. So., whatever you may think of his plan, it seems to have worked out pretty good for him.
3. I have no idea what you’re talking about
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well, he is entering a house with potentially 5 people in it. Two adults, 1 teenager and 2 kids. There is a large risk of someone still being awake at night.

Maybe one of them was awake and walking around and maybe that someone was Jonbenet and maybe that’s how she came to be a victim. No?

Its Christmas night, a night when most people retire early and sleep soundly, especially children. Even if this weren’t true, most people (decent, respectable family people) are asleep after midnight, especially children. So, just watch the house and wait for the lights to go out, then wait an hour or so and enter.
...

AK