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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

---RSBM:
???? Intruders leave evidence all the time. That is how they are are caught. I think what is sad is that there is all that evidence and DNA and yet no one was ever caught. There are plenty of cases where the crime is not solved. I believe with time this one could be though. ----

Not to this degree. If this case was a standard child abduction there should be no evidence. Check out most of the child abduction cases on web. There's little to no evidence in the majority of those cases.

To kidnap or kill her all you need to do is to have a means of entry. Identify the room Jonbenet is in. Grab her quickly and cover her mouth. And leave through the front door to your vehicle. This whole process would leave NO evidence. Not even DNA.

To commit this murder it requires quickness and nerve. It's like shoplifting. You see your opportunity and you make your move and you leave.

All the evidence in this case is left due to criminal intentionally leaving it there.

There have been some crazy killers over the years. They all don't work the same.


I know you are new but this is the IDI thread. You may want to read the first post about how this thread works. There are a lot of threads that discuss theories that include the Ramsey's doing it.

 

[THE BUNK]

I know you are new but this is the IDI thread. You may want to read the first post about how this thread works. There are a lot of threads that discuss theories that include the Ramsey's doing it.

Who said I was RDI or IDI? . I'm just a person looking for the answers, regardless where they might lead. Aren't you? I'm following both RDI & IDI theories to see which proves to be the most valid. I'm hoping you'll convince me that the IDI theory is indeed a valid one as many people say.

There have been some crazy killers over the years. They all don't work the same.

So you are of the mind that this killer is a psychopath? Someone who did this for the pleasure and not for revenge, profit or cause?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Who said I was RDI or IDI? . I'm just a person looking for the answers, regardless where they might lead. Aren't you? I'm following both RDI & IDI theories to see which proves to be the most valid. I'm hoping you'll convince me that the IDI theory is indeed a valid one as many people say.



So you are of the mind that this killer is a psychopath? Someone who did this for the pleasure and not for revenge, profit or cause?

It is not my job to convince anyone of anything. I think that the person who killed her was a killer. I believe that it takes a special breed to kill a child in such a horrific manner, but I don't label anyone.

 

[2 percent]

So you are of the mind that this killer is a psychopath? Someone who did this for the pleasure and not for revenge, profit or cause?

interesting. I don't think I've ever seen this murder categorized like that.
I don't see a pleasure killing at all. And the sexual abuse doesn't fit with revenge or profit. I don't understand "cause", can you define it or give an example?

 

[THE BUNK]

interesting. I don't think I've ever seen this murder categorized like that.
I don't see a pleasure killing at all. And the sexual abuse doesn't fit with revenge or profit. I don't understand "cause", can you define it or give an example?

This killer left evidence at the risk of potentially incriminating himself.
Why would he risk that unless he HAD to leave that evidence.

The most riskiest evidence is the ransom note. Jon Ramsey or Patsy could recognize his handwritten or his words. Especially a 3 page one. But the killer left it because he had to...because this was a kidnapping. A kidnapping that was botched because Jon Benet Ramsey was dropped on the when the killer attempted to scoop her up out of her bed. He went from a simple kidnap attempt to murdering a child. Hence the need to stage the garrotte. Which they would have to do since they couldn't risk waking the Ramsey's up to retrieve the now, unnecessary ransom note.

Would also explain why these criminals have not wound up in the DNA database. This was there first and only crime. I'm pretty sure the act of killing a little girl in your first criminal escapade swore him off crime forever.

A botched kidnapping is the only intruder theory that makes sense, IMHO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think the killer was a "killer" IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think the killer was a "killer" IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol.. Well someone killed her.. What do we call them? To me they are a killer..

 

[THE BUNK]

I don't think the killer was a "killer" IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I don't think this person every killed anyone before or since Jonbenet's murder.

A truly violent individual would have killed everyone. Especially since at least 2 people in the house can identify him by sight. And maybe even by handwriting.

 

[THE BUNK]

Lol.. Well someone killed her.. What do we call them? To me they are a killer..

Someone killed her all right. The question is whether it was intentional or not.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Someone killed her all right. The question is whether it was intentional or not.

Of course it was intentional. They strangled that little girl. Deliberately. It sure was not an accident. IMO.

 

[THE BUNK]

Of course it was intentional. They strangled that little girl. Deliberately. It sure was not an accident. IMO.

There's a difference between strangling a living little girl and defiling a corpse.

This depends on whether you believe the bash on the head happened first.
IMHO, the fact that the killer left the garrotte weapon and not the bludgeon weapon tells us which was the weapon he thought killed.

BTW If this killer wanted to make sure Jonbenet was dead a better way would be to slit her throat with the knife used to cut the rope.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There's a difference between strangling a living little girl and defiling a corpse.

This depends on whether you believe the bash on the head happened first.
IMHO, the fact that the killer left the garrotte weapon and not the bludgeon weapon tells us which was the weapon he thought killed.

BTW If this killer wanted to make sure Jonbenet was dead a better way would be to slit her throat with the knife used to cut the rope.

There is no doubt about what happened. She was strangled to death.

IMO, There is no point in rewriting the facts or talking about what could have or would have happened. We need to stick to the facts of this case to find answers.

 

[THE BUNK]

There is no doubt about what happened. She was strangled to death.

IMO, There is no point in rewriting the facts or talking about what could have or would have happened. We need to stick to the facts of this case to find answers.

Then where is the bludgeon weapon? And why the bludgeon weapon instead of slitting her throat. Slitting her throat would ensure she never spoke to anyone about his presence in the home.

You see here's the thing. Only one bludgeon wound is not the same as smashing her head repeatedly till she was tomato paste. And strangling someone is one of your lesser violent murder methods. The way Jonbenet Ramsey was killed indicates that this killer was not a particularly violent individual. In fact it was probably difficult for him to the crime. Which is probably why he has never attempted to do a crime like this since.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Then where is the bludgeon weapon? And why the bludgeon weapon instead of slitting her throat. Slitting her throat would ensure she never spoke to anyone about his presence in the home.

You see here's the thing. Only one bludgeon wound is not the same as smashing her head repeatedly till she was tomato paste. And strangling someone is one of your lesser violent murder methods. The way Jonbenet Ramsey was killed indicates that this killer was not a particularly violent individual. In fact it was probably difficult for him to the crime. Which is probably why he has never attempted to do a crime like this since.

She was brutalized enough. I am not going to discuss her being further brutalized even in theory. You are free to think what you would like about the case.

 

[THE BUNK]

There is no doubt about what happened. She was strangled to death.

This guy has enough violence in him to kill and rape a little girl but not enough to kill the one man who he hates,can identify him and has the resources to hunt him down to the ends of the earth ---John Ramsey. That' doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense since he has a stun gun which would work just as well against an adult.

 

[THE BUNK]

She was brutalized enough. I am not going to discuss her being further brutalized even in theory. You are free to think what you would like about the case.

It's important because the level of brutality indicates that the killer need not have psychopathic tendencies or even murderous tendencies to inflict this crime.

This killer chose methods of murder that produced the least amount of blood. He chose a murder method that didn't require excessive violent force. In many was strangling someone is a humane violent act since it was used to execute people. Strangling is similar to the use of poison or pillow suffocation. One need not to have a violent tendency to commit those acts.

Also another thing that occurs to me...why did this killer not use gloves to commit this crime? Especially since part of this crime involves breaking an entering.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe that the goal was to take JBR. I believe that something happened and that was not possible and so they took her down to the depths of the house and killed her there.

Strangling is not similar to using a pillow to kill someone. You hold a pillow over their face and you don't have to look at them. This was a deliberate pulling and strangling of a baby.

I believe there were gloves used during the crime and removed during the murder at some point. There is evidence that has been provided here that linked a certain kind of glove to the crime.

 

[THE BUNK]

I believe that the goal was to take JBR. I believe that something happened and that was not possible and so they took her down to the depths of the house and killed her there.

Strangling is not similar to using a pillow to kill someone. You hold a pillow over their face and you don't have to look at them. This was a deliberate pulling and strangling of a baby.

I believe there were gloves used during the crime and removed during the murder at some point. There is evidence that has been provided here that linked a certain kind of glove to the crime.

So essentially you agree that the only intruder theory that works is a botched kidnapping for profit? And you would have to agree that at least two people are involved. Someone needs to drive the getaway car. And it would have to be a car, since if they had a van, they could have killed her there. It also points to how amateur these guys were. They didn't even bring a van to this job.

You don't have to look at anyone by strangling them. You can strangle from behind. Traditionally garroting is a strangle from behind method. You see it all the time in movies. Killer comes from behind with a piano wire garrotte. In fact in martial arts and combat they teach you moves to deal with someone garotting you. All involve the attacker coming from behind of you. The only time someone strangles you facing forward is when they are using their hands. Something this killer interestingly did not seem capable of doing. Perhaps because strangling her with her hands face forward while in missionary position was something the killer didn't have the stomach to do.

Why would you remove the gloves when you have to use coarse rope to tie a garrotte? The rope would cut into your hands and cause blood loss. There is no reason for this guy to lose his gloves other than to fit a theory.

More likely he never wore gloves because
a. he was a complete amateur at crime
b. he did not expect to be in the house for more than a few seconds.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So essentially you agree that the only intruder theory that works is a botched kidnapping for profit? And you would have to agree that at least two people are involved. Someone needs to drive the getaway car. And it would have to be a car, since if they had a van, they could have killed her there. It also points to how amateur these guys were. They didn't even bring a van to this job.

You don't have to look at anyone by strangling them. You can strangle from behind. Traditionally garroting is a strangle from behind method. You see it all the time in movies. Killer comes from behind with a piano wire garrotte. In fact in martial arts and combat they teach you moves to deal with someone garotting you. All involve the attacker coming from behind of you. The only time someone strangles you facing forward is when they are using their hands. Something this killer interestingly did not seem capable of doing. Perhaps because strangling her with her hands face forward while in missionary position was something the killer didn't have the stomach to do.

Why would you remove the gloves when you have to use coarse rope to tie a garrotte? The rope would cut into your hands and cause blood loss. There is no reason for this guy to lose his gloves other than to fit a theory.

More likely he never wore gloves because
a. he was a complete amateur at crime
b. he did not expect to be in the house for more than a few seconds.

I believe that someone meant to take her. I think there was one person who assaulted her. We have no idea what anyone drove there, Or didn't. Since we don't know who did this. You seem to work in possibles and could bes. I stick with the facts. What is known and what can be proven or not.

It is possible he wore gloves. It is possible he removed the gloves. It is possible there were no gloves. It is just a guess without evidence.

 

[THE BUNK]

I believe that something happened and that was not possible

Really? Like what?